BF2S Forums Russia nuclear bombers in Cuba

ATG wrote:

So, we place a missile shield in Europe and this is not meant to be a threat to Russia, so Russia wants to send heavy bombers to Cuba, and this " crosses a red line. "


It brings to the forefront again the stupid spending our government does. We should let Europe defend Europe. Building a missile shield for them while our borders are open makes as much sense as standing on our head and packing rocks in our asses.

"We seek strategic cooperation with the Russians. We want to work with them on preventing missiles from rogue nations like Iran from threatening our friends and allies," said Perino.

But Medvedev has warned that the missile defense project worsens regional security and will force Moscow to consider counter-measures.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1

Here ATG. Reality check. This missile shield has fuck all to do with Europe. Its to protect the USA and US military bases in Europe. Because let me tell you the people of Europe don't want the missile bases. Same way we don't want you listening stations and your torture planes.  Luckily we don't get US news/propaganda on our TV 24/7 so we can see this for what it actually is. Do you think the Iranians are stupid? If they nuke, they get nuked. Simple. The media is painting them as a nation of cavemen who would be just crazy enough to do such a thing, to justify this kind of shit.

Mutually assured destruction has kept the peace for the last 60 years and now you want to tip the balance. To correct that balance Russia has to be assured it can strike the US or the balance tips and MAD doesn't work anymore.
This is all about US power and having a leaver against Russia, China etc. This reminds me of the Cuban Missile crises. USA sticks missiles in Turkey within striking distance of Major Russian cities FIRST sparking the whole crises, then blames it all on the Russians.

Don't patronise me and my fellow Europeans by suggesting it's the USA protecting Europe.

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

So, we place a missile shield in Europe and this is not meant to be a threat to Russia, so Russia wants to send heavy bombers to Cuba, and this " crosses a red line. "


It brings to the forefront again the stupid spending our government does. We should let Europe defend Europe. Building a missile shield for them while our borders are open makes as much sense as standing on our head and packing rocks in our asses.

"We seek strategic cooperation with the Russians. We want to work with them on preventing missiles from rogue nations like Iran from threatening our friends and allies," said Perino.

But Medvedev has warned that the missile defense project worsens regional security and will force Moscow to consider counter-measures.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1

Here ATG. Reality check. This missile shield has fuck all to do with Europe. Its to protect the USA and US military bases in Europe. Because let me tell you the people of Europe don't want the missile bases. Same way we don't want you listening stations and your torture planes.  Luckily we don't get US news/propaganda on our TV 24/7 so we can see this for what it actually is. Do you think the Iranians are stupid? If they nuke, they get nuked. Simple. The media is painting them as a nation of cavemen who would be just crazy enough to do such a thing, to justify this kind of shit.

Mutually assured destruction has kept the peace for the last 60 years and now you want to tip the balance. To correct that balance Russia has to be assured it can strike the US or the balance tips and MAD doesn't work anymore.
This is all about US power and having a leaver against Russia, China etc. This reminds me of the Cuban Missile crises. USA sticks missiles in Turkey within striking distance of Major Russian cities FIRST sparking the whole crises, then blames it all on the Russians.

Don't patronise me and my fellow Europeans by suggesting it's the USA protecting Europe.

the world is ours.

usmarine2 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

ATG sir?  ello

What, The Zapruder Film?

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

So, we place a missile shield in Europe and this is not meant to be a threat to Russia, so Russia wants to send heavy bombers to Cuba, and this " crosses a red line. "


It brings to the forefront again the stupid spending our government does. We should let Europe defend Europe. Building a missile shield for them while our borders are open makes as much sense as standing on our head and packing rocks in our asses.

"We seek strategic cooperation with the Russians. We want to work with them on preventing missiles from rogue nations like Iran from threatening our friends and allies," said Perino.

But Medvedev has warned that the missile defense project worsens regional security and will force Moscow to consider counter-measures.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1

Here ATG. Reality check. This missile shield has fuck all to do with Europe. Its to protect the USA and US military bases in Europe. Because let me tell you the people of Europe don't want the missile bases. Same way we don't want you listening stations and your torture planes.  Luckily we don't get US news/propaganda on our TV 24/7 so we can see this for what it actually is. Do you think the Iranians are stupid? If they nuke, they get nuked. Simple. The media is painting them as a nation of cavemen who would be just crazy enough to do such a thing, to justify this kind of shit.

Mutually assured destruction has kept the peace for the last 60 years and now you want to tip the balance. To correct that balance Russia has to be assured it can strike the US or the balance tips and MAD doesn't work anymore.
This is all about US power and having a leaver against Russia, China etc. This reminds me of the Cuban Missile crises. USA sticks missiles in Turkey within striking distance of Major Russian cities FIRST sparking the whole crises, then blames it all on the Russians.

Don't patronise me and my fellow Europeans by suggesting it's the USA protecting Europe.

Hey, slow down cowboy.

I have stated no opinion on why they are there or what the missiles are for.
I object in the strongest terms my governments shockings wastes of money.

Think about it. This is from an official Whitehouse website;

I. Will Social Security be “bankrupt” by 2042?  Yes. Bankrupt means “having insufficient assets to cover one’s debts,”1 which applies to Social Security in 2042, according to the Social Security Trustees most recent report.

I like the way they go on to make an analogy about a small business going bankrupt.

The U.S. politician who best represents my view is Ron Paul.

usmarine2 wrote:

ATG wrote:

The U.S. politician who best represents my view is Ron Paul.

/facedesk

I wonder what politician best represents your views




no really, i do wonder

I bet you were expecting me to say something like "Hitler" or "usmarine doesn't even have views or opinions on matters"

but nope



nope

JahManRed wrote:

ATG wrote:

So, we place a missile shield in Europe and this is not meant to be a threat to Russia, so Russia wants to send heavy bombers to Cuba, and this " crosses a red line. "


It brings to the forefront again the stupid spending our government does. We should let Europe defend Europe. Building a missile shield for them while our borders are open makes as much sense as standing on our head and packing rocks in our asses.

"We seek strategic cooperation with the Russians. We want to work with them on preventing missiles from rogue nations like Iran from threatening our friends and allies," said Perino.

But Medvedev has warned that the missile defense project worsens regional security and will force Moscow to consider counter-measures.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1

Here ATG. Reality check. This missile shield has fuck all to do with Europe. Its to protect the USA and US military bases in Europe. Because let me tell you the people of Europe don't want the missile bases. Same way we don't want you listening stations and your torture planes.  Luckily we don't get US news/propaganda on our TV 24/7 so we can see this for what it actually is. Do you think the Iranians are stupid? If they nuke, they get nuked. Simple. The media is painting them as a nation of cavemen who would be just crazy enough to do such a thing, to justify this kind of shit.

Mutually assured destruction has kept the peace for the last 60 years and now you want to tip the balance. To correct that balance Russia has to be assured it can strike the US or the balance tips and MAD doesn't work anymore.
This is all about US power and having a leaver against Russia, China etc. This reminds me of the Cuban Missile crises. USA sticks missiles in Turkey within striking distance of Major Russian cities FIRST sparking the whole crises, then blames it all on the Russians.

Don't patronize me and my fellow Europeans by suggesting it's the USA protecting Europe.

Your in need of a reality check. 10 interceptor missiles. Your comparing this with the deployment of Jupiter ballistic missiles in Turkey? Isn't it the Europeans that are always complaining about "heavy handedness" or an unequal response? You've also completely ignored the fact that the US tried to include the Russians in the shield.

For the record I'm against it. It's just not worth it..

As part of a missile defense deal, Poland has asked for billions of dollars worth of military investment from the U.S. to upgrade its air defenses, including Patriot ground-to-air missiles

..letem burn. The more nations that get Nukes the more likely a proxy will get nukes. Your now faced with trying to apply MAD to a group of people who aren't concerned about self preservation. So.. have a ball.

Fuck deliberation. Lets level the Kremlin and have the last laugh.

JahManRed wrote:

Whatever is relevant at the time. The turkey missiles tipped the balance and this system also tips the balance. They are both rapped up in different packaging but have the same goals. And if your offer your friend a tissue before you kick them in the teeth, it still doesn't make it cool btw.
There are a bunch of radicalised Christian fundamentalists out there. But every christian country doesn't' want to enter into a futile war based on a minorities beliefs. But they have a voice and they push such beliefs. Its up to every right thinking citizen to see it for what it its. Which you do. Muslim nations are no different. The biggest priority to Any human is self preservation and that transcends all religious beliefs. Unless ofcource you are a nutter and we all have a minority of them. Even with all our progress, there are still people killing each other here in NI over a tinny religious difference.
This tedious link between  Iran and suicide bombers seams to be bases of your equally tedious link. So the Iranians are trigger happy nutters willing to leave their entire nation a radioactive wast land because, the same people who said Saddam was able to drop sarin gas on London in 40min's also say Iran is paying suicide bombers to kill Jews. We will never agree anyway because I don't believe a word your "intelligence" agencies say based on the proven lies they have been feeding us. Were as you do. Possible its national pride, but hopefully you seen what was made and done to C Powell. Non existing WMD, C Powell's(should have been USA first black president in my eyes) humiliating puppet show to the UN, etc..........
/Drunk disclaimer

Kmarion wrote:

The thought of this having any impact on "the balance" is insane. It forces you to completely disregard the actual components of the system.. not to mention the willingness to be inclusive with the Russians. A crucial point you've ignored now three times. It's another key difference between the Turkey situation and this. I personally would not offer any European country shit. I'm content to allow them kick themselves in the teeth (again). Americans certainly don't need a shield in Euroland. If we would just back off and let you handle your own matters it would be better for us both..

Insane? My understanding is that this system shoots down nukes rendering them useless in effect. So basically the silos they came from are removed from the balance we have been in for the past 60 years. So that imbalance has to be corrected with either a similar system,restarting another kind of arms race or more nukes in a different location. Maybe that location will force another set of proxy wars. I'll admit I haven't read up on the shield so I could be wrong on that.
The Russians commented on the "inclusive"ness with contempt as far as our media portrayed it. Maybe yours talked it up as inclusiveness. Ours talked it as a political stunt with Russians politicians say so on camera. I'm glad we agree that I don't want shit and you don't want to give shit. I wish that was the case and using the relationship between our two countries as an example, forgetting about the rest of Europe.I would say that 99% of the people in UK and USA don't really care for the "special" relationship between our two counties. But we as UK citizens know our entire economy depends our our relationship. The current financial crises only serves to emphasise that. You Sneeze we catch the cold. Our economy depends on yours. Not vise verse.And hence the unflinching support for the war of terror. Even tho the people don't want it.

Kmarion wrote:

I never once mentioned a link between suicide bombers and Iran. I simply brought up a relevant point regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is completely logical to acknowledge the fact that the more of these weapons that are out there the more likely they are to fall into the hands of extremist. This applies to all beliefs.  There are madmen out there that could give a shit how "tedious" you think their cause is (This just in)..

Maybe you haven't. But it seams to be a link that is used regularly by right wing media and the current administration to portray the Iranians as terrorists, like say hammas. Who blow themselves up. Iran are then portrayed as a nation who are willing to fire nukes at a nation which will end in a retaliatory nuke strike, naturally. Which is in effect one huge suicide bombing of nations. They won't do it, just like say, Indian and Pakistan openly shooting, killing and fucked with each other for decades and never got anywhere as close to the Cuban missile crises.

Kmarion wrote:

Self preservation in this world does not transcend all religious beliefs. Your thinking like a rational and non-religious type person. I wish everyone held that philosophy.

I mean this with all sincerity: If the Russians want to put a radar station in Cuba with ten interceptor missiles I really don't care. The US could overwhelm that system ten thousand times over. You really need to put things into perspective. It would be easier to take this argument seriously if you did..

I don't  care who puts what where as long as the balance is maintained. I have things in perspective. The perspective I see here. Which is different to yours.
We live thousands of miles apart in different countries. Our perspectives are never going to be the same.

Kmarion wrote:

As far as Colin Powell.. he was a great man whose warnings and positions went ignored by this administration.

The interceptors form a protective bubble over a set geographic area, regardless of where the missiles originate.

And the Russians will be nuking Poland because what?

Dilbert_X wrote:

The interceptors form a protective bubble over a set geographic area, regardless of where the missiles originate.

And the Russians will be nuking Poland because what?

They hate eachother tbh, The polish weren't happy to be part of the Soviet bloc after WWII

FEOS wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Insane? My understanding is that this system shoots down nukes rendering them useless in effect. So basically the silos they came from are removed from the balance we have been in for the past 60 years. So that imbalance has to be corrected with either a similar system,restarting another kind of arms race or more nukes in a different location. Maybe that location will force another set of proxy wars. I'll admit I haven't read up on the shield so I could be wrong on that.

In order for those nukes to be shot down, they would have to have been targeted and launched first, correct? You seem to be overlooking that fact as well as the fact that the sole purpose of these things is to prevent the deaths of thousands/millions...of your fellow Euros. Why is that a problem?

So you're against a country being able to defend itself (or, in this case, its allies) against a first strike from a ballistic missile (nuke or otherwise)?

Where the nukes are located is relatively irrelevant (at least for ICBMs...MRBMs have limited range, so location is more critical). It's where they are targeted that is important when it comes to these interceptors. The interceptors form a protective bubble over a set geographic area, regardless of where the missiles originate.

You missed the other option, that the missile shield is used to intercept a retaliatory strike. Russia gets rightfully pissy about missile shields because they are bugger all use against a Russian first strike (Russia has way too many missiles for such a system to make a significant impact on) but a retaliatory strike could be significantly reduced by a missile shield. This kind of missile shield is widely considered a first strike weapon as it is predominantly useful if you attack first and only have retalliatory strikes to deal with.

JahManRed wrote:

When one side is blocked from retaliating with equal or greater force, then the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction does not apply. MAD has kept the peace for decades. I don't see the USA or Russia disarming their nuke by the hundred. So it still applies. This shield disrupts that balance.

FEOS wrote:

See below. The missile shield doesn't keep Russia from retaliating with equal or greater force. If it does, then Russia only has a couple of dozen missiles...which would be news, one would think..

JahManRed wrote:

don't patronise me or my fellow Euros. This has little to do with protecting us. Its about protecting your own interests, US military bases(which shouldn't be there) and getting one up on the Russians.

FEOS wrote:

I'll type it slowly for you: IT....HAS....NOTHING....TO....DO....WITH....RUSSIA.
The system proposed for E Europe can only engage warheads heading for Europe. So unless you think Russia is going to launch missiles at Europe, your argument holds no water. The missile shield in Europe has--from the beginning--been about defending against small numbers of single-warhead missiles launched from the ME/North Africa. Last time I looked at a map, Russia was in neither of those places.

Since when is relaying facts patronizing?

Ok, so the Russians on my TV sets complaining about the shield didn't exist. Maybe I was hallucinating when I watch Putin talk about it. Just because you didn't see or hear it doesn't mean it didn't happen. OK. Ive said this a few times now, but you seam to be ignoring it. Maybe I should type slowly in a patronizing way for you too. THERE.......ARE.......THOUSANDS.......OF.........AMERICAN.........SOLDERS.......IN.......EUROPE. As well as airbases, listen stations etc. Plenty military targets. It would be the logical first strike target for the Iranian with there limited capabilities. Its the US that's talking up war with the Iranians so if one kicks off that would be their first target. US military basses in Europe and the shield would offer some protection against such a strike. As Iran's enemy is the USA not Europe then the shield is obviously to protect the Americans.
Europe is a spring board for bombers and intelligence gathering for USA against Russia if war broke out. Russia would bomb US military bases in Europe, maybe not with nukes but it would still target them. I'm sure they have been on a target list since they were built.

That pic could be anything really.

Remember this?

Its just as fuzzy and meaningless.

And my all time favourite

They're just frigging trucks.

We do know forklifts are dangerous though, BF2SF has shown us that.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-07-31 04:03:34)

oh shit. Taji!