Thread: US Missile shield in Eastern Europe OK but Russians bombers in Cuba not - WTF?

So its ok for the US to have missile shield installed in the Eastern Europe which is on the border of Russia but Russia's plan to deploy its TU-160 supersonic bombers in Cuba ain't. Hypocrisy at its best, IMHO.

WASHINGTON, July 22: A top US Air Force officer warned on Tuesday that Russia would be crossing “a red line” if it were to use Cuba as a refuelling base for nuclear-capable bombers.

Linky US warning over Russian bombers in Cuba -DAWN - Top Stories; July 23, 2008

Things are getting interesting though.

Maybe one is defensive and the other offensive?

Prefer the frontier post myself

Of course it's brinkmanship. Just like the Russians whining about a defensive shield in Europe. Why would they oppose a defensive shield to protect from incoming missiles? Likewise, at the end of the day, what is the US going to do if Russia sends bombers to refuel in Cuba? The US sends bombers to refuel in the UK. Cuba/UK what's the difference?

These sort of strategic/tactical games are played at every level, between every nation, every day.

Some posters can't see it for what it is.

The Cuban Crisis - Redux.

Features:
-Deleted scenes;
-Commentary;
-Remixed audio.

^ yeah, was going to say that, definitely a flashback in the past

Well not sure why the worry from Russians with shield at any rate - dare say you send 1000 multiple warhead missles same location - no shield will get them all.

Originally Posted by britmaveric

Well not sure why the worry from Russians with shield at any rate - dare say you send 1000 multiple warhead missles same location - no shield will get them all.

True enough. The problem the Russians have is, if the system can shoot down missiles aimed at Russian soil it could just as well shoot those leaving!

Umm, I don't think the system was designed to shoot down anything aimed at Russia.

But, as you know, it's much easier to take a shot when you've established trajectory. So the radars go into Eastern Europe, to get a bead, and the missiles go to Canada (or Northe Dakotoia -- is there really any difference?) What's in it for Latvia or Estonia?

The same thing that's in it for Cuba.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Texpat

These sort of strategic/tactical games are played at every level, between every nation, every day.

No question about it. It's all about tit for tat. Russia cannot be criticized for objecting to missile systems on it's borders and the US cannot be for criticizing bombers in Cuba. Both will react to the other to maintain a strategic military balance. Neither side will take drastic measures to stop the other.

It's about probing for weaknesses. When the Soviets didn't bother with a manned mission into space with one of these they built.


You knew they were out of gas.

It had completed only one (unmanned) spaceflight in 1988 before the shuttle program was cancelled in 1993. It was damaged by a hangar collapse in 2002.

I would think the greater worry for the White House is Chavez and Moscow cozying up nicely. Together they have a very important portion of the world's oil . . . and Chavez may not be past nationalising US oil interests . . . while he is buying loads of Russian weapons.

Oil is the war waiting to happen, not some outdated idea of a 'shield' that harks back to the Reagan ear of evil empires but has not been adjusted to newer political realities.