• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Russians circle Guam

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ichy said:
This news story is utter shit. They claim the bombers were armed with nuclear missiles. How the hell would the "Free Beacon" know that?
Click to expand...

The right wing media projects onto the mainstream media a conspiracy theory about it being a leftwing plot. This allows some of them to justify making shit up.

Breitbart.com recently published a couple stories saying that Chuck Hagel was financially tied to a made up terrorist group, and many other papers wrote blogposts on the completely made up story. Breitbart hasn't apologized or censured the writer (I think he's an editor), and many other news orgs haven't even retracted their posts.

Air America folded because liberals generally don't like to be told misinformation. Conservatives either don't care or are too information illiterate to spot obvious lies.
 
Do people on Washington have to clean these shit newspapers out of their yard all the time?

There's also a free 'Beacon' paper in my area. I've tried to have them fined for littering on my property to no avail.
 
ichy said:
This news story is utter shit. They claim the bombers were armed with nuclear missiles. How the hell would the "Free Beacon" know that?
Click to expand...

They don't.

Its a bullsh*t "Obama is terrible" piece that uses as its source a truly despised former Bush appointee. You know, the guys who told us it was a slam dunk that Saddam had nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
John Conner said:
I don't understand how the fuck those planes traveled that far. It's over 2,400 miles to the coast of Russia. Remember you need return fuel. Why the fuck would Russia care? The cold war never ended BTW.

http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=13.44430,144.79373&z=3&t=M&marker0=13.44430%2C144.79373%2CGuam%20&marker1=49.03100%2C140.23044%2C5.5%20mi%20NW%20of%20Sovetskaya%20Gavan%27

Edit-

Wow! The range is impressive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95#Specifications_.28Tu-95MS.29
Click to expand...

The Bear was the Russian equivalent to our B52 and was designed to fly very long distances as well as to be refueled in the air.
 
techs said:
John Conner said:
I don't understand how the fuck those planes traveled that far. It's over 2,400 miles to the coast of Russia. Remember you need return fuel. Why the fuck would Russia care? The cold war never ended BTW.

http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=13.44430,144.79373&z=3&t=M&marker0=13.44430%2C144.79373%2CGuam%20&marker1=49.03100%2C140.23044%2C5.5%20mi%20NW%20of%20Sovetskaya%20Gavan%27

Edit-

Wow! The range is impressive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95#Specifications_.28Tu-95MS.29
Click to expand...

The Bear was the Russian equivalent to our B52 and was designed to fly very long distances as well as to be refueled in the air.
Click to expand...

Those long range bombers are essentially a flying gas tank with 4-10 hard points for bombs carried internally.

Wings and fuselage (behind bomb bay area) are fuel tanks. Some fuel may be between the bomb bay and the cockpit.

Get them up in the air; refueled and on their way.
Meet them with a tanker if needed when they are returning.
 
I think we should fly two of these over Russia. LOL That's if they can detect it. Tee Hee. :whiste:



B-2_Spirit_original.jpg
 
John Conner said:
I think we should fly two of these over Russia. LOL That's if they can detect it. Tee Hee. :whiste:



B-2_Spirit_original.jpg
Click to expand...

If detected, it becomes a provocation of war. We have no standing of innocence if discovered. U2 and 71 worked because of altitude and speed. This has neither. Visual detection by a frontline fighter and kiss it goodby.
 
Isn't that the place where they are dropping all of the medicated mouse corpses to try and kill off the brown snakes?

KT
 
“Every day brings new evidence that Obama’s ideological obsession with dismantling our nuclear deterrent is dangerous,” Bolton said. “Our national security is in danger of slipping off the national agenda even as the threats grow.”

What a complete moron.. Do we really need thousands of nuclear tipped missiles? Even when we widdle it down to whatever obama wants (hundreds) we can destroy the earth over and over again still.
 
AmdEmAll said:
“Every day brings new evidence that Obama’s ideological obsession with dismantling our nuclear deterrent is dangerous,” Bolton said. “Our national security is in danger of slipping off the national agenda even as the threats grow.”

What a complete moron.. Do we really need thousands of nuclear tipped missiles? Even when we widdle it down to whatever obama wants (hundreds) we can destroy the earth over and over again still.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of how many times over the we blow up the earth, it has much more to do with location/deployment speed.

This is why the Cuban missile crisis was so important.

There's also redundancy, subs vs. bombers vs ICBMs, etc.

edit: I'm not discounting your point entirely, just that you can't base the need solely off of how many times we can blow up the earth.
 
Phoenix86 said:
It's not a matter of how many times over the we blow up the earth, it has much more to do with location/deployment speed.

This is why the Cuban missile crisis was so important.

There's also redundancy, subs vs. bombers vs ICBMs, etc.

edit: I'm not discounting your point entirely, just that you can't base the need solely off of how many times we can blow up the earth.
Click to expand...

I understand that but I im pretty sure hundreds of warheads is enough.. and to say that suddenly our national security is in danger is just fear mongering from the Republicans per usual.
 
AmdEmAll said:
I understand that but I im pretty sure hundreds of warheads is enough.. and to say that suddenly our national security is in danger is just fear mongering from the Republicans per usual.
Click to expand...



If hundreds are "enough" to "blow up the world" then why are thousands worse, exactly?

That seems like a feel good argument more than anything to me.
 
Ferzerp said:
If hundreds are "enough" to "blow up the world" then why are thousands worse, exactly?

That seems like a feel good argument more than anything to me.
Click to expand...

Did I say I agree with hundreds? And we have over 5000 deployed or non-deployed warheads currently. But nooo Obama dismantling some of them puts us in grave danger!
 
Ferzerp said:
If hundreds are "enough" to "blow up the world" then why are thousands worse, exactly?

That seems like a feel good argument more than anything to me.
Click to expand...

Keeping them costs money. Better to turn the warheads into reactor rods. Russia has been reducing, too.

I am interested to find out why Russia has started probing guam, though.
 
EagleKeeper said:
If detected, it becomes a provocation of war. We have no standing of innocence if discovered. U2 and 71 worked because of altitude and speed. This has neither. Visual detection by a frontline fighter and kiss it goodby.
Click to expand...


So when Russia circled Guam that wasn't a provocation of war?

Have you heard of Francis gary Powers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top