Russian Bombers Could Be Deployed to Cuba - update for the millennia!

[Kuciwalker]

We've already had nukes there, IIRC. Any time a ship carrying them docks...

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by TheStinger
There really crap bombers as well.

If they put Blackjacks there it would be pretty badass.

[David Floyd]

Well, let's be fair. Russia's hypothetical response is a response to what they see as a threat - ABM on their border. While I don't think that feeling is justified, I think it is understandable because functional ABM increases the ability of the power fielding ABMs to wage war - ie, it eliminates or at least reduces MAD.

OTOH, Russia needs to understand that the US has valid security concerns - not concerns about Russia, but concerns about Iran and North Korea and other rogue states, and one way to address those concerns is with ABM. Let's face it, the technology isn't there to stop a determined ballistic missile strike - say, from Russia to the US, or vice versa - but I think we're pretty close to being able to stop a very limited strike. For example, a North Korea - West Coast strike, or an Iran-Israel/Iran-Europe/Iran-US strike.

It seems to me that the simple answer is to just make this a bilateral program with Russia and the US being equal partners. We get ABM sites in Eastern Europe, Russia gets ABM sites elsewhere if they need them, including the Western Hemisphere, we each participate fully in the program, etc. Result? Better results against international terrorism, better cooperation between the US and Russia, and - hopefully - greater development of space.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by David Floyd
...the US has valid security concerns - not concerns about Russia, but concerns about Iran ...

I don't think our spoken concerns are valid. Iran doesn't have a missile that has the range to endanger what we're supposedly trying to protect. And its made no threats in that direction. I certainly think Russia has more valid concerns about this situation than we do.

On the other hand, placing Russian bombers in Cuba would only be for the purpose of threatening the U.S. (and other neighbors) and would be in violation of the agreement that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Monroe Doctrine. If they put bombers in Cuba & I were Prez, I'd bomb the bombers.

[David Floyd]

Zkribbler, the fact that Iran doesn't CURRENTLY have the capability to hit us is exactly the point. What good is threatening to deploy a defense system in response to an offensive system that already exists?? That's destabilizing in that it would just encourage the person with the missile to go ahead and launch it, because otherwise it would be useless once the defensive system came up.

By that same argument, we might as well just disband 90% of the US Navy, since no one else CURRENTLY has the capability to threaten us.

But yes, putting bombers in Cuba is a disproportionate response. We can easily claim that our systems in Eastern Europe are not directed at Russia, while the Russians can make no such claim about bombers in Cuba - at least not with a straight face.

[Zkribbler]

Jewish saying: "I'm an old man. And I've had many troubles. Most of which have never happened."

I think we have better things to do that to build a defense system against a threat that does not exist and isn't likely to exist in the near future. --Especially when our "defense system" threatens a world power like Russia.

BTW: Even if Iran had (a) the missile and (b) the warhead, do you think it would use them if they knew that such use would lead to a overwhelming nuclear retaliation by the U.S. and other word powers.

[David Floyd]

I think we have better things to do that to build a defense system against a threat that does not exist and isn't likely to exist in the near future. --Especially when our "defense system" threatens a world power like Russia.

On the other hand, investing in advanced technology like ABMs is almost certainly going to branch off in other directions that will be beneficial in a number of fields. Even if we never have to use the ABM system, who knows where research in that field could take us?

BTW: Even if Iran had (a) the missile and (b) the warhead, do you think it would use them if they knew that such use would lead to a overwhelming nuclear retaliation by the U.S. and other word powers.

I certainly don't doubt that a radical Islamic state would use them - if, say, Al Qaeda ran a country, I don't think their first concern would be our retaliation, their first concern would be wiping Tel Aviv and Washington off the map. The point is, just because most of what Ahmedinejad says is pure rhetoric, that doesn't mean that the people who REALLY control Iran won't someday soon decide to take a plunge off the deep end. My feeling? Don't ever trust a country that is run by religion. Even if it seems non-threatening today, organized religion has a nasty ability to cause major problems - and I don't care what religion we're talking about.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
BTW: Even if Iran had (a) the missile and (b) the warhead, do you think it would use them if they knew that such use would lead to a overwhelming nuclear retaliation by the U.S. and other word powers.

Which part of the logic of a suicide bomber did you miss, Z. If you are willing to die for your cause by inflicting specific damage anyway, retaliation is not a credible threat. Mutual deterrence depends on all players believing all the other players will avoid killing their own grandchildren. Otherwise it gets real bright and warm in the site of every major city in the world for a few minutes. Then nobody plays civilization anymore.