Axis of ex-Commi's (?)

the_syco

[url=http://www.military.com/news/article/schwartz-nukes-in-cuba-a-red-line.html?ESRC=eb.nl]military.com[/url] wrote:

WASHINGTON - Russia would cross "a red line for the United States of America" if it were to base nuclear-capable bombers in Cuba, the nominee for Air Force chief of staff has warned.
"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 Gen. Norton Schwartz.

This can be seen in two lights.


In one light, the USAF got their head guy sacked, so there's a few that wants the job. Stating something like this could gain the USAF some money, and thus the nominee gets some cred for it.


In another light, this could be seen as a worrying prospect for the USA. With their army already stretched thin, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wanting to buy arms from Russia, and Russia threatening everyone with their warships to the North (Russia wants the oil in them Arctic waters), they may act like a rat in a corner, and lash out?

Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, against the USA. Oh, and the Taliban, Al Qaeda harassing their troops over seas, it'll be "fun" to see how long they'll stay in that region, and how their, erm, sight, will change towards other "threats".

Tea drinker

Well if you look at the way the countries converge on the arctic circle it looks to me like Russia is entitled to the lions share of the region.

With the missile shield next door to Russia USA is attempting to erode the stability that arms pacts have provided us for the past 20 odd years.
One can only assume USA are intending to pull out of this recession with an arms race. I fail to see how creating instability is adding to our safety. These are worrying devolpments considering the long history of naked aggression USA has.

Chavez is entitled to buy conventional weapons from who ever he likes. I dunno how much of a threat he is under from US though. Isn't he having/making trouble with the neighbours down there?

Overheal

ah so thats why they pulled that publicity stunt last year in the the artic.

I really dont know. the more actions I see from the military these days and the way the economy is operating the more I have to agree that America appears to be gearing into another arms race: after all its been slow and difficult for them to justify the constant advancements in warfare superiority: to name a few we have the JSF program, the UCAV and UAV programmes, the Stryker Programme, The X-Craft Project, and lets not forget Lasers and Railguns for good measure. All exciting stuff by itself but its a cause for worry in the political spectrum.

All of that plus annual maintenance costs of the standing military force are amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.

I dont mean to sound conspiratal but it seems coincidental so that America wants to install new missile defence systems in Europe, maintain its position in the Middle East, etc. and now their making threats to Russia that if they do the same they'll kick their ass.

Onto the subject of oil, how to fund such a buildup? Its quite simple I guess: Russia has the artic, and America has the Gulf, as well as some deposits in the pacific im sure. Not sure about the Artic but theres enough oil left in US territory that is untapped that if exploited would completely remove its dependency on foreign oil. Its been sitting there untouched by governmental order for rainy days such as economic collapse and world war 2.5

now all we need is something colossally stupid to happen.

Sand

There may be a bit of sabre rattling with various military groups looking for additional funding, but Russian bombers basing in Cuba wont really affect the strategic threat faced by the US as if Russia wants to nuke the US it can do so anyway. The missile shield proposed simply cannot repel the amount of nukes the Russians can fire and the Russians are well aware of that. Anyone who believes the Russians are seriously concerned their nuclear arsenal will be negated by a few missile launchers in eastern europe is on coke.

The best move from the US would be to shrug and say "fine, whatever". If a significant portion of the Russian nuclear force is based in Cuba theyre all the closer for the US to keep an eye on.

Overheal

True, they both know that even if the other did nothing to retailiate and either USA or Russia was wiped off the map, the fallout alone would be catastophic. Chernobyl alone caused its own fair amount of global carnage: now multiply that by an unimaginable number.

lostexpectation

nuke planes in cuba that be like putting them in poland or somewhere oh wait

donaghs

I'd would be fearful of Russia establishing a base in Cuba again, and the tension that would escalate from this.

But from a Russian point of view: the US has effectively circled Russia with bases. Norway, the Baltic States, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Turkey are all NATO members. Many of them have US bases. Iraq and Afghanistan are in US hands. US troops also have a presence in Georgia and the 'Stans. Not to mention to their presence in South Korea and Japan. And they are trying to get Ukraine to join NATO. So you could say there is a slight imbalance.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

after all its been slow and difficult for them to justify the constant advancements in warfare superiority: to name a few we have the JSF program, the UCAV and UAV programmes, the Stryker Programme, The X-Craft Project, and lets not forget Lasers and Railguns for good measure. All exciting stuff by itself but its a cause for worry in the political spectrum.

There's nothing particularly wrong with any of those programs and other than the budgetary question, I see nothing politically wrong with them. JSF is to replace the decades-old Harrier and F-16s; UAVs to a large extent are to help counterbalance the fact that the US military has shrunk drastically in the last 20 years; the Strykers are basically just mechanising infantry, again making the individual troops more capable and better suiting the Army to the current operational requirements (i.e. not defending against the Red Army); the LCSs (X-Craft) are required because until now the Navy has focused on defeating the Soviet Navy in blue-water ops and has no ships suited for inshore work; and the lasers and railguns are simply technological developments.

The US military suffered basically ten years of neglect in the 90s, and has to catch up. My Bradley is older than my driver or gunner. Compared to features in modern tanks produced by other nations, the M1 Abrams is behind the curve because the government, in its wisdom, spent the money elsewhere. These programmes and expenses are there because they need to be. In many cases, the US is not the world-leader in military technology.

NTM

Overheal

Actually besides america warning of Russia about Cuba - what has big red chewing gum been up to these days? Besides Putin's new puppet going into power and the march at red square I havent heard much

mumhaabu

Seems rational really, The Russians feel the same way about the yanks placing a missile shield system here in the Czech Republic. I am in the Czech Republic now and have spoken to both Czech's, Russians and Americans and all are opposed.

The Czechs are livid and it seems dubya is trying to create FUD and restart a new cold war. So if the Americans are filibustering on Russia's doorstep, then Medvedev *cough* Putin thinks well two can play at that game thus this recent Cuba activity. It is stupid because both countries will rank up military spending instead of enjoying mutal peace and cut taxes and grow both economies. War only causes problems it never solves them.