Report: Russia may base bombers in Cuba

For those who thought that the cold war was over. You were wrong, it was only placed on hold. This is going to (if it truly does happen) launch us in to a World War of the likes we shall never imagine. The lines in the sand are being drawn and we seem to be going after the Russians and the Chinese still. It is as if the Vietnam battle lines are being drawn.

Who is going to be on our side. Who is going to be the enemy and is the enemy already have spies in our boarders. It seems we are in the Eve of Destruction.

Originally posted by opal13


I wonder how this relates to the goings on in Iran and the Russians are looking for a place closer to the US. I think there is more to this than runway space. Maybe as this is a breaking story, more will be added to it today.

I don't remember when this happened back in the 60's, but I've heard it. Doesn't really give me the warm fuzzies.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The Robert Ludlum in me thinks Chavez is simply hiring a bodyguard...a schoolyard bully for support, while he messes with Columbia.

Oil and coc aine. He's already king of his country...why not try to expand.

It's actually political fortune that the appeasing Obama is president because he won't do a damned thing about it.

Blockade around that island like Kennedy did to Cuba? No way.

Just curious, do you think this has anything to do with why Obama was indicating that we might loosen sanctions against Cuba? Perhaps these moves were known a while ago and Obama was trying to convince Cuba that they'd be far better off not hosting the Russians. I can't confirm this in any way, but it makes me wonder.

Then again, Obama has routinely been compared to Kennedy. Maybe Putin wanted him to get a taste of the stress Kennedy had.

Why is it that, in the eyes of Americans, other nations have no right to protect themselves?

Well, it could be any number of things so it really is tough to speculate as to why.

I do think alot of these countries look at us as an easy mark now that Obama is prez. I mean, really, what was done to the terrorists that attacked while Clinton was in office? The blind sheik is getting his cot and three hots in a federal pen, probably pretty comfy too.

I'm going to fix a bowl of popcorn and watch and see what happens next.

The Russians have very few bombers that are younger than 40 years old and none of what they have can compete with our current generation of fighters or bombers. I wouldn't worry too much about this. The Russians could base their bombers in New Jersey and I don't think they would represent a significant military risk unless they planned to crash them into our bases.

The Russians would be better off, positioning their cruise missiles on land based launchers or on ships and subs. That would give them the element of surprise at least.

reply to post by lunarminer


that's funny ! and what did the americans do on 9/11 ? do you not understand if the russians sent 20 nukes only 1 takes to take out new york. few more 20 nukes usa is finished.

please go have a cup of noodles

as someone said " Why is it that, in the eyes of Americans, other nations have no right to protect themselves? "

americans need to learn that the world is changing. and if they keep building bases around the world, keep doing the world police crap. some day someone somewhere will have enough of this and your fate has been made.

It is just a little late but they are just gearing up for Red Dawn. They are just waiting for Patrick Swayze to kick it so he doesn't form the Wolverines. It is just kind a thought I had. I know that would never happen because Albert Einstein said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. " He is a man before his time and could be hauntingly right.

But let us remember

Wolverines

Originally posted by aspx
reply to post by lunarminer

 

that's funny ! and what did the americans do on 9/11 ?

do you not understand if the russians sent 20 nukes only 1 takes to take out new york. few more 20 nukes usa is finished.

Why do I get the impression that you are sitting there with a box of Kleenex and a jug of baby oil? People way overestimate the power of a Russian nuclear war head. IF the thing fired in the first place, there are ways of stopping them and also 1 would not completely obliterate New York. No one, the US included, would be stupid enough to do such a thing in the first place anyway.

Originally posted by aspx
as someone said " Why is it that, in the eyes of Americans, other nations have no right to protect themselves? ".

Other nations have every right to defend themselves, who said otherwise? I do not see what bomber bases in Cuba and Venezuela has to do with Russia protect themselves.

Originally posted by aspx
americans need to learn that the world is changing. and if they keep building bases around the world, keep doing the world police crap. some day someone somewhere will have enough of this and your fate has been made.

Well what more needs to be said? Bases are built in countries that give permission to do so. What bases are you talking about? World police? There are many things happening in this world that need to be fixed, the US, lately, just does the ones that suite their own needs in the long run.

Originally posted by aspx
reply to post by lunarminer

 

that's funny ! and what did the Americans do on 9/11 ?

do you not understand if the Russians sent 20 nukes only 1 takes to take out new york. few more 20 nukes USA is finished.

What is missing from you little logic is that it take at least 20-30 minutes to get here and will be picked up by out satellites and radar and will have time to institute MAD and sing the world and wipe man from the face of the Earth. In the end we will all die. If there are any people left alive they'll will most surely die from radiation poisoning or nuclear winter.

Russia has a habit of making hollow threats and statements, it's a political tactic mostly, not something definite. This issue came up in the last administration, and the answer was a resounding no, such a move would not be tolerated. The same defense officials are there now, it does not really matter who's in the white house. When it comes to foreign bombers in US hemispheres, let alone Cuba, the answer is always no. So I do not expect the Russian threat to materialize, not anytime soon.

MY FRIENDS..THIS IS LIKE A GAME OF CHEST..THERE IS EITHER A LOSER..OR CHECKMATE.....

Why are so many people treating this as some declaration by the Russian government of its intention to station bombers near the US? For one thing, the statement was not made by the Russian government or any government official. These "proposal" was presented as a "what if" scenario by some military official speaking on his own behalf. It means nothing, and will lead to nothing.

The only reason why Russia would want to place military assets in Western Hemisphere would be to improve relations and cooperation with host countries, and to hold another bargain chip in the political games with the US. But there are many reasons why Russia will not pursue this strategy. The main reason is that both of the benefits - fostering relations and holding a bargaining chip - can be obtained by other less expensive means. Russia understands that Chavez is using it as much as Russia is using him if not more so, and that such a base would play out more in his interests than in those of Russia.



But even if Russia wanted to create a military base by an invitation of a host country, who is to say that it can't? US can hold military training exercises with Ukraine and Georgia and discuss base placements there, while Russia can't do the same with Cuba and Venezuela? US could protests all it wants, but if Russia wanted to go ahead with this it would, and nobody would stop it. That being said, this is unneeded for Russia, and it should not proceed with the proposal for many reasons - and my understanding is that it won't.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Russia has a habit of making hollow threats and statements, it's a political tactic mostly, not something definite.

I wouldn't even say it is political, since it wasn't a government official that made the statement. It was an airforce general who was speaking hypothetically. While the Russian government may be looking into it, it has not made any statement about any bombers in Cuba or Venezuela.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This issue came up in the last administration, and the answer was a resounding no, such a move would not be tolerated.

Umm - who is the US to tell Cuba, Venezuela, or Russia what they can or cannot do? What do you mean not "tolerated"? Is the US going to invade Cuba or Venezuela over this or start a war with Russia? These are sovereign countries, and they have a right to invite whoever they wish to station military assets there - even if its Hitler reincarnate or the devil himself.

The US has no say in this, just like Russia had no say in having US hold military exercises in Georgia and Ukraine, position bases in Kyrgyzstan, or set up an ABM shield in Poland and Czech Republic. US can protests, and make counter threats and tactics, but thats about it. US can tolerate or not tolerate whatever it wants, but it cannot interfere in the political matters of sovereign states, or else such interference would be regarded as a military threat.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
When it comes to foreign bombers in US hemispheres, let alone Cuba, the answer is always no.

The answer may be no, but if Russia hypothetically wanted to do this, it wouldn't have to ask for US permission in the first place.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So I do not expect the Russian threat to materialize, not anytime soon.

And it wouldn't, but not because of what US has to say on the matter. There are other more relevant issues to consider for Russia, and at this time this would not make much sense.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by maloy]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by maloy]

Chess game...US puts missiles in Europe so they will put bombers in Cuba....check...now who moves next.

reply to post by maloy


Indeed.

It appears many's understanding of strategic placement hasn't bypassed the 'duck and cover' level yet.

Good god chaps!, They're at the wire! Fix bayonets and prepare to repel borders!

[Edit: Just for everyone willy-waving their stars and stripes.. How does bomber placement give Russia an advantage?]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Absence of Self]

Originally posted by maloy
US could protests all it wants, but if Russia wanted to go ahead with this it would, and nobody would stop it. That being said, this is unneeded for Russia, and it should not proceed with the proposal for many reasons - and my understanding is that it won't.

Hmm Ill bet thats what you thought when you tried sneaking nukes to Cuba the first time. If you think the US would sit back and let Russia put nuke bombers on Cuba and not do anything you are quite mistaken. Obama would go ahead with the missile shield and probably even put a few nukes on Russia's border also. I agree with you this is posturing by Russia not sure if they are testing Obama's fortitude or not but its moves like this that also turns American opinion against Russia which right now is a good opinion......

Originally posted by aspx
reply to post by lunarminer

 

that's funny ! and what did the americans do on 9/11 ?

do you not understand if the russians sent 20 nukes only 1 takes to take out new york. few more 20 nukes usa is finished.

please go have a cup of noodles

as someone said " Why is it that, in the eyes of Americans, other nations have no right to protect themselves? "

americans need to learn that the world is changing. and if they keep building bases around the world, keep doing the world police crap. some day someone somewhere will have enough of this and your fate has been made.

Ok, first off....I personally would love to see another (freedom loving so that excludes russia or china) country take the lead role as "world police."

Secondly, if other countries TRULY did not want an american presence, there wouldnt be. Like at Azerbaijan, they wanted us gone and we are. its like a customer that complains about products being made in china, yet they buy the lowest priced product. Same thing here, those countries want our bases there for 2 reasons: money and protection. Thats why there are countries willing to be at odds with other countries for a while to accept our bases and equipment (poland, czech repub. etc. and yes I know poland backed out).

third, if the russians insist on this crap, then we will simply have to break out the GLCMs and pershing-IIs again. Thats what brought them to the table the first time around, we can do it again.

Originally posted by mybigunit
Hmm Ill bet thats what you thought when you tried sneaking nukes to Cuba the first time.

"I" didn't try to sneak any nukes in to Cuba. The Cuban Missile affair happened at a completely different time and involved completely different entities. It was in the most heated period of the Cold War, and involved Soviet Union - not Russia. Also stationing nuclear weapons and stationing airplanes are two quite different things. Russian bombers today do not fly armed with nuclear warheads - technically they can be, but in practice it has not been done for nearly two decades.

Also if you are going to talk about the Cold War and 1960 - US also wouldn't even toy around with idea of funding revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and holding military exercises there back then, like it is doing today without hesitation.

Originally posted by mybigunit
If you think the US would sit back and let Russia put nuke bombers on Cuba and not do anything you are quite mistaken.

Nukes? Please provide and source where anyone mentioned anything about Russia stationing any nuclear warheads in Cuba, or Venezuela, or anywhere outside Russia in fact.

Technically yes the bombers can carry nukes. But there is no need for that today, and Russian nuclear tactics rely primarily on land-based Topol-M ICBM systems. All Russian bombers today carry either regular bombs or cruise missiles, not nukes.

From a tactical viewpoint stationing bombers with nukes in Cuba would be completely useless today. They cannot carry out surprise attacks, and in the event of a nuclear exchange or a war they would be shot down long before they even left Cuban airspace. In fact I don't think any nuclear power including US relies on bomber-delivered nuclear strikes anymore. ICBMs and Submarines are more than enough to do the job.

Originally posted by mybigunit
I agree with you this is posturing by Russia not sure if they are testing Obama's fortitude or not but its moves like this that also turns American opinion against Russia which right now is a good opinion......

If this was some kind of a political message or a test by Russia, the announcement would have been delivered by a government official or representative. The hypothetical statement was made by a person who does not have any authority to give a go ahead to installing new Russian bases overseas, and who likely does not know what is or is not in the plans of the Russian leadership.

Generals and officers, especially in Russia, are known to make such meaningless statements lately. Maybe they think that it makes them feel important, or they want to get some publicity before retirement - who knows. Fact is - Russia has other concerns right now, and is probably not even considering an idea such as this.

This is common sense, and how and why the CIA, our president and government overlooked this possibility is beyond me...i already suspected its a matter of time, before they might place strategic bombbers thier. USA has basis all over the world ,w ith bombbers on em, so can Russia.

Originally posted by NightoftheComet
Ok, first off....I personally would love to see another (freedom loving so that excludes russia or china) country take the lead role as "world police."

"Freedom loving"? This statement is wrong and misused on so many levels that it is now as cliche as the "War on Terror", "Iraqi WMDs" and other gems birthed by the Bush administration.

And Russia and China are freedom loving too - they love the freedom to go about their business and have their interests respected on the international arena without having countries like US try and interfere as some sort of moral police.

And why does the world even need a police? Typically a policeman has jurisdiction over the area where he acts. Nobody (excluding UN) ever gave the US or any other country any jurisdiction to act as police outside of their own borders.

Originally posted by NightoftheComet
Secondly, if other countries TRULY did not want an american presence, there wouldnt be.

And how do you know what they truly want? Do you know for certain that the majority of Iraqis or Afghanis want US to be there? Or does the US decide what others want and do not want?

Originally posted by NightoftheComet
Like at Azerbaijan, they wanted us gone and we are.

The Azeri-Georgian pipeline is still flowing and Nabucco is still the works. So the US hasn't really "gone" anywhere. Also a poll showed that the majority of Czech do no approve of the US ABM system, yet it still got the go ahead.

Originally posted by NightoftheComet
Same thing here, those countries want our bases there for 2 reasons: money and protection. Thats why there are countries willing to be at odds with other countries for a while to accept our bases and equipment (poland, czech repub. etc. and yes I know poland backed out).

Make that just 1 reason - money. And yes - there is nothing wrong with that. Same thing with Russia - what is so wrong if Venezuela or Cuba want to host Russian bases for the same reason?

Also take note that sometimes US presence in some countries, even if approved by local government, can be highly destabilizing to the region. It might not be illegal, but it breeds a lot of hostility and creates threats of coups and wars.

Originally posted by NightoftheComet
third, if the russians insist on this crap, then we will simply have to break out the GLCMs and pershing-IIs again. Thats what brought them to the table the first time around, we can do it again.

How did it bring Russia (or the Soviet Union) to its knees, and when was this? In fact the START and SALT treaties were primarily encouraged by the US because of Soviet Union's lead in development of MIRV technologies such as the R-36 ICBM system.

And how is this even relevent now? Nobody is talking about stationing any nuclear warheads on Cuba. What do the Pershings have to do with this? If hypothetically Russia was to station conventional bombers in Cuba, it would be understandable for US to base some B52's in Georgia or Turkey. Thats about it.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by maloy]