Russian Nukes In Cuba? 2012 Edition

Am I reading this quote from Putin correctly?

The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said.

english.pravda.ru...

Need ATS input on this source.

Is the U.S. at a point where this is now acceptable?

If true, this is not good............

related - latino.foxnews.com...

Cuban Missile crisis 2.0

Boomers can pull right up to the coast to launch, land based distance is not something that matters anymore. Nukes in Cuba would just be an easy target.

Well to be brutally honest the US has Russia surrounded with Nukes and soon a missile shield. During the Cold War the Soviets would park their missile boat subs just off the East or West coast which were much closer and scarier. The Cuban missile crises solution was an agreement between the US and USSR which no longer exists.

So...

Yeah? Well just be darn careful who you fire that at, Putin. Make sure Ron Paul is on the other side of the country, is all I ask. Cause it seems he's the only one left up there with any darn sense! (OK, maybe there's a couple of others)

Pravda. Bad news. No believey. Propaganda.

Of course the Russians could always prove it.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Point taken on subs....

But land-based is solid, permanent, different.

I wonder how many minutes it would take for one to reach American soil? Not very many, not much reaction time from us, but I could be wrong.

reply to post by Signals


If I'm not mistaken it was estimated back then from as little as 8 to 12 minutes. Only enough time to pop off a few of our own land based in their direction and later for our sub fleet to deliver an equally devastating counter blow

If anyone could find another source on Putin's quote it would be greatly appreciated.

reply to post by Signals

Putin was supposed to have made this statement to the press in June, yet I cannot find it anywhere other than that Pravda article dated 1st of August, along with a number of threads on different forums citing the same article.

If Putin had actually given this statement to the press, I find it extremely hard to believe that it would go completely unreported and then spontaneously surface on Pravda over a month later. I can only conclude that it is a load of old bollocks.

reply to post by Signals


I'm not sure about the credibility of the source, but I have a hard time believing that this report is true. The consequences of the U.S. attempts to install a missile shield in Europe are serious enough for the world to pay attention. And if plans for a defensive system puts both sides under pressure, I could only imagine how this would reflect in world policy if the Russian Federation had actual nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Like other people stated, it's a bit of a null point due to the existance of submarines that are equipped with nuclear ICBM's. But it's also true that during and after the Cold War the anti-sub systems were already at a very developed stage of efficiency. Or at least, if they are not able to stop any attack, they are aware of the presence of said submarines. I bet that althought these are secret submarines with secret operational status and location, both sides are tailing each-other as we speak.

That makes a stationary nuclear launch site a clear advantage, even with other methods of deployment available. And being an advantage, I don't think the U.S. would allow it to slide under the radar. It would be "duck and cover" all over again.

I'm thinking propoganda as well (perhaps a local one from putin to his beloved russians). As per the latest news, there is a hearing from the senate on foreign relations with cuba and ease or removal of travel restrictions and improving the relationship with Cuba. If this happens, do you think it would still be a secret if indeed the Russian Nukes (if any) are in Cuba on the ground? Ofcourse why would Cuba risk a total anhilation say if the US retaliated from a counter nuke strike (if there was to ever a launch of the mentioned russian nukes from cuba)? Just a thought.

LINK1
LINK2

reply to post by Signals


They also upped the patrols just off the US coast with sub that carry nuclear missiles that can fly
something other than a ballistic trajectory so they cannot be shot down with conventional ballistic
missile defense systems.

Nuclear armed sub patrols increased off US coast

Not one to debunk my own threads....



But until I see another source....or Russian confirmation....seems like a questionable quote.

Whether the quotes attributed to Putin are accurate or not remains to be seen. They appear nowhere outside of the original Pravda piece.
Once the primary mouthpiece of the Soviet Communist Party, Pravda’s influence has now declined rapidly. The online version is managed by former journalists who worked for the original newspaper but other than that the two versions are separate entities.

sreaves32.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Point taken on subs....

But land-based is solid, permanent, different.

I wonder how many minutes it would take for one to reach American soil? Not very many, not much reaction time from us, but I could be wrong.

Looks like speed at end of burn out of primary booster is about 7km/sec.

ICBM flight phases

Initial boost will be slower of course, but once it tips over in the upper atmosphere its
really moving fast.

A mile a minute is 60 mph, so a mile a second is 3,600 mph.

7,000 meters per sec is about 4 miles per sec, so basically around 15,000 mph.

Slower than the shuttle, but crazy fast.

Florida at 90 miles away would not have much warning, most of the time
will be boost phase to LEO then slow down a little on glide down.

No city on earth has been hit by anything like what they have pointed at us.

They will likely be MIRV's so multiple warheads per missile and almost impossible to shoot down.

Warhead yield will be over 10 times that of Hiroshima if they want.

If not MIRV could be 100 times worse than that.

One of our MIRVs

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Signals

 

If I'm not mistaken it was estimated back then from as little as 8 to 12 minutes. Only enough time to pop off a few of our own land based in their direction and later for our sub fleet to deliver an equally devastating counter blow

The 8 minute warning was the term used, and it was in reference to land launched ICBM's from Russia
coming over the north pole.

The "DEW" line was setup to see them coming, DEW = Distant Early Warning.

DEW line

It has since been shutdown, and they use other methods to track ICBM launches now,
mostly via satellite I believe.

Sub based launches we have a LOT less time, and same for anything fired from Cuba.

I found this.
Seems there might be some truth behind it, Maybe they are testing the waters seeing how much they can get away with before America, the world police get concerned.

Russia is talking to Cuba, Vietnam and the Seychelles about housing Russian navy ships, its naval chief has said. Vice-admiral Viktor Chirkov told the RIA Novosti state news agency Russia was in talks with the three countries about setting up maintenance and supply facilities but would not give further details. Russia's only existing naval base outside the former Soviet Union is located in the Syrian port of Tartus.

A squadron of Russian navy ships, including several assault ships carrying marines, is heading to Tartus in a show of support for a longtime ally that Moscow has protected from international sanctions and continues to supply with weapons.

Chirkov's statement marked a sharp about-face for Russia, which closed a Soviet-era naval base at Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay and a spy base in Lourdes in Cuba in the early 2000s during President Vladimir Putin's first term. Along with financial reasons, that move was part of Putin's bid to improve ties with the US.
But relations with Washington deteriorated and Putin, who was re-elected to a third term in March, has grown increasingly eager to challenge Washington. During his election campaign, he accused the US of encouraging protest against his 12-year rule in order to weaken Russia and pledged to strengthen the nation's military might

Russia seeks to set up naval bases abroad

Originally posted by mwood
Cuban Missile crisis 2.0

But this time, several others smaller conflicts are being fought by the US and things can go out of control in a snap

reply to post by Signals


Good good.Time to surround the genocidal USA with nuclear missiles. Deploy Iskanders ,KH-90's and Brahmos ,Mr.Putin.

Originally posted by thecrippler

But this time, several others smaller conflicts are being fought by the US and things can go out of control in a snap

Not up on your Cold War history?

Korea, Vietnam, Uganda, Nicaragua, Afghanistan 1.0 etc etc etc

reply to post by Signals


2 to 3 mins to destroy the entire eastern coast in my opinion.Dictator Obama won't have time to get out of the white house when the missile hits the white House.

Also,I advice Putin to sponsor,give weapons to the aztlan and mexican reconquesta drug cartels if he wants to give USA a taste of its own medicine and call them activists and freedom fighters.

But alas,I expect Putin to be a peacenik and support libertarians as usual.