US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba

reply to post by alienstar


Well, we have in the past. "Ferret Flights" were done in the 1950-60's I believe. We'd send all sort of surveillance aircraft into their airspace.

And yep, a lot got shot down.

Originally posted by alienstar
I take is your Russian correct?

Yes I am.

Originally posted by alienstar
You seriously think our missile shields in former Warsaw location such as Poland etc pose a threat to Russia?

The current U.S. ABM shield being placed in Eastern Europe is crap in my opinion, and can't compare to Russia's S-300 and S-400 interceptor missiles - but I am not a military expert and this is only what I gather from reading various sources. The ABM being placed now in Eastern Europe poses no threat to Russian advanced ICBM arsenal. And honestly - no one in Russia is complaining about the 10 half-cooked missiles that probably wouldn't be able to shoot down even the old Russian missiles.

Russia and Russians see this as the first of many steps that U.S. is taking in its effort to isolate Russian militarily, and expand NATO influence all around Russia. The first step is always the hardest with all the political bickering and useless negotiations. It is the next step that Russia is afraid of, and the the step after that and onward. What will stop U.S. from deploying its new ABM there which is currently likely being developed, and in much larger numbers? And then deploying it in Ukraine, and Georgia and Azerbijan (all new U.S. puppets)? And who knows what exactly the radars will be monitoring, or what plans U.S. has for their new NATO lap dogs.


Many Russians are convinced that more steps of this nature by U.S. will come. Frankly I am too. If all U.S. wanted to do was place 10 miserly outdated ABM systems - why bother? Why go through all these international politics loopholes. U.S. is hellbent on placing them there, and this is what concerns us. It is obviously not meant for Iran, which as I said has yet to develop a functioning nuclear bomb, and is a decade away from a true ICBM. U.S. unrelenting focus hints at a deeper agenda.

And if you take the ABM along with everything else U.S. has been doing around Russia lately (funding coups in Ukraine and Georgia, trying to bribe Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan governments for energy deals, supplying unstable Georgia with weapons, expanding NATO all around Russia, hostile media coverage of topics concerning Russia, bombing and splitting of Serbia - key Russian ally) you start to see a bigger picture. Maybe it is paranoia on the part of Russians, but you cannot deny that U.S. has been very active around Russia since the late 90's.

I am just presenting the point of view how most Russians see these events. Maybe the truth is in the middle, but it is hard to deny that Russia's moves are reactionary.

This is not and never was about the ABM shield by itself. Russia's isssue is with the entire range of U.S. actions which appear to combine in an aggressive agenda.



Now how do you perceive the continued existance and growth of NATO long after Soviet Union is gone? Why in your opinion did U.S. fund and promote the political coups ("color revolutions") in Ukraine and Georgia, and NATO's aims at expanding there? And do many Americans even know what U.S. is doing in the Caucasus and around the Caspians Sea - obviously positioning to get a slice of energy resources there and trying to bribe local governments?

[edit on 23-7-2008 by maloy]

reply to post by jerico65


The one flights i'm aware of was the u2's and that one flight that was shot down and was held by Russia.I'm stating Bombing flights going into Russian airspace.

The US ABM is state-of-the-art, not some second-rate technology. Besides, if it were, you wouldn't be so hard-pressed in worrying about it.




[edit on 23-7-2008 by jetxnet]

reply to post by maloy


I agree with you on some points you made..Why Bush sticking this missile shield in former Warsaw countries is not a good thing and presently i always was opposed to the missile shield.If he wants to stick it around Alaska,Canada and the Us mainland and other areas of Us interests thats one thing.But Ukraine, and Georgia and Azerbaijan are former Russian countries...Why do you think they would want to join NATO?even though maybe it was offered that means they could also refuse.

It isn't just for defense from Russia though.

Japan wanted for defense of North Korea and China.

Originally posted by alienstar
Its always Russia troubling the United Stated and other NATO countries with its nuclear bombers.Just the past 3 years ago there have been incidents in UK,US,Norway,Scottland etc.

All took place in international airspace, above international waters. Perceive these exercises as aggressive if you will, but all they are are exercises. Russia stopped them in 1990's not because it felt so cordial and peaceful to US and UK, but because of lack of funding, and because of generals being uninterested in the country's defense and military training. Russia is simply resuming its training.

These bombers do not fly in threatening manner, and always allow US and UK to intercept them at will. No one realistically thinks they pose any danger, and if Russia were to really attack it would not use the Tu-95 but the Tu-160 which are far more difficult to intercept.

The truth such border approach in international airspace training tactics are the most realistic exercise the Russians can carry out.

Originally posted by alienstar
One practically buzzed a aircraft carrier.

That wasn't a particularly smart exercise by Russians, if only because of remote chance that an accidental shoot down by US would trigger a political disaster. Other than that - the carrier is in international waters, and cannot prohibit planes overflying it based on international maritime laws.

Originally posted by alienstar
That i know of the United States don't even do this behavior.

Right - because whose carriers would they buzz? Russia has but one rusting carrier - and the only reason you would want to overfly that is to assess its scrap metal value. And exercising around France's or UK's carriers would be rather useless.

On the other hand U.S. submarines are known to have watched from very close proximity when Russia's subs tested new missiles - and when the Kursk sank. Both - the sub chasing and long-distance air exercises are remnants of the Cold War. And U.S. does its fair share to point any fingers.

Originally posted by alienstar
I never hard of the us flying in Russian airspace with bombers

"in"? No. Near - most likely yes. Russian bomber do not fly "in" U.S. airspace. They approach and turn around.

Originally posted by alienstar
RAF Tornados have intercepted eight Russian bombers as they approached UK airspace.

No doubt they were going to bomb coventry into oblivion.

Originally posted by alienstar
Russian bombers flew undetected across Arctic

...in a move perceived highly threating by the Polar Bear and Penguin commission.

Originally posted by alienstar
What would Russia do if we started with b52 runs on their coastline or buzzing the ships up there with b2s????Shoot them down....i would think so..

Russia would simply send interceptors to monitor them. A shoot down would not happen, given that everyone knows the possible consequences of such hotheaded actions.

Really such approach exercises are not needed today, with likes of cruise missiles, advances ICBMS, missile submarines, and aircraft carriers. Russia's exercises are fairly useless, and only provide some training for the crews. I honestly do not support them because they are a waste of money.

As someone pointed out Russian bombers are primarily armed with long-range cruise missiles. An actual attack would not involve flying close to the enemy borders or crossing them, but deploying the cruise missiles deep in international airspace to allow enough time for a return trip without being intercepted.

Originally posted by jetxnet
The US ABM is state-of-the-art, not some second-rate technology. Besides, if it were, you wouldn't be so hard-pressed in worrying about it.

Yet it failed misserably when given to Israel to defend against absolete-as-a-flying-tin-can Iraqi Scuds, during the Gulf War. Israel promtly returned them, and developed its own systems. Furthermore the US tests of the system in the late 90's weren't very successful.

And when I called the U.S. system crap, it was in comparison to Russia's S-400. There is a consensus worldwide that S-400 is superior on all levels to any ABM fielded by any country today - you can gather this from countless sources.

That is not to say that the U.S. does not have a superior system in developement or even operation (secretly).

[edit on 23-7-2008 by maloy]

Originally posted by alienstar
But Ukraine, and Georgia and Azerbaijan are former Russian countries...Why do you think they would want to join NATO?even though maybe it was offered that means they could also refuse.

U.S. backed coups (Orange "revolution" and "Rose" revolution) in Ukraine and Georgia brought U.S. puppet presidents to power. In both countries the victor of the actual election was illegaly ousted, and Yuschenko and Saakashvilli installed in their place.

Both of them have continuously pressed for NATO membership ever since they were installed (surprise surprise), despite overwhelming opposition from Parliament and the people. These topics are far to long to discuss here, but it would suffice to say that NATO is actively recruiting everyone who has grudge against Russia.

Being an American, I don't support the defensive missile shield in old USSR countries, but I cannot express how much I do not want a second advantage point for Russia, first being Eastern Russia-American Northwest. I don't think nuclear war will ever happen, but it does not put an easy feeling in my stomach when a nuclear power interprets U.S. actions as hostile against them so they decide they will return the favor.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
-Mahatma Ghandi

Originally posted by centurion1211

Even if what you say is true - and who but the iranians know for sure - iran continues to try and upgrade their ballistic missile capabilities, so your assessment would only be temporary at best. We need to be ready to defend before the iranians can field a missile that could reach Europe or the U.S.

And what would you have the U.S. do? Sit back and wait for iran to develop the capability to hit the U.S. and Europe before doing anything about it? Can you not see how doing it your way would leave the West open to blackmail by radicals in iran and their proxies? Maybe that's your true agenda ...

Can we stop this nonsense about the U.S. missile defense system being a "secret attack system" now ...

[edit on 7/23/2008 by centurion1211]

Even if what you say is true - and who but the US Generals know for sure -US continues to try and install their Defensive missile capabilities around the world, so your assessment would only be temporary at best. Russia needs to be ready to defend her self before the Americans can field enough missiles that could cripple Russia defensive capabilities

And what would you have the Russia do? Sit back and wait for US to install enough missiles around Russia and Europe before doing anything about it? Can you not see how doing it your way would leave the Russia open to blackmail by US and their proxies? Maybe that's your true agenda...

I'm not here to argue whether Russia has the right to do this or whether our missles in EU are for defensive purposes. This game has been played and always will be. My concern is that some russian pilot getting stuck on extra duty (Fatigue) accidently stray's into US airspace getting shot down causing a war. If I remember correctly didn't we (US) just have an incident with a navy plane on a training mission accidently going into Venezuela. It happens no matter how good or bad your military is. These planes will be flown for training reasons, more then likely the cuban govt will not want them flown over land and flying them south over the ocean would not make any strategic sense. This means during training flights they would be in a small space between florida, Mexico and cuba with little room for mistakes. If they were launched with hostile intentions they would be shot down, but that would be the least of our worries as this would mean that Russia has committed to nuclear war.

I wish the US and Russia would get over thier differences. We could argue over who is to blame until we are blue in the face. The only thing I know is what the US media tells me and I have lost faith in them long ago. I do remember that when the soviet union collapsed all I saw on tv was the russian people standing in food lines and reports of crime and how rogue military officers were selling off all kinds of equipment to anyone who had money. I remember thinking this could have been me standing in food lines. We won the cold war we proved we could spend more money then they could. My father was in the US military and he is a proud American. One day when I was in my low 20's I was bragging to him about how we won the cold war. He responded to this by asking me how many Russians starved and froze to death over our fear of a different political idealogy. He told me that both sides were to blame and that the cold war was nothing to be proud of. How could two sides both being the most technologically advanced nations in the world fail so miserably at diplomacy for so long. He also stated that it was far from over. History usually repeats itself. And we obviosly didn't learn.
And I can see from recent reports that one day I will be telling my grandchildren about those few years at the turn of the century when the world didn't have to live in fear of the two big kids slugging it out with nukes.


[edit on 24-7-2008 by rbilly001]

Why can only the Americans place their nukes and defence where they like and the russians cant ?

I can see youre consern when it comes to russia placing nucks and bombers in Cuba. Just like the russians are consern about the US placing nukes and defence in EU right in the russian back yard.

America has the right to defend them self, BUT so do the Russians.

AMERICA taste youre own medesin and dont cry about it. You dont own the world you share it with the rest off us.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

America wants to place a "defensive" missle shield right on Russias border, well pretty close anyway. The simple fact is that any missle can easily be turned to an offensive weapon and so i understand the russians concerns. America must have known what would happen when they decided to do it.

I support russias move to do whatever they so wish, the USA cannot go and tell other countries where they can put their missles when the US puts them wherever they damn want. I'm not a US hater before anyone starts on me, i'm just saying you can't have a double standard like this.

en.rian.ru...

MOSCOW, July 23 (RIA Novosti) - Russia should respond to U.S. missile defense plans for Central Europe by reopening a 'spy' facility in Cuba to gather intelligence on the United States, a Russian analyst said on Wednesday.

The electronic monitoring and surveillance facility near Havana at Torrens, also known as the Lourdes facility, the largest Russian Sigint site abroad, was shut down in October 2001 by then- president Vladimir Putin.

"Cuba is a unique place to gather intelligence on the United States. I believe that the reopening of this station is both possible and necessary amid the threat that the Americans are creating for Russia," Alexander Pikayev, head of the disarmament and conflict resolution department at the Russian Academy of Sciences' World Economics and International Relations Institute, told a news conference at RIA Novosti.

"Russia has every right to respond," he added.

Moscow has strongly opposed the possible deployment by the U.S. of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic as a threat to its security. Washington says the missile shield is needed to deter possible strikes from "rogue states."

A Russian military source was earlier quoted as saying that Russian strategic bombers could be stationed again in Cuba, only 90 miles from the U.S. coast, in response to the U.S. missile shield plans for Central Europe.

The Lourdes facility reportedly covered a 28 square-mile area, with 1,000-1,500 Russian engineers, technicians, and military personnel working at the base.

The complex was capable of monitoring a wide array of commercial and government communications throughout the southeastern United States, and between the United States and Europe.

Lourdes intercepted transmissions from microwave towers in the United States, communication satellite downlinks, and a wide range of shortwave and high-frequency radio transmissions.

In October 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to the brink of nuclear war when Soviet missiles were stationed in Cuba.

The crisis was resolved after 12 days when the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, backed down and ordered the missiles removed.

reply to post by CTPAX


I support this 100% and dont see anything wrong by it. The US started it all and they got to accept the responce by Russia.

This thread clearly demonstrates the even handedness of non Americans and the belligerence of Americans - here is a GOLDEN RULE for Americans - what is good for the Goose is Good for the Gander. You do not have MORE rights than any other country - all are equal. So what ever rulebook you decide to play by - we all play by. if you want nukes, we all get nukes,
if you want missiles next to Russia (defensive or not) expect Russian missiles in Cuba - defensive or not.

If Iran may not have nukes - neither may Israel -

This is all simple stuff, we all live by the same rules.

The problem with Americans is they feel they are some how morally above the rest of us even though they are the most evil country on the planet by , literally, miles.........

From the newest source Russia now denies they are placing bombers in Cuba.

Russia denies reported Cuba base plans

news.yahoo.com...

A lot of people posting here seem to think that the Russians shouldn't have a problem because their missile defense system is not offensive. What you don't realize is that the problem is not the missiles themselves but the radar.

The radar would mean that all of the Russian movements would be monitored. This is the same reason that in the 90s when Cyprus bought the S-300 defensive system from Russia, Turkey objected and went on the offensive. It's not that tiny Cyprus could attack Turkey, but the fact that all their movements would be monitored that bothered them.

reply to post by BlackProjects


We do not want another Cuban Missile scenario. Who are these Generals? are these the same ones who advocated that Saddam had WMD? We definitely have some war mongers among the military. Has Cuba come and out and threatened any country? or is it a case they are a threat just by being...I think we need cooler heads at the helm.