Russia warned against having nuclear bombers at Cuba.

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Danwar

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: lupi
These are not the droids you are looking for.


I mean, cuba is a small insignificant country and we should drop all sanctions against them.

The issue is that they are only 90 miles off the coast of florida and weapons ect could easily be moved in and out if there was more traffic in and out of there.
Our current policy is a band-aid on a gunshot wound, but it gives the impression of working. Plus if Russia could put nuclear weapons in Cuba, launching the missiles from that close would make it hard if not impossible for the US to issue alerts to the targeted cities.

Thats the same thing that the russian people fear with the US placing missiles on their doorstep.

Eye for an eye, balance keeps the peace.

If you refer to MAD, that is a morally bankrupt position. The notion that we would willingly put hostage to 100 million American lives is wrong. The first and most important duty of a nation-state is the protection of its people.

Missile and other defensive systems are there for just that purpose - defense.

Tell it to the US military leaders who advised Kennedy to nuke Russia first. You know the famous quote about two Americans left and one Russian means we won.

I know of no reason why this system could not become an offensive system, space-based weapons platforms for complete dominance across the planet.

Would you say it's ok for other nations to develop such a system, to take that risk?

Defending our nation is one thing, what if 'killing the other 6B people' helped our security?

If I remember correctly the first Cuban missile crises stemmed from us first placing nukes in Turkey. Russia saw this as a threat because the Black Sea is basically their swimming pool. The Russians reacted by deploying the first stage for nukes sites in Cuba. Not to many people know that secretly a deal was struck by Kennedy's cabinet and the Russians. If they would back down, we would in 6 months dismantle our nukes in Turkey. They backed down and we ended up removing our nukes from Turkey 6 months later.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

This is all off topic, before we put missiles in Europe, Russia was flying there heavy bomobers right up against (if not in) US and European airspace (in the last year) and we didn't publicly do anything.

Russia has been flying bears around NATO members since they first built them in the 50's... The US does it too. It's more like a game of tag than an act of war.

I'm sure they do it a lot less now, than during the cold war.. benzin is pricy these days.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
I was thinking more along the lines of an anit-aircraft missle from a ship based near Cuba. But you know that is just speculation.

Every nation does that and has been doing that for a very long time including the US. Remember that US spy plane that was forced to land in China when it violated their air space back in 2000? It was when Bush and the gang were trying to pick a fight with China for no good reason prior to 9/11.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Danwar

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: lupi
These are not the droids you are looking for.


I mean, cuba is a small insignificant country and we should drop all sanctions against them.

The issue is that they are only 90 miles off the coast of florida and weapons ect could easily be moved in and out if there was more traffic in and out of there.
Our current policy is a band-aid on a gunshot wound, but it gives the impression of working. Plus if Russia could put nuclear weapons in Cuba, launching the missiles from that close would make it hard if not impossible for the US to issue alerts to the targeted cities.

Thats the same thing that the russian people fear with the US placing missiles on their doorstep.

Eye for an eye, balance keeps the peace.

If you refer to MAD, that is a morally bankrupt position. The notion that we would willingly put hostage to 100 million American lives is wrong. The first and most important duty of a nation-state is the protection of its people.

Missile and other defensive systems are there for just that purpose - defense.

Tell it to the US military leaders who advised Kennedy to nuke Russia first. You know the famous quote about two Americans left and one Russian means we won.

I know of no reason why this system could not become an offensive system, space-based weapons platforms for complete dominance across the planet.

Would you say it's ok for other nations to develop such a system, to take that risk?

Defending our nation is one thing, what if 'killing the other 6B people' helped our security?

If I remember correctly the first Cuban missile crises stemmed from us first placing nukes in Turkey. Russia saw this as a threat because the Black Sea is basically their swimming pool. The Russians reacted by deploying the first stage for nukes sites in Cuba. Not to many people know that secretly a deal was struck by Kennedy's cabinet and the Russians. If they would back down, we would in 6 months dismantle our nukes in Turkey. They backed down and we ended up removing our nukes from Turkey 6 months later.

Yes; another component of the deal was a US pledge not to invade Cuba, contingent upon oingoing missile inspections that never happened, so the US secretly considered the pledge voided. Funny enough, it was probably a good thing the inspections didn't happen, as the USSR still had its tactical nukes we didn't know about there until December.

The aftermath of the crisis was the disposition of the Il-28 bombers, which the Americans wanted out of Cuba because they were capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Khrushchev agreed on Nov. 19, in exchange for a Kennedy promise to immediately lift the naval blockade and move to the back burner a demand for on-site inspections of Soviet warehouses in Cuba to ensure they were empty.

Issue of inspections

Had Kennedy known that tactical nuclear warheads remained in Cuba, he would have strongly insisted on the on-site inspections, said Ray Gartoff, a Cuban missile crisis expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

``Good thing the CIA did not know any better, because the Soviets would have looked like liars -- they had sworn that all the warheads were gone -- and the crisis would have gone on,'' Gartoff said.

As tensions wound down after the Il-28 agreement, Defense Minister Rodion Malinovsky ordered Soviet troops in Cuba to begin training Cuban military units in the use of the Lunas and FKRs and their nuclear warheads.

Castro, who had earlier stridently opposed removing the long-range missiles and Il-28s, made a strong pitch to keep the tactical weapons in Cuba during a Nov. 22 meeting in Havana with Anastas Mikoyan, the Soviet Communist Party official who handled most Cuba-USSR relations.

``Wouldn't it be impossible to keep the atomic weapons in Cuba under Soviet control without turning them over to the Cubans?'' Mikoyan quoted Castro as asking, in a Russian-language report on the meeting that he sent to Moscow and that was later found by Naftali and Fursenko.

Mikoyan reported that he quickly told Castro, on his own initiative, that such a deal was impossible. Khrushchev had already made the same decision, apparently believing that Castro could not be trusted with such weapons.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
I was thinking more along the lines of an anit-aircraft missle from a ship based near Cuba. But you know that is just speculation.

Every nation does that and has been doing that for a very long time including the US. Remember that US spy plane that was forced to land in China when it violated their air space back in 2000? It was when Bush and the gang were trying to pick a fight with China for no good reason prior to 9/11.

A president with fewer popular votes than his opponent, in an election rife with charges of corruption, with a low and plummeting approval rating and a pretty weak domestic agenda about whom the public largely says 'who is this guy' and views him as very likely a one-termed, can use a foreign policy conflict to get a strengthened position.

It's a very common tactic, leaders close to failing use it all the time. Consider, for example, the senseless Falkland Islands war by the unpopular leaders in Argentina.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: jman19

The information at the time, and the 80% of American's who went along for the ride was in part tainted by the fact that faith was put in the administration after a time of crisis in this country. If you truly believe that the administration worked on all of the information that was available in a fair manner, then you are truly a fool. What happened was a total misuse of that trust and disservice to the American's who died in 2001.

That faith you speak of was overwhelming because a combination of international and national bipartisan agencies with evidence supporting this so called faith. Anyways we hijacked this thread and should probably go back to the original topic of Russia putting bombers in Cuba.

Which if one were to take off with intent it would likely be blown up with minutes. And as someone else pointed out, we would need to worry about other things like Russia ICBM's.

blown up in minutes by what, exactly? I think we as Americans have an overly bright view of our own defensive capabilities... Don't we only have ~15 aircraft on ready-to-go standby across the country?

I don't think that a bomber would last very long, but it certainly would cause a big scare.

I assume Gitmo has a pretty decent airbase. Slap a squadron of F-16s there and have em play peekaboo with the bombers anytime they leave the ground. If they cross the wrong line then blow em to hell.

Does Russia even have long range bombers with internal bomb bays and nukes to go in them? If not then it really gets silly if our pilots can see the bombs hanging from the wings.

 

[Danwar]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: jman19

The information at the time, and the 80% of American's who went along for the ride was in part tainted by the fact that faith was put in the administration after a time of crisis in this country. If you truly believe that the administration worked on all of the information that was available in a fair manner, then you are truly a fool. What happened was a total misuse of that trust and disservice to the American's who died in 2001.

That faith you speak of was overwhelming because a combination of international and national bipartisan agencies with evidence supporting this so called faith. Anyways we hijacked this thread and should probably go back to the original topic of Russia putting bombers in Cuba.

Which if one were to take off with intent it would likely be blown up with minutes. And as someone else pointed out, we would need to worry about other things like Russia ICBM's.

blown up in minutes by what, exactly? I think we as Americans have an overly bright view of our own defensive capabilities... Don't we only have ~15 aircraft on ready-to-go standby across the country?

I don't think that a bomber would last very long, but it certainly would cause a big scare.

I assume Gitmo has a pretty decent airbase. Slap a squadron of F-16s there and have em play peekaboo with the bombers anytime they leave the ground. If they cross the wrong line then blow em to hell.

Does Russia even have long range bombers with internal bomb bays and nukes to go in them? If not then it really gets silly if our pilots can see the bombs hanging from the wings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

armed with

http://www.missilethreat.com/c...d.84/cruise_detail.asp

enough to worry imo.

Many people try to make the public believe that all the russians have is old propeller bombers with traditional bombs that have to be dropped right on top of their target...

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dphantom
It seems the fundamental difference most ar missing is that the misles are defensive (shooting down incoming missiles) while bombers are nothing but an offensive weapon.

They're 'defensive' when used as a deterrent.

Wow. How many twists of logic did it take you to come up with that? I'm impressed.

 

[Vonkhan]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle Not to mention almost 3000 died when we were attacked on our own soil. Saddam may not have been involved in the planning or execution of 9/11 but he did harbor and protect individuals who were injured in Afghanistan when fighting for the organization who was behind 9/11.

LOL ... seriously 😀 I was wondering who finished off the kool aid

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dphantom
It seems the fundamental difference most ar missing is that the misles are defensive (shooting down incoming missiles) while bombers are nothing but an offensive weapon.

They're 'defensive' when used as a deterrent.

Wow. How many twists of logic did it take you to come up with that? I'm impressed.

I'd say zero twists needed.

Why is it you can understand the concept that everyone carrying a gun around is a deterrent to criminals commiting crimes in a crowd of armed citizens, but you can't understand why the ability to harm another nation has a deterrent effect on that other nations, instead thinking that's a 'twist'?

Or do you just think that any nation, includeing the US, given complete unilateral dominance over others, the ability to destroy them and the other side not being able to pose a threat, will lead to some sort of benevolent situation where the powerful nation just leaves the others alone and treats them very nicely?

Since we're talking about Cuba, take a look at its history - the US brutalizing it, the reigme preceding Castro a right-wing thug and the US allowing Cuba to be turned into a mob playground screwing over the people of Cuba. The reason a crazy like Castro was able to seize power with a dozen people was because the people of Cuba were so furious with how the US was abusing them. That's the face of excessive power. You should pick up on history IMO for many other examples of every major power in history doing that.

And let's look at your other statement that space-based 'missile defense' is only defensive.

Imagine you are in a city with armed people and you come up with a device that disables every gun in the city, so only your gun works. That's not a temptation to abuse?

But there's more - how can you say this 'defense' can't be turned into an offensive weapon, destroying ground targets from space?

Your position seems to be that our having threatening weapons isgood and others having them is bad. I wonder if they feel the same, or you would be ok with the tables turned?

 

[Hugh H]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: jman19

The information at the time, and the 80% of American's who went along for the ride was in part tainted by the fact that faith was put in the administration after a time of crisis in this country. If you truly believe that the administration worked on all of the information that was available in a fair manner, then you are truly a fool. What happened was a total misuse of that trust and disservice to the American's who died in 2001.

That faith you speak of was overwhelming because a combination of international and national bipartisan agencies with evidence supporting this so called faith. Anyways we hijacked this thread and should probably go back to the original topic of Russia putting bombers in Cuba.

Which if one were to take off with intent it would likely be blown up with minutes. And as someone else pointed out, we would need to worry about other things like Russia ICBM's.

blown up in minutes by what, exactly? I think we as Americans have an overly bright view of our own defensive capabilities... Don't we only have ~15 aircraft on ready-to-go standby across the country?

I don't think that a bomber would last very long, but it certainly would cause a big scare.

I assume Gitmo has a pretty decent airbase. Slap a squadron of F-16s there and have em play peekaboo with the bombers anytime they leave the ground. If they cross the wrong line then blow em to hell.

Yeah, like the bombers are going to take-off knowing they got F-16s next to them. If bombers ever leave Cuba headed for the US, it means GTMO has been long overrun by the Cuban Army. Trust me, in case of all-out war (which comes with wanting to nuke the US) GTMO woouldn't last long.

Not that it matters in any case, as those bombers would be intercepted by fighters taking off from mainland US before they reach US territory.

This is just a political act, that's it.

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan

Originally posted by: badnewcastle Not to mention almost 3000 died when we were attacked on our own soil. Saddam may not have been involved in the planning or execution of 9/11 but he did harbor and protect individuals who were injured in Afghanistan when fighting for the organization who was behind 9/11.

LOL ... seriously 😀 I was wondering who finished off the kool aid

Thanks for the constructive discussion. 😕

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: Hugh H

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: jman19

The information at the time, and the 80% of American's who went along for the ride was in part tainted by the fact that faith was put in the administration after a time of crisis in this country. If you truly believe that the administration worked on all of the information that was available in a fair manner, then you are truly a fool. What happened was a total misuse of that trust and disservice to the American's who died in 2001.

That faith you speak of was overwhelming because a combination of international and national bipartisan agencies with evidence supporting this so called faith. Anyways we hijacked this thread and should probably go back to the original topic of Russia putting bombers in Cuba.

Which if one were to take off with intent it would likely be blown up with minutes. And as someone else pointed out, we would need to worry about other things like Russia ICBM's.

blown up in minutes by what, exactly? I think we as Americans have an overly bright view of our own defensive capabilities... Don't we only have ~15 aircraft on ready-to-go standby across the country?

I don't think that a bomber would last very long, but it certainly would cause a big scare.

I assume Gitmo has a pretty decent airbase. Slap a squadron of F-16s there and have em play peekaboo with the bombers anytime they leave the ground. If they cross the wrong line then blow em to hell.

Yeah, like the bombers are going to take-off knowing they got F-16s next to them. If bombers ever leave Cuba headed for the US, it means GTMO has been long overrun by the Cuban Army. Trust me, in case of all-out war (which comes with wanting to nuke the US) GTMO woouldn't last long.

Not that it matters in any case, as those bombers would be intercepted by fighters taking off from mainland US before they reach US territory.

This is just a political act, that's it.

Not to mention that a couple of F-22's out of England Air Force Base (I have know idea if any are stationed there, not like they would make it public anyways), nobody would even know they are there until bombers start blowing up off the coast of Cuba. I don't know if all this could happen but I like to have the faith that it could.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
I was thinking more along the lines of an anit-aircraft missle from a ship based near Cuba. But you know that is just speculation.

Every nation does that and has been doing that for a very long time including the US. Remember that US spy plane that was forced to land in China when it violated their air space back in 2000? It was when Bush and the gang were trying to pick a fight with China for no good reason prior to 9/11.

IF Bush was {resident if couldn't have 2000. Bill Clinton was Prez then.

OK, I googled it, the date was April 1 2001. And in the article our Air Force is quoted as saying it was a routine flight etc.

While it occurred almost immediately after his inauguration, doesn't look anything he started. So, no GWB and gang weren't rying to pick a fight with China. The flights look have started under Clinton (or even earlier most likley - I found another article when googling about a 1950's era US spy plane in China)

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Of course Saddam deserved an asskicking for what he did in Kuwait, there is really no debate about it. However, I think just because we might be justified to do something doesn't mean we SHOULD. Was going back in to Iraq under the guise of WMD (with flimsy at best evidence, poor due diligence) or the breaking of a ceasefire worth the mess we are in now?

Was it worth it?

Hoenstly I don't know.

Ask me 10 years from now.

Fern