It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia stepping up patrol levels

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...





Russia is resuming a Soviet-era practice of sending its bomber aircraft on long-range flights, President Vladimir Putin has said.

Mr Putin said the move to resume the flights permanently after a 15-year suspension was in response to security threats posed by other military powers.

He said 14 bombers had taken off from Russian airfields early on Friday.

The move came a week after Russian bombers flew within a few hundred miles of the US Pacific island of Guam.

A few days ago Moscow said its strategic bombers had begun exercises over the North Pole.



Obviously they are feeling a little threatened by Bush & Co's threat of ABM sites in Poland etc.

I guess this is a little sabre rattling, and gives them a concession to make for any future negotiations.




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I agree kilcoo316.This is the old russian diplomacy.Make demands then make a military show.The n.koreans learned their diplomatic threats from them.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

“Today, August 17 at 00:00 hours, 14 strategic bombers took to the air from seven airfields across the country, along with support and refuelling aircraft."

www.news.com.au...

Refuelling aircraft. Wow, how far away is Guam?


“We have decided to restore flights by Russian strategic aviation on a permanent basis,” Mr Putin said at joint military exercises with China and four Central Asian states in Russia's Ural mountains."

www.news.com.au...

Here comes the Cold war all over again, only throw China into the mix this time around.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I guess this is a little sabre rattling, and gives them a concession to make for any future negotiations.


It is for show and it is nothing new or threatening. Therefore I do not think it would be anything special in the non negotiation regarding US ABM plans in eastern Europe. On a different note I kind of like these events as it adds a little more spice to the global military world and it makes for some rather interesting moments, at times.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyJo

Refuelling aircraft. Wow, how far away is Guam?



With a typical Tu-95 range of 8,100nm, the aircraft could launch from practically anywhere in the world (except for North East Africa and South America), and refuel for the trip back.

For an un-refueled flight, the aircraft could take off anywhere in Russia that is east of mid-India, get to Guam and return.

Guam is less than 2,100nm from the east Russian coast.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

With a typical Tu-95 range of 8,100nm, the aircraft could launch from practically anywhere in the world (except for North East Africa and South America), and refuel for the trip back.

For an un-refueled flight, the aircraft could take off anywhere in Russia that is east of mid-India, get to Guam and return.

Guam is less than 2,100nm from the east Russian coast.


I dont get it! Guam is around 4,200nm return trip. The Tu-95 range is 8,100nm. So whats with the refuelers? Surely these bombers took off from the nearest Russian/Soviet base to Guam?

Even if it is/was a wider patrol, 8,100nm is a long mission, then add the refueling. Wow, How many hours are these planes in the sky?

Edit:- New to ATS, Fixing Quote box

[edit on 17-8-2007 by SmokeyJo]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyJo

I dont get it! Guam is around 4,200nm return trip. The Tu-95 range is 8,100nm. So whats with the refuelers? Surely these bombers took off from the nearest Russian/Soviet base to Guam?

Even if it is/was a wider patrol, 8,100nm is a long mission, then add the refueling. Wow, How many hours are these planes in the sky?

Edit:- New to ATS, Fixing Quote box

[edit on 17-8-2007 by SmokeyJo]


Several possible reasons:

1. Loiter time, rather than a straight 'out and back' mission.

2. Not a direct trip, but more of a wandering route out over northern Japan, down toward Guam and back up off the south of Korea and west of Japan.

3. Low fuel mission for training purposes, in order to get refueling experience.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
This isn't new air ex's over the north pole aren't that uncommon. They have been happening in the past 15 years more often then not and frankly the statements made in the article sound like someone try his or hers hardest to create fear.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
This is scary.

So does this mean that if the US is nuked, we are going to blame Russia as well as Iran?

Can you say "Mutually Assured Destruction"?



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Don Wahn
 


i almost hope Russia tries something, i think we can take'm



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Take em?

Russia can nuke our cities to ash, we can nuke theirs to ash, and neither side would have a realistic chance of stopping the other.

If Russia and the US got into an all out war, it would take 50 years for the survivors to figure out who "won"



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkheartrising

i almost hope Russia tries something, i think we can take'm


By 'we' Im guessing you mean the USA.

If this were to happen, it would more than likely be the end of the world. There are no winners in total annihilation.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Take em?

Russia can nuke our cities to ash, we can nuke theirs to ash, and neither side would have a realistic chance of stopping the other.

If Russia and the US got into an all out war, it would take 50 years for the survivors to figure out who "won"


Exactly.

We could take them in a competitive eating competition, but they would be victorious in the vodka consumption competition.

As I said, if either one of us fired off a nuke at one another it would be lights out, literally, for both sides.

M.A.D.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkheartrising
i almost hope Russia tries something, i think we can take'm


IDIOT.


I'm sure you'd be one of the first in the queue to join the army and go off to get killed.

F**king big hard keyboard warrior




Or are you old enough to realise you are "hoping" for millions (if not billions) of deaths?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by darkheartrising
 



Why would you want to hope for that to happen? I cant see the problem with Russia pilots getting in some stick time its been long enough for them. But wanting something to happen! IMHO if I had posted that I might want to take a long hard look at myself.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Needless to say that besides being no winners in a nuclear exchange and the US,Russian territories being uninhabital wastelands for thousands of years the nuclear fallout cloud would cross the world many times over.Thus polluting crops.rivers,oceans,livestock etc.Indeed many would perish outside of the warring nations.Honestly,i would rather die in the blasts themselves rather than die the slow,torturous death from radiation poisoning.M.A.D.and the cold war are back with new players china and iran.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Take em?

Russia can nuke our cities to ash, we can nuke theirs to ash, and neither side would have a realistic chance of stopping the other.

If Russia and the US got into an all out war, it would take 50 years for the survivors to figure out who "won"


Thats what i mean, probably loads in the pentagon think like the previous poster, that america could win. The cuban missile crisis showed us that generals in the pentagon, think they could win.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Perhaps darkheartrising was just being a little tongue in cheek with that comment. I don't think she seriously thinks a nuclear exchange with the USSR, (ooopps I mean Russia) will solve anything.

Then again her avatar picture purportedly shows her putting a foot in her mouth.


As for the bomber patrols, I think kilcoo is right. This is nothing more than sabre rattling with a purpose.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
I don't think she seriously thinks a nuclear exchange with the USSR, (ooopps I mean Russia) will solve anything.


Seriously Russia isnt anything like the USSR in its current state. Although I'm not saying that she is less lethal! IMO technology enables her to restrict her boarders, yet maintain a similar dominance, at a cheaper price.
Putin has a very very smart military mind. Surely we can see this within current events.

Russia will no doubt become a super power, yet again, especially if their Antartic expedition pays off. They will not be relying on the ME, unlike the majority of countries.

edit:- post expanded


[edit on 18-8-2007 by SmokeyJo]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I have always thought that Putin and his handlers would slowly turn Russian into a neo-ussr, this doesnt surprise me at all. But the reason might be a little different, the "glory" days of the powers that be was the cold war on both sides people living in fear, them living off of it.

this just one step to bringing new crews to "fight" the next cold war that just went underground for a little while.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join