DescentBB

US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba

11 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Russia would cross \"a red line for the United States of America\" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba, a top US air force officer warned on Tuesday.

\"If they did I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America,\" said General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force's chief of staff.

He was referring to a report in the newspaper Izvestia that said the Russian military is thinking of flying long-range bombers to Cuba on a regular basis in response to US plans to install missile defenses in eastern Europe.

Izvestia cited an unnamed senior Russian air force official as saying such flights were under discussion. But it was unclear whether they would involve permanent basing of nuclear bombers in Cuba, or just use of the island as a refueling stop.

In his confirmation hearing to become the air force's chief of staff, Schwartz was asked what he would recommend if Russia were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba.

\"I would certainly offer the best military advice that we engage the Russians not to pursue that approach,\" he said, adding that Russia would cross a \"red line\" if it did.

Complete Article: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5is3 ... xPZ4bEbJiw

The US has been poking Putin in the eye the last few years by pushing NATO membership for former Warsaw pact countries- supporting Kosovar independence and Polish missile shields...not to mention Georgian ties. Putin has ASSASSINATED people (some are still glowing) inside the heart of our NATO allies...I don't think it's a good idea.

WWIII flashpoints aplenty these days... Iran/Syria/Israel, Georgia/Russia, India/Pakistan to name a few.

hehe I find it amusing that it took 6 pages before I found a mainstream news agency that had this article posted.

welp.. back to 1963.

The result of an amazing foreign policy trainwreck.

So we help countries that want to be free of Russian dominance put up a defensive mechanism to stop missiles from hitting them and in response the Russians want to fly nukes toward our country as a threat of what they could do.

Seems to me they are showing their intentions pretty well.

Putin's intentions have been clear for at least the last 5 years. He wants to restore Russian influence and power to where it was pre-collapse. The U.S. has been equally clear that they want to bring all the ex-USS Republics into NATO and so knee-cap Russia. Rush Limbaugh used to make great headway with fear-mongering about the thousands of USSR tanks and troops \"poised to invade Europe\" now his equivalent in Russia are doing the same with NATO troops and weapons in places like Poland. And yeah sure they believe the U.S. that these are \"purely defensive installations aimed at Iran\".

Putin has managed to stir up the old nationalistic feelings and blame a lot of the bad things that are happening in Russia on \"Western powers\".

The reason that no one is getting too excited about Russian bombers in Cuba is because they are 50 year old, obsolete turbo-props that wouldn't get 100yards into U.S. air space before ending up scrap in the ocean.

Posturing for negotiations is well under way.

the same turbo-props that are being challenged by NORAD planes in the arctic.

Here is the funny thing tho: Russia has oil, and a pretty big customers pretty close to it-namely India and China. We have yet to hear any deals between Russia and either of those population behemoths on oil sales.

Odd, don't you think?

It's a good thing Obama has so much experience with negotiations that if he does get elected president I'm sure he will be able to handle it and the world will be all gumdrops and lollypops.

Well what could we expect wanting to put a missile defense system on the Russian border, and freezing them out over it. I saw this coming a mile off.

Remember also that while this \"was settled with Kennedy\". Castro is no longer in charge there. .... not really. So it's a whole new ball game. Fortunately, we have a bigger soft core bat.

Cuda68 wrote:Well what could we expect wanting to put a missile defense system on the Russian border, and freezing them out over it. I saw this coming a mile off.

agreed, still there is a HUGE difference between Defensive missles and offensive Bombers

What would you do if the Joneses (so to speak) started putting out bear traps and antifreeze to keep your dog out of their yard? =P

Seriously though, I can kinda understand what they must be thinking. What would we do if the situation were reversed? I'm sure we'd respond in kind, if not with greater vehemence.

Meh. Since the Cold War was pretty much a dud, with neither side initiating a proper serious attack, most people just don't perceive Russia's actions as much of a threat anymore.

TIGERassault wrote:Meh. Since the Cold War was pretty much a dud, with neither side initiating a proper serious attack, most people just don't perceive Russia's actions as much of a threat anymore.

Thats very true, but I have feeling we should not underestimate them since they are looking to be a major military power once again. They just might be spoiling for a fight of sorts.

Cuda68 wrote:Well what could we expect wanting to put a missile defense system on the Russian border, and freezing them out over it. I saw this coming a mile off.

I believe that Bush offered the same shield technology to the Russians but they rejected it. The shield is primarily to keep Iranian future missiles from being delivered to Europe

Yes, the missiles are there primarily to keep down the Iranian missile threat, but as far as Russia's concerned, their close location to their country means that said missiles can be swiveled around toward Russia at any provocation, far easier and quicker than having to move them into position from somewhere else. I can see Russia's position on this. It's back to duck and cover again.

tunnelcat wrote:Yes, the missiles are there primarily to keep down the Iranian missile threat, but as far as Russia's concerned, their close location to their country means that said missiles can be swiveled around toward Russia at any provocation, far easier and quicker than having to move them into position from somewhere else. I can see Russia's position on this. It's back to duck and cover again.

The missiles you are speaking of are not big people killing weapons they are small fast missile killing weapons guided by high tech equipment to hit big people killing missiles mid flight if they are launched at the host country...

So if Russia see's that system as a threat because it could be "swiveled around toward Russia" then it must be mad that their people killing missiles will be targeted by the system. Therefore it isn't a case of Russia mad that their population might be targeted by the system but a case of Russia being mad that their offensive people killing weapons pointed at other countries could be countered.

A damn long ways different from them putting nukes 90 miles off our southern border!!

Russia rejected it because they formed an alliance with Iran. This was about 10 years ago.

tunnelcat wrote:Yes, the missiles are there primarily to keep down the Iranian missile threat, but as far as Russia's concerned, their close location to their country means that said missiles can be swiveled around toward Russia at any provocation, far easier and quicker than having to move them into position from somewhere else. I can see Russia's position on this. It's back to duck and cover again.

So we could swivel around those defensive missles and point them at Russia, to what end?

Rule #1 in foreign policy, if your military preparations piss off a super power that isn't your ally you must be doing something right and should keep on doing it!!

Will Robinson wrote:The missiles you are speaking of are not big people killing weapons they are small fast missile killing weapons guided by high tech equipment to hit big people killing missiles mid flight if they are launched at the host country...

So if Russia see's that system as a threat because it could be "swiveled around toward Russia" then it must be mad that their people killing missiles will be targeted by the system. Therefore it isn't a case of Russia mad that their population might be targeted by the system but a case of Russia being mad that their offensive people killing weapons pointed at other countries could be countered.

A damn long ways different from them putting nukes 90 miles off our southern border!!

It's still bear traps and antifreeze. Besides, no one else is throwing up "defensive missile sites" to my knowledge... and even if they are, no other country comparable to Russia is "threatening" them in return with nuclear bombers and such rot. See, by throwing up those missile sites in such a "strategic" position, we've indirectly implied that Russia could possibly attack... and, in kind, they have replied the only way they know - with force. I'm not saying those missile sites were/are a bad idea, I'm just saying the US could have used a little (read: a lot of) discretion when they were deciding the location of the sites. =/ Some people don't know what tact is. Or strategy, even.

MD-1118 wrote:...I'm just saying the US could have used a little (read: a lot of) discretion when they were deciding the location of the sites. =/ Some people don't know what tact is. Or strategy, even.

Come on now! Either the sites are within range of Russian missiles or they aren't! There is no such thing as discretion when deploying a publicly announced deterrent...

And how would you grade the "tact or strategy" of a president who strategically put them up out of range of anyone who might be offended?!? reminds me of the democrat plan "We're not suggesting a pull out of troops in Iraq, just redeploy to...uh...Greece or somewhere..." Heh!

The truth is Russia would love to put the necks of all those break away republiks back under her boot and brute force is the Russian way.
I'd grade the open deployment and public testing of the anti-missile systems as an A+ in strategy.
No other country is doing it because no other country has the technology! How well it works is for the aggressors to worry about. Sucks to be the country that attempts a preemptive strategic first strike only to find out the hard way that American ICBM response is plentiful thanks to a functioning missile shield!

Don't forget the Russians would have agreed if we used there base and let them in on it.

Cuda68 wrote:Don't forget the Russians would have agreed if we used there base and let them in on it.

I never liked that plan, it's like asking the meth heads to guard the back door of the drug store...

Will Robinson wrote:how would you grade the "tact or strategy" of a president who strategically put them up out of range of anyone who might be offended?!?

How strategic was it if we obviously offended Russia? I'd much rather piss off Iran. Seriously, we have troops practically next door to Iran as it is. A retaliatory invasion in response to a missile threat from them, in conjunction with the missile shield, would be a far better scenario than a nuclear skirmish with Russia... and if they're really flying nuclear bombers to Cuba, then how exactly are our missile shields in eastern Europe going to help? Besides, if the missile sites can reach Iran from all the way up by Russia, doesn't it stand to reason that the reverse is also true? Think, man. Iran would make a far less potent adversary than Russia... and, last I checked, pissing off a superpower that's not your ally is a bad idea, not the

Will Robinson wrote:Rule #1 in foreign policy

People these days... especially the government and military... =/

\"alright! the cold war is BACK baby!\" - defense contractors.

MD-1118 wrote:How strategic was it if we obviously offended Russia?

The status of their indignation is of no consequence compared to their ability to hit a target or intimidate by way of the threat! If they want to be offended while we hamper their abilities so what!?!

I'd much rather piss off Iran.

We can multi-task

Seriously, we have troops practically next door to Iran as it is. A retaliatory invasion in response to a missile threat from them, in conjunction with the missile shield, would be a far better scenario than a nuclear skirmish with Russia...

Sadly everyone knows we aren't capable of invading Iran so that option is a last resort at best.
As for the missiles that Iran might launch, you can bet Russia isn't the only one affected by the missile shield but if Russia were to launch they would have to try to attack a bunch of NATO sites to take out the missile shield locations unless we were dumb enough to only put them in Iraq

and if they're really flying nuclear bombers to Cuba, then how exactly are our missile shields in eastern Europe going to help?

The shield isn't supposed to deal with that threat, our air force will

Besides, if the missile sites can reach Iran from all the way up by Russia, doesn't it stand to reason that the reverse is also true?

The shield doesn't hit targets on the ground in Iran, or Russia, or anywhere! It hits the incoming missiles so it makes sense to have them spread around in all the allied countries not just in Iraq or wherever you would limit them to...

Think, man. Iran would make a far less potent adversary than Russia...

they are both too big and strong to invade so they each get dealt with using whatever tactics serve us best. The missile shield is one method that works against each for slightly different reasons. Iran because they are just crazy enough to go all jihad martyr on someone and Russia becase it's a balance of power versus opposing power, you can't let them think they will win easily or they might march on one or more of their old republiks, cold war and all that...we beat them once at that game so maybe the game never really ended, we just took a stand down approach while they internally crumbled a bit, now we're both establishing the new boundaries, same ★■◆● different day.

and, last I checked, pissing off a superpower that's not your ally is a bad idea,

If all you have at your disposal is the ability to piss them off you would be correct but if you have the ability to keep them in check it's a good thing.
It's all just posturing on their part as it is on ours, it's not as if we were all warm and fuzzy best friends and all of a sudden we went and slept with their girlfriend, it's just the typical push and shove relationship of two heavyweights in the ring. Lets hope the thing ends in a draw. But I'll be damned if I'd turn the other cheek to Putin, he'd put a hurtin' on anyone who lets him!!

When did the U.S. offer Russia their anti-missile technology? Give me a link 'cause I don't believe it for a second. Perhaps they offered to place American anti-missiles in positions to protect Russia while the targeting and control and technology all remained in U.S. hands. As if any non-NATO country would ever allow that.
It is called a \"balance of power\" for a reason. When you remove the ability of one partner to respond militarily then there is no balance any more. So when you eliminate Russian ability use military missiles you neuter their threat and suddenly they are at the mercy of your weapons. Little wonder they are squawking. And thank you very much America for poking the bear with sticks. Every one that lives next to it now has to put up with a p*ssed off bear.

If your talking about my post, it was the Russians who offered us the use of one of there old base's along with the provision that they also help man it. We declined.

Thanks, Ford, for understanding. Good to see I'm not the only person left that knows the old adage \"Let sleeping dogs lie\".

Ford, Reagan offered the Soviets the missile technology during the SDI talks, in an effort to make the entire thing more palatable to them.

Oh, and btw, how does Canada intend to handle the fact that Russia has planted it’s flag in the Arctic…(to get at that 90 billion barrels of oil, no doubt) We had nothing to do with that.

And, I don’t need no a stinkin link…It’s a historical fact (missile thing)

Spidey: Gorbachov also offered to destroy all Russia's nuclear arsenal if the U.S. would do the same and Regan declined. How serious was either offer? What conditions had to be met? To claim that Regan offered Russia the U.S. anti-missile technology is naive to say the least. As I recall the offer consisted of telling them how the system worked in general terms and then leaving a country that was more or less bankrupt at the time the task of developing and building it. Right that was going to work.

I'm sure the U.S. would love to install an anti-missile battery in middle of Russia that only they could operate. How simple would it be to use the same devices against any Russian missile when you are right in the midst of them at point blank range.

Canada's plans to keep Russia out of the Arctic oil and gas are the same ones we have to keep the U.S. from declaring the Northwest Passage as International waters. We will send out a few scientists on Ski-doos ,plant a couple of flags, then throw ourselves at the mercy of some international court or other. That's all we can afford. 30 million people in the third largest country in the world, 80% live within 100 miles of the U.S. border. That's not a country it's a strip mall.

Here's the real problem. Putin, over the years, has become Russia's head mafioso. While at the start he seemed to be a guy we could do business with, relations hace since been going down hill. As with any bully, Putin percieves the world as revolving around him. So instead of formulating Russian policy's to benefit it citizens, Putin devises policy to make himself look tough and line his pockets.

Now look around the world. Why would Putin want to rekindle a cold war relationship with America? Other than Iraq and Afghanistan, what countrues have we invaded? Have we invaded France? Britain? Japan? South America? Africa? India? Indonesia? China? Germany? Shall I go on? Would not a good business plan to promote be one of strengthening ties with us? Does Russia want to hang it's hammer and sickle on Iran? After the Gorbachev era why would a Russian leader want to back slide his countries relationship with America?

Now I'm not sure as to what the status of SALT 1, 2 and 3 is, but I suspect we still have enough of the MAD nuclear strike ability that having anti-missile battery's or not in Europe is not going to swing the balance of power one way or the other. We already have anti-missile capability right here in the good old U S of A that we don't really need them stationed in Europe for our protection. The Euro's OTH, can quite clearly see the threat Iran poses and thus wants them on their soil.

So if Putin suffers from the Napoleon complex, he would best be advised to look at the net gain Russia obtained from prior leaders like Khrushchev and revise his thinking.

woodchip wrote:....We already have anti-missile capability right here in the good old U S of A that we don't really need them stationed in Europe for our protection.....

The anti-missile missile systems are far from perfect so having an early shot or two at anything lifting off from the region would improve our chances at culling the barrage before it makes it's way closer.

The biggest reason is it gives the breakaway republiks a feeling of belonging to a new power that will protect them from the old Russian master.

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:....We already have anti-missile capability right here in the good old U S of A that we don't really need them stationed in Europe for our protection.....

The anti-missile missile systems are far from perfect so having an early shot or two at anything lifting off from the region would improve our chances at culling the barrage before it makes it's way closer.

The biggest reason is it gives the breakaway republiks a feeling of belonging to a new power that will protect them from the old Russian master.

If I am not mistaken the anti missiles do not have the range to hit a ICBM lifting off a thousand miles away. Capabilities are for missiles already on their downward part of the launch arc. Reference Iraq's missiles launched at our troops and into Israel.

I think you have that more or less right Woodchip. Except you have to add in how Putin is using the West as a scapegoat for any problems Russia is having. Russians now think that Europe is using U.S. muscle to get Russian oil and gas. It plays well at home and so Putin can run fairly open and free elections without having to come across as Zimbabwe on steroids and risk international sanctions.
From a BBC article written by a man taking a trip down the Volga river:

The rotund teacher talked enthusiastically about Queen Elizabeth. Students got up and gave meaningful speeches about Anglo-Russian friendship.

But minutes later the same students were telling me quite openly how they consider America their enemy and that America and its Nato allies are intent on undermining Russia.

Later in the day, I went to meet a group of teenagers from a Kremlin-sponsored youth movement called Nashi (Ours).

They all trumpeted the same line. America wants to keep us weak, it wants our oil. Washington, I was told, has engineered revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia to turn those countries against Russia. It has expanded Nato to encircle Russia.

Together with the young activists I then went off to meet a couple of Stalingrad veterans. The two ladies were both in their mid-80s and bedecked with medals.

Over tea and cake they told me of their wartime adventures that had taken them from Stalingrad to Berlin.

I asked them what they thought of the British and Americans. Surely they must have some warm feelings for their wartime allies?

With fire in her eyes one of them glared at me.

\"The Americans always claim they won the war,\" she said. \"That's rubbish. We won the war. They only joined in when it was already clear the Germans were going to lose.\"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241042.stm