Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Epic Fail: Russia to Deploy Bombers Right Where We Want Them

Tu-22.jpgCNN reports:

Russia expressed interest in using Cuban airfields during patrol missions of its strategic bombers, Russia's Interfax news agency reported

"There are four or five airfields in Cuba with 4,000-meter-long runways, which absolutely suit us," Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev told Interfax.

Zhikharev, who is the chief of staff of the Russian Air Force's long-range aviation, said, "If the two chiefs of state display such a political will, we are ready to fly there."

Zhikharev also told Interfax that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered a military airfield on La Orchila island as a temporary base for Russian strategic bombers.

"If a relevant political decision is made, this is possible," he said, according to Interfax. Zhikharev said he visited La Orchila in 2008 and can confirm that with minor reconstruction, the airfield owned by a local naval base can accept fully-loaded Russian strategic bombers.

Annoying. We got Ivan's point vis a vis the Monroe Doctrine after the Cuban Missile Crisis, so what's the benefit here? Ivan's strat bombers, subs, and rocket forces already have the legs to paint the entire US in a lime-green radioactive glow -- so why commit your already limited defense resources to an endeavor that will inevitably drive the Pentagon back into the waiting arms of Lockheed, Boeing, NG and their generous inventory of Russian killing weapon systems?

And, just a reminder, the entire Gulf Coast remains a giant kill box, with F/A-18s, F-16s, F-15s, and F-22s based at (deep breath) Tyndall, Eglin, Homestead AFBs, Naval Air Stations Key West and Pensacola, plus the Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas Air National Guard fighter wings.

If Ivan wants to test our new President, perhaps he should deploy his high-value bombers to an AO where they're something more than pricey target drones.

--John Noonan

Comments

For those of you who watch the national news programs, be it on broadcast or cable when you start seeing ad space bought by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman... it budget season at the White House. The First one usually out of the chute is the China Lobby, both sides, then comes the drug companies and then the big Defense Contractors.

My personal view is that the U.S. is now a Colony of multinational corporations. The manufacturing base is gone. The defense industry owns the media and the politicians. Deployments are in defense of the profits of the extraction industries. Cheap resources are the goal. American wages have stagnated, unions are busted yet the value of the connected industries are doing quite well.

Posted by: 1watt, hermit at March 18, 2009 09:43 PM


This is indeed a strange plan for the Russians. I dont really see how there is a gain for them to bring some strategic bombers down our way. Suffice it to say I do not really see a benefit to them as much as there is to Mr. Chavez. Personally I do not like how eager he is to house these aircrafts. However if the Reds want us to look up there skirt with such easily available surveillance opportunities so be it.

Posted by: E-Breaux50 at March 17, 2009 08:35 PM


"Wow, I never realized how many ammo troops post on this blog! SMSgt MAC, and IYAAYAS, spread the word, this'll be the next AMMO takeover!

On a more related note, those jets prepo'ed in Barksdayle, and the bases in the Gulf, they're already flying those sorties, using inert ordinance. Swap the paperweights with some lives, say bye-bye to the bears, it's all the same to those pilots."

Posted by: AMMO at March 16, 2009 03:14 AM

This is entirely unrelated to the story. However, sorry AMMO, this is just a bugbear of mine. There is no 'i' in 'ordinance'. It should be 'ordnance'. I am always slapping my troops up the side of the head whenever they use 'ordinance' instead of 'ordnance' when talking about explosives. It's just the AMMO kind of thing in me...

Posted by: IYAAYAS at March 17, 2009 04:16 PM


Good Morning Sea,

I see your point on have Russian aviation just 90 miles away, but in reality there is little or nothing to be gained by U.S. intelligence by watching Russian military aircraft in Cuba. We have seen and climbed inside these old birds for decades. The only purpose of the Russians doing this is to get the full mooners of the U.S. right wing nuts excited.

It appears that there is another Byron posting here, welcome aboard. To those who want to bi**h at me you will always get my full name.

My personal opinion of Obama, he is rather right wing for me. I neither supported nor voted for him in the last election, I supported and voted for Ralph Nader. Like crazed right wing nut and Republican the term Liberal and Democrat don't go together.

The last true Liberal President America had was Richard M. Nixon. Anyone who cares to debate that you know where I'm at.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 17, 2009 01:05 PM


The Russians are just handing us an incredible intelligence gathering opportunity. We will be able to observe their strategic aircraft performing takeoffs and landings from all sides as they approach and leave Cuba. We could go so far as to fly through their contrails and see how much sulfur is in the fuel they are burning.

Every equipment malfunction, pilot error, and electronic radiation ‘leakage’ they make will be observed by us with a front row seat. Heaven help them if they suffer a catastrophic accident such as a crash upon takeoff or landing. They will not be able to hide the event at some central Asian airfield.

Posted by: / sea / at March 17, 2009 08:24 AM


Byron,

Though i have to agree with you that MADD was only possible threw good diplomatic policy. Ihave to say i can see the reasoning behind some of the post better. Obama is a liberal not horrible i am to in some ways most americans are there called conservitive liberals were a nice bunch. However Obama is also either a socialist or damn near it. Socalism as i have said before breeds weak minds and weak economies.

Dont believe me look at south america africa most of these are socalist states.

I however have problem with the fact that ambassidorships are not granted out to those with the best diplomatic skills and who love and support there country the most but to political cronies. The state department is rotten corrupt as any UN agency has been for awhile now.

Obama like so many of his kind believe in moral superiority....when the hell has moral superiority ever won a america battle? The idea that we can acheve a position of strength threw weakness is obbserd. Those in power in iran, russia, china, venuzuella,( ok hes just fin crazy we all know it,in addition to being a froggy lookin sob) and others all around the world do not care about moral suppremecy but threw shere power.

The reason why so many around the world are laughing at us? We elected a weak man into power.......hell he cant even stop following the teleprompter when it breaks its like having the guys from anchorman in charge....but so much less cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc

Posted by: Valcan at March 17, 2009 07:16 AM


TO pedestrian:

The "liberal" Democrats have been the greatest force of military expansion and have shown the greatest use of military force in all of American history. Read a book please. EX: WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the ATOMIC BOMB, bay of pigs, and shamefully: the civil war.

Also, only idiots want war, let alone nuclear war. So all you people can talk trash about negotiation, but it was deal that brought us back from defcon2 and saved maybe the world from the brink of nuclear war. There are thousands of nukes in Russia's depots and probably more loose ones out there from the fall. MADD is the only thing keeping us safe, so I suggest all you people insulting diplomacy learn to hide under a lead lined desk real soon or shut up. We prepare for war so that we never have one.

Posted by: Byron at March 17, 2009 12:04 AM


Good Morning Pat Flannery,

After many years of watching this stuff, it's kind of like you know when Christmas is coming.

For those of you who watch the national news programs, be it on broadcast or cable when you start seeing ad space bought by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman... it budget season at the White House. The First one usually out of the chute is the China Lobby, both sides, then comes the drug companies and then the big Defense Contractors.

Since few, if any of us, buy products directly from any of these brands a person has to ask why are they spending millions to advertise?

The only answer that comes up is that they want to control the news. When China is buying ad space we have news out of china, the content is often provided by either China or Twain and edited to fit what ever format the broadcaster wants. The reward of ouse here, if more or less funding for Formosa.

When its drug time we get new advances in cancer treatments, new hearth medications, obesity drugs. Of course while all this wonderful news is being reported there is little time to report on mega mergers of Drug Companies or Federal Funding of stem cells or drugs that have been in use for generation being recalled. I think you can see where I'm headed here.

With Defense we get "informative stories" like this Cuba piece. They question has to be asked who is buying the "news"? The rewards is mo' F-22's, Virginia Class Submarines, FCS, Zumwalts, Tankers, funding...etc.

Or as a Professor I had once said: "Freedom of the Press only applies to those who own the press, and your willingness to pay." True then, true now.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 16, 2009 01:21 PM


The Great Game is as far as it will go... as long as we continue to play. We long ago reached "stalemate" with Russia and China. And we can stay there, as long as we continue to play. But if we make the mistake of assuming the game is over, and we let our guard down, that's when problems arise.

This is just an empty threat by Russia. Nothing to worry about. Just remember that the game is still on.

Posted by: Brian at March 16, 2009 12:56 PM


It was plenty suspicious that the leak regarding Marine One just happened to occur as the procurement decision was getting made. Of course, we are getting played and a lot of people fully accept it. We will not get into an overt shooting war with Russia or China for the same reason we did not during the Cold War when tensions were much higher and monetary ties much lower: we all have too many nukes to make it worthwhile! We will all continue to play the Great Game, but that is as far as it will go.

Posted by: Courtney H at March 16, 2009 10:36 AM


:)) just wish the dump russian do that, because it would suck their already pathetic defense budget to the last dime while they still have lots and lots of others worth spending. A pricey, wasteful PR. Could anyone wake them up from their cold war dream?

Posted by: Saberhagen at March 16, 2009 08:59 AM


Byron Skinner wrote:
"The fact of a Backfire bomber in Cuba has been old news for months. What's next, the urgent need for radar Blimps?"
Well, now that you mention it: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/air-force-signs.html

Posted by: Pat Flannery at March 16, 2009 03:40 AM


Wow, I never realized how many ammo troops post on this blog! SMSgt MAC, and IYAAYAS, spread the word, this'll be the next AMMO takeover!

On a more related note, those jets prepo'ed in Barksdayle, and the bases in the Gulf, they're already flying those sorties, using inert ordinance. Swap the paperweights with some lives, say bye-bye to the bears, it's all the same to those pilots.

Posted by: AMMO at March 16, 2009 03:14 AM


Pedestrian:
pe⋅des⋅tri⋅an  [puh-des-tree-uhn]
–noun 1. a person who goes or travels on foot; walker.

–adjective 2. going or performed on foot; walking.
3. of or pertaining to walking.
4. lacking in vitality, imagination, distinction, etc.; commonplace; prosaic or dull
Indeed.

Posted by: soonergrunt at March 15, 2009 11:05 PM


Nobody thinks this may be pay back for Cheney's great adventures in Georgia and NATO's moving into the ex-Soviet states?

Posted by: 1watt, hermit at March 15, 2009 10:49 PM


Obama is nothing but another coward liberal that gets its pants wet when there is a conventional war. Obama's smart power is nothing but coward power.

Reality, A Change we can't believe in!

Posted by: pedestrian at March 15, 2009 09:55 PM


Apples to apples, people; Russia's last economic leg was the fresh oil that they're currently pumping *way* too fast for any kind of realistic economic strategy to take advantage of. Couple that with the global recession causing the price-per-barrel to crash, and you have a Russia that is flailing in every direction to maintain a regional presence in the face of a growing China.

Posted by: Earlydawn at March 15, 2009 09:31 PM


Further to my last, here's the hyperlink, since it didn't embed in my post:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090314/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_bombers_cuba

Posted by: soonergrunt at March 15, 2009 08:31 PM


This Associated Press report on Yahoo has some more information. Apparently, this isn't going to happen:
"A Russian air force chief said Saturday that the country could base some strategic bombers in Cuba or on an island offered by Venezuela, the Interfax news agency reported, but a Kremlin official quickly said the military had been speaking only hypothetically."
Further:
"Interfax reported he said earlier that Cuba has air bases with four or five runways long enough for the huge bombers and could be used to host the long-range planes.
But Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press that "the military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all. If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said."
Additionally:
"Russia has nothing to gain strategically from basing long-range craft within relatively short range of U.S. shores, independent military analyst Alexander Golts said, calling the military statement a retaliatory gesture aimed at hitting back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters near Georgia...U.S. plans initiated under former President George W. Bush to put elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic had particularly irked Russia, although the United States insists they are intended to counter potential future threats from Iran."

Posted by: soonergrunt at March 15, 2009 08:30 PM


It is meant to be a political message rather than an actual military threat.
Un-subtle, but... draw the connection.
ABM's in Poland = Bombers in Cuba
You withdraw yours and I'll withdraw mine...!!!

Posted by: PeterB at March 15, 2009 08:23 PM


Yeah, we have this situation NOW, when Mr. "Let's site down and talk" is in charge. I hope he sees this for what it is.


Angela

Backlinks

Posted by: Angela at March 15, 2009 07:56 PM


"Simple; we are in difficult economic times, and a increase in the defense budget will increase the federal deficit, putting yet more strain on us economically. This is the same tactic we used on the Soviet Union be forcing them to spend money on defending against SDI and other Reagan-era defense programs like sham Copper Canyon transatmospheric bombers... "

Meh -- overreaction. The USSR collapsed for a variety of reasons, economics and the bankrupting effect of the arms race being only one of them.

Posted by: John at March 15, 2009 05:10 PM


Maybe President Obama can talk Moscow out of it...perhaps he should write another letter to Medvedev.

Posted by: Tom Skypek at March 15, 2009 03:45 PM



If you really have to ask "what's going on here?" and are really blind to all the politics between Cuba, Russia and the US, maybe you need a new job.

They're also looking at Venezuela for equally obvious reasons.

It will be great publicity for both host and guest nations and has nothing to do with bombing the US. But no doubt it will draw the usual knee-jerk reactions (see below) and serve to dive the US further.

Posted by: Wembley at March 15, 2009 03:06 PM


I think irv hit the nail on the head. If the Russians were conscious of that effect that he described, then it shows that they have a dangerous understanding of the American psyche. We tend equate passive action with inaction, even when it is the strategically viable thing to do. The defenses against these bombers have been around for decades, and all Obama needs to do to defend the US against them is to simply keep guns online (if they can actually make it there). However, in the eyes of the American public, that looks like he is either dismissing the concern or is bending to the Russians' will. They want active action, even though doing something rash would be both inappropriate considering the insignificance of the move (they already can turn the US into a nuclear wasteland from the motherland) and detrimental to our strategic objectives. This puts the administration in a pickle, and BAM! Another long distraction that either makes the populace lose their trust in Obama or forces the US to take some unnecessary action that costs money and time. Don't underestimate Putin, he's always planning three steps ahead, and if people view him as stupid and incompetent, all the better for him.

Posted by: abukaled at March 15, 2009 02:28 PM


Good Afternoon Folks,

Is there really anybody out there who doesn't see the timing of this story and the budget decisions now being made at DoD as the same story. With the F-22's and the F-35's futures on the line we can expect more of these goofy scare stories. There is a lot of money at stake here and I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing and Lockheed Martin as the source of this information.

The fact of a Backfire bomber in Cuba has been old news for months. What's next, the urgent need for radar Blimps?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 15, 2009 02:20 PM


Given the amount of Russian military activity being reported on this site in recent times perhaps a new category could be started. Maybe one called something really witty like "Rusky Watch" to help create a sort of running log of activites as they happen. To create a better way of compiling the info stored on this site for review later if something big happens down the road...

Posted by: IYAAYAS at March 15, 2009 06:59 AM


good idea dude,

Though i agree with the comments that we need to be watchful of russia. This doesnt scare me at present sence the bears are sitting ducks anywhere there more advanced bombers though newer and faster are still peices o crap by our standards (theres still one stuck in the carrib if i remember correctly from a couple months ago after it broke down when they flew it there.)

btw does anyone know if we ever fly b52s over russia?...ooooo i have idea every country that keeps getting overflown by russia should sue for the amount of money such overflights cost when they send up fighters mainhrs pay fuel.....heheheheh lets give em capitalist pigs..

btw wish i could run empire tw2....sadly my comp sucks...must get new graphics card

Posted by: Valcan at March 15, 2009 02:03 PM


"so why commit your already limited defense resources to an endeavor that will inevitably drive the Pentagon back into the waiting arms of Lockheed, Boeing, NG and their generous inventory of Russian killing weapon systems?"

Simple; we are in difficult economic times, and a increase in the defense budget will increase the federal deficit, putting yet more strain on us economically. This is the same tactic we used on the Soviet Union be forcing them to spend money on defending against SDI and other Reagan-era defense programs like sham Copper Canyon transatmospheric bombers.
The cost to Russia of deploying a few Backfires to Cuba and Venezuela is pretty low compared to the expensive response it could engender on our part. Net gain theirs.

Posted by: Pat Flannery at March 15, 2009 01:49 PM


This is almost funny- how sad are the Russians that this gives them an ego boost?

A factor I haven't seem mentioned is that Russians LOVE to go to Cuba. The military will fight over those plum assignments. The sun, cigars, mojitos, hookers- lots of thing for a officer to like...

Posted by: Emastro at March 15, 2009 12:37 PM


Just a little incrementalism, as in the "Death of 1,000 cuts". We are running out of the big $. Now to be spent on pork. These Neosoviet moves are used to acclimate us to the peaceful presence of our "Not Enemies" and convince our DC masters that no money need be wasted to counter their actions. As in the Clinton 90's, the loathing and defunding of the military will cumulatively result in attacks upon us by an emboldened enemy.

Posted by: Shanghaied at March 15, 2009 12:36 PM


Open Skies.
Under the treaty conditions, the planes are inspected by the country being overflown prior to being permitted to perform their mission. There is a specific limit to the type and characteristics of the equipment carried, and both sides have their own team of experts look at the planes before the OK is given to overfly thier territories.

And I agree: IYAAYAS! LOL!

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at March 15, 2009 12:17 PM


A nit that does nothing to change the main point of the post, but isn't Homestead a air reserve base now?

I remember driving through that part of Florida after Andrew and being shocked at the level of destruction.

Posted by: Strick at March 15, 2009 11:33 AM


Execute a basing agreement with Georgia for a fighter wing.

Posted by: soonergrunt at March 15, 2009 09:01 AM


I noticed this story is filed under the 'Planes, Copters, Blimps' category. Which is a little like filing under 'M' for 'Miscellaneous'.

Given the amount of Russian military activity being reported on this site in recent times perhaps a new category could be started. Maybe one called something really witty like "Rusky Watch" to help create a sort of running log of activites as they happen. To create a better way of compiling the info stored on this site for review later if something big happens down the road...

Posted by: IYAAYAS at March 15, 2009 06:59 AM


This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 3/15/2009, at The Unreligious Right

Posted by: UNRR at March 15, 2009 06:26 AM


Of course it's for domestic consumption only. Still rhetoric matters, and a scathing reaction from the US would be helpful (would also be reported on the .ru portion of the web). It could even refer, obliquely, to the fact that Georgia is as close to the R. borders as Cuba to A.

Posted by: citicrab at March 15, 2009 04:37 AM


Anybody ever hear of the Open Sky Treaty? Russian planes fly through our air space now for treaty verification purposes. And you think none of these observers could be armed with a nuke? Bombers landing in Cuba is just another dog & pony show. Ninety-five percent of the shipping containers in our major ports are never inspected. If any nuke ever goes off in this great country, it will be smuggled in at a snail's pace by terrorists working with Russian proxy countries like Iran or North Korea. That is where the real threat lies and how we react in the first minutes of that scenario will determine whether our enemies decide to "pile on" with the real thing. Japan was supposed to fight on to the very last man if we invaded in WWII. Instead, they surrendered after two nukes. Just how tough is America anymore? Are we as tough as the soldiers of WWII or the citizens of back then? I'm talking about the civilian population here and our elected leaders. Our military is the greatest and most powerful in the history of the world and the most positive force in that world. Putin will continue to rattle sabers and incite us with proxies. It is the KGB way and that leopard has not changed its spots. God Bless our troops and God Bless America.

Posted by: Don at March 15, 2009 03:32 AM


Countries A and B have carefully negotiated a large reduction in strategic weapons through a series of treaties. This was done in a manner such that not only 1. neither side would be placed at a relative disadvantage to the other, but also 2. neither side would PERCEIVE they were at a significant relative disadvantage to the other in the process.

Within the treaty parameters both sides would be motivated to draw down their relative forces to a mix of strategic bombers and land-based ICBMS and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. A force mix would be allowed that could be single-dimensional if desired, a balanced ‘diad’, or a ‘triad’ of their choosing within the treaty frameworks.
At one point during the strategic faceoff, an influential defense/economics policy wonk in Country A proposed to remove the bomber leg of Country A’s triad, but it was demonstrated that in so doing it would greatly simplify Country B’s defense planning problem and reduce the amount of national treasure Country B would require for defensive purposes. This would have had the effect of allowing Country B to increase its offensive capability without having to allocate more resources than it already was employing.
Years pass, and Country B is now making moves to base a portion of its strategic bomber force in Country C only 90 miles away from Country A at its closest point. Basing strategic bombers so close to Country A would allow a normalization of having Country B’s bombers in constant operation just outside Country A’s sovereign airspace. This would present the doubly vexing problem for Country A: having to dedicate resources needed to monitor and track more closely the airspace off two of its three coasts continuously and in depth, and having to reassess their own strategic plans and allocation of offensive capability to account for changes to the entire force-counterforce balance. For all Country A can tell, changes to the balance that increase the potential for surprise attack could also be part of some larger unknown dynamic that Country B is working to fulfill. Country A will need to reassess the full breadth of its strategic situation to ensure there are no changes that increases its vulnerabilities or adversely impacts the net deterrence effect of its force posture.
Until the last paragraph, the scenario above is adapted from historical events in Glenn Kent’s memoir “Thinking About Defense”. I knew when it was published I would be referring to it, but I had no idea I would have as many opportunities to refer to it as there seems to be these days.
Normally I like your stuff: you have a lot of potential. For this piece however, I believe you would have far been better served if you had interviewed Lt Gen Glenn Kent beforehand.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at March 14, 2009 11:18 PM


Some days I read a headline and wonder, 'Is humanity really this stupid?' Then I read the story and think, 'Why, yes! Yes we are.' Though, some could say the same for my posts. 8\

You do have to wonder, 'What's the point?' Of all the things humanity could accomplish... Flying bombers to Cuba is the best they could come up with. Maybe someone could just send them a copy of "Dr.Stranglelove" (no, it's not a porn) & "Empire: Total War". It be twice the fun & more productive... just a thought.

"Dr. Strangelove trailer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gXY3kuDvSU

"Empire: Total War Launch Trailer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSjGaV62Ky4

Posted by: Camp at March 14, 2009 11:16 PM


Good Evening Folks,

I think Drake about has it right. This would seem to be a valanced threat to the missile defense systems proposed for the former Eastern European countries.

I don't see October 1962 all over again. Cuba under Raul Castro appears to be a more stable place and I think the is a genuine desire on the part of the Cuban Government to have warmer diplomatic relations with the United States.

The 1823 Monroe Doctrine no longer applies, it was over turned by the Plat Amendment in the 1930's. In reality this is a rather dumb move on the part of the Russians, as John Nooan said in the article the Gulf of Mexico has the heaviest air defense of any place on the planet. The question of nuclear weapons being based in Cuba was cleared up a couple of generations ago.

At this point this threat can be taken as no more then a rather uncreative action out of the Mind of Putin. It's stupid, its dangerous, it shows an reckless foreign policy that has no apparent purpose, and could lead to political instability with in Russia.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 14, 2009 10:38 PM


Hey, if Ivan wants to put a portion of his obsolete strategic assets in a place where they can be destroyed at will by us, using transit routes well inside the engagement envelopes of our LEAST well performing assets--well, let him.
The reply to this should be very simple--the same continuous tracking by fighter aircraft close along side that we did during the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, and Bush I administrations.
This isn't anything other than flexing muscle for domesting Russian consumption to take the people's minds off the fact that their economy just went badly off the rails. If they want to put hours on their airframes to no profit, let them.

Posted by: soonergrunt at March 14, 2009 10:02 PM


Do those things still fly? It would be a miracle for one of those to do a complete training mission let alone a real combat sortie.

Posted by: jack at March 14, 2009 09:14 PM


This is a political move. A "I dare you to cross knock this chip off my shoulder" type thing. And it's a smart one.

If Obama does nothing, he looks weak. If he tries to get them to back down, he looks stupid. If he succeeds in getting them to back down, he looks like a petty tyrant. After all, the Cold War is long over.

No matter what happens, score a PR win for the Ruskies.

Posted by: irv at March 14, 2009 08:23 PM


"You don't hanger the bombers in Cuba, you have them refuel there after they make a bombing run starting from Russia, going over the pole, and heading down the East Coast and all this after the first volley of ICBMs and SLICBMs."

Really? Russian bombers have the legs for that? Once they bingo, isn't the plan for them to turn tail and land at their remaining airfields in places like Russia and Belarus?

Posted by: John at March 14, 2009 07:36 PM


You don't hanger the bombers in Cuba, you have them refuel there after they make a bombing run starting from Russia, going over the pole, and heading down the East Coast and all this after the first volley of ICBMs and SLICBMs.

It won't be making the bombers more vulnerable, it will give us one more place to account for with our weapons. Same amount of bombs, more targets.

Posted by: MikeB at March 14, 2009 07:19 PM


OH yeah Obama is tomuch of a coward to do anything about it.GOD help us.

Posted by: Rick at March 14, 2009 07:08 PM


"pricey target drones" I like it!

Posted by: Buffoon at March 14, 2009 06:59 PM


Probably being done for Russian domestic consumption than for any real strategic worth.

Posted by: Drake at March 14, 2009 06:27 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.