digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at current.com —

Russian plans to station nuclear bombers in Cuba

current.com — The story broke earlier this week, when Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted an un-named source from within the Russian military: “While they are [Bush administration] deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba.” The question is if another Cuban crisis is imminent?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • klipseracer, on 07/23/2008, -60/+19Jesus... What next? Japanese Tie Fighters spotted in Hawaiian airspace sporting light sabers?
    • ghank, on 07/24/2008, -2/+17What's next is the nurse will bring you your head pills, you can rejoin reality, and everything will be better in the morning.
    • legendxx, on 07/24/2008, -2/+12Yes.. that's exactly what's next. Next time don't even try to be funny.. you're bad at it.
    • robbiemuffin, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2you messed up and got first post while being uninformed, on a political comment dramatic post here on digg ... if this had not been part of the digg party platform (TM), you'd probably have gotten +30 diggs instead of -30 — I liked it anyway. :)
    • RAGEdemon, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3Holy *****, I hope Obama will be the president when the crisis talks are taking place. If bush is still there, I think we will have WW3 on our hands.

      Can you imagine what would have happened if bush was the president during the Cuban missile crisis? This turd has started 2 unprovoked wars already.
  • Shiftgood, on 07/23/2008, -10/+199god damn that plane is gorgeous.
    • DeskFlyer, on 07/24/2008, -4/+46For anyone who cares, that's a Tupolev Tu-95, and even though it's a Soviet-era plane, it's still the fastest turboprop aircraft in the world. More info:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

      Lots of good photos of it here:

      http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?nr_of ...

      Video (sorry, voice-over is in Russian, but cool footage anyway):

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faUvdTJRh48
      • robbh66, on 07/24/2008, -12/+5The fastest turboprop isn't going to outrun the slowest missile. I don't know why they think this will scare anybody.
    • rz8472, on 07/24/2008, -1/+12The Bear is the Russians' version of the B-52; it fulfills the same tactical role and has been around for a good 40-50 years as well.
    • humperdeath, on 07/24/2008, -2/+25Heyyyyy, wait a minute, haven't we been through this before. . . .
      • ChuyMatt, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Will the current prez be on Coke during the upcoming crisis too?
      • floorman56, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5Will the current prez be on Coke during the upcoming crisis too?

        Nope ...This will be Obama's problem The Russians know better that to try this with Bush
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3They are trying it BECAUSE of Bush
      • davidg11, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Hmmm...the only good thing about this is that the USA will see how weak and inexperienced Obama is.
      • floorman56, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1They are trying it BECAUSE of Bush

        PLEASE.... They KNOW Bush will drop the hammer....he's done it TWICE!!! why mess around with a guy you know will when you can wait for a guy who may not.
    • Jhiaxuz, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9God damn that plane is loud too.
    • amightywind, on 07/24/2008, -14/+6Best knockoff of a B1 ever built. A tribute to Russian aviation counterfeiters.
      • BabyWookie, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5LOL. The Russian Tu-160 might look a bit like a B1, but it excels it in all aspects: it's twice as big, twice as fast, has twice the range and payload capacity.
      • IpecacNeat, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1nevermind, I'm dumb.
    • wirerat1, on 07/25/2008, -3/+1Doesn't matter. All the planes would do is takeoff and fire their cruise missiles... just like a B-52. The Russians are just poking the perverbial bear and aren't going to change anything in the closing days of the Bush presidency. They are just being assholes.
    • heystoopid, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1All the crack heads , snow sniffers , asshats , thieves , carpet baggers and war criminals all inhabit the oval office in DC !
    • pantone286, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1goddam that plane is old.
    • dtele, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1The Russians copied a 'borrowed' B-29 down to the rivets.
      A lot of those components still survive in the Tu-95
  • saxmaster, on 07/24/2008, -20/+1461962 called... they want their story back.
    Seriously, we're placing a few anti-missile missiles in Eastern Europe. These things aren't even very effective, and would be a failure against an all-out nuclear attack from Russia. I guess they have to flex their muscles.
    • JigoroKano, on 07/24/2008, -10/+50When the government says something is for "defense" you believe them?

      Is the Defense department for defense?
      • Badandy127, on 07/24/2008, -9/+14Dude, they are ANTI missiles. They can't attack anyone.
      • humperdeath, on 07/24/2008, -4/+7And the Department of Redundancy Department.
      • robbh66, on 07/24/2008, -2/+20@Badandy127

        They're not scared of the missiles attacking them. They're worried that if we were to strike, their counterstrike would not be effective enough to merit us not attacking in the firstplace.

        Overall it's a retarded argument though. The shield can stop a few missiles, not 10000 cruising over the ocean.
      • EricAnderton, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5And the Department of Redundancy Department.

        (what? the other one might get dugg down.)
      • notque, on 07/24/2008, -0/+10Every aggressive war in history has been called a war of defense.
      • Eezyville, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7@ Badandy127

        A missle is a missle. Just because we SAY its anti-missle doesn't mean we can't make it a nuke. Don't doubt us engineers. :)
      • Vergisst, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3@robbh66

        It can barely stop one or two missiles when we tell the system exactly where they are going to be with extremely favourable weather conditions...5 missiles on a cloudy day could probably trump this wonderful piece of 'defence'
      • sanman, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Common Sense called, but your phone was off the hook. Any system that can be used for "defense" can be used to enhance your offensive posture. Look at Reagan's SDI.

        Why do you think there was an ABM Treaty in the first place, you dope?

        Obviously, either side having greater ability to protect itself from a missile attack could embolden it to launch its own attack without fear of retaliation.

        It's called Deterrence, and that's what these "ABM' sites undermine. Since when are Poland and Czech Republic along the flight route from Iran to Europe anyway?
      • dacrazydude, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1@eezyville
        "A missle is a missle. Just because we SAY its anti-missle doesn't mean we can't make it a nuke. Don't doubt us engineers. :)"

        ...They don't have the capacity to launch a nuke across any real distance nor do they have the capacity to carry a heavy payload. A cruise missile and an anti-tank missile are very different things. So no, every missile is not the same. And I do doubt that you are a weapons engineer.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/24/2008, -22/+41Who is flexing now again? Russia, who is reacting - or the US who has invaded two sovereign countries and are placing a weapons platform by the Russian borders?
      • widgetmaker, on 07/24/2008, -8/+15A weapons platform aimed at shooting down any terrorist/rogue state missiles not from Russia they know it would have a paltry effect against a Russin attack, this is all nothing more than posturing.
      • Flytrap, on 07/24/2008, -2/+14Dude, nobody in the world believes that bull ***** story.

        Yes, they would not be effective against an all out Russian attack, but the cold war is over now. There is never going to be a Russian attack against its biggest trading partner, Europe.

        However, the Russians know, just as well as everyone else that the anti-missile system would counter a precision Russian strike as effectively as an Iranian one. And there lies the problem. The Russians want to be able to launch precision strikes (I think that the Pentagon calls them mini-nukes) at what it considers rogue states in its back yard, just as much as the Americans want to be able to do the same.
      • Brownds, on 07/24/2008, -8/+4STFU you commie bastard! I feel so 1980's again. I feel like watching "Spies Like Us" now.
      • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5If the system was really designed for that, that radar in Azerbaijan, that the Russians offered to us, would have been perfect.
      • suriwardo, on 07/24/2008, -3/+9widgetmaker, do you really believe the rogue state; Iran reason that they're telling you. Come on. If it's against Iran why not plant this missile shield in Turkey or any other number of countries in Irans' back yard. Hmmm, why would they plant missile defense shields in Russia's back yard with Iran's current missile technology can't even reach more than 1000 miles or so....
      • Neiby, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8Precisely. If the US asserts the right to project military might on their doorstep, they have the same right to deploy military elements at our doorstep, right?
      • bryan2008, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0We invaded one sovereign country - Iraq. Afghanistan's government attacked us, and the remnants are still in the country. The USSR invaded the country over much less in 1979. Second, unless you count the Kaliningrad enclave and admit that Belarus is a puppet of Putin's, the defense is not on Russia's border. The shield borders Germany, which is at the beginning of the heart of Western Europe. It's a last line, like the DEW Line in Alaska and Canada was. Poland and the Czech Republic have been sovereign countries since 1989, and if they want to make military agreements with the US, the EU, NATO, or anyone else, Russia is going to have to deal with it. The Russians have always been obsessed with this paranoia that everyone is out to invade them. They need to get over it. We are trying to install a missile shield, not a sword. Russia, or at least everyone with more than 2 brain cells, knows this is no threat. A shield stops at most a dozen missiles, not thousands. Besides, with the loose nukes that Russia has, and that North Korea is trying to sell, who knows where they may come from?
    • Airforcefalco, on 07/24/2008, -1/+10Since when has the government done anything and have it remain small?
    • skipdog172, on 07/24/2008, -3/+9There are stories floating around the press today stating that Russia is denying any of these claims. Who do we believe? The Russian government or an unnamed source?

      Bury this garbage!!!
      • catcher6250, on 07/24/2008, -6/+24the russian government murders its journalists, its not surprising to see thats its an unnamed source
      • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -17/+4@catcher6250:

        Stop spewing this garbage Western propaganda BS. There is exactly ZERO evidence that the Russian government has murdered any journalists.
      • canewediggit, on 07/24/2008, -1/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_k ...

        that's a lot of coincidences there don't you think, wookie?

      • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -4/+4@canewediggit:

        Quoting from that wikipedia entry:
        American journalist Anne Applebaum wrote, concerning the murder of Politkovskaya: "Of course, if this murder follows the usual pattern in Russia, no suspect will ever be found, and no assassin will ever come to trial."

        That's pretty funny, considering that Politkovskaya's murderers have now been arrested and are being put on trial.

        For a futher exposition of Western lies and hypocrity when it comes to Russia's dead journalist stats, check this out:
        http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID ...
      • userperson, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9"Who do we believe? The Russian government or an unnamed source?"
        That's a tough one.
      • ASHole71, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3lol Wookie you sound like the people in my social studies class in the 80's. "Thats not what it says in Pravda and Pravda means truth" Silly people then and you are just like them
      • freebird09, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Wookie is a commie! Get him! (sarcasm)
        But seriously, it's not hard to admit that the Russian government isn't the most stable in the world...
      • ORBAT, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1@BabyWookie: What's even funnier is that one of the people on trial for her murder is an FSB Lt. Col.

        But the Russian government (a real oxymoron, that) had nothing to do with it, no sirree bob.
    • NEUTRINO50, on 07/24/2008, -3/+0If you have 10 to start with you can add another few hundred in half a year easy. The gun is there just need more bullets :)

      Also, why can't they put those in Turkey or Iraq again? (both much closer to Iran)
      • ASHole71, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3I believe they need more time than that to lock on. So having them so close would not help. Depending on what kind of missiles they are such as ICBMs would exit the atmosphere then reenter coming down onto targets. So the defensive missiles need to be closer to the target than the launch site. Now in Irans case they are not that advanced but you never know what is hiding in the sand lol.
    • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2They aren't very effective, yet. I will let you guess what the key word in that sentence is.
      • notque, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2They are effective. They are first strike missiles. What is not effective about them?
    • jabberwolf, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3The missile shield isnt very effective
      We are inviting the Russians to join us.
      We are inviting the Russians to review the place whenever they want.

      WTF ?!
      That's it, I'm not drinking vodka anymore!
      and...?? WTF do they make aside from that?
    • FongoBongo, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3What the hell is the point of the Missile defense shield? Other than to provoke neighboring countries in the region. If they build one in the middle east I could see it being justified, since it is a region which ios constantly in turmoil and it makes sense to protect certain interests like U.S. troops or Israel. Whats going on in Europe right now that requires defense? There's no cold war, no wars in general, no political instability....this is a clear act of provocation by the U.S. and threatens countries like Russia, China, and India. Every country in that region has a right to protect their sovereignty.

      People like you are way too naive.
      • tomz17, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5And people like you have apparently never looked at a map. Poland and the czech republic are actually a damn good places to detect and (attempt to) knock down an ICBM bound for North America from the middle east...
  • bendiggn, on 07/24/2008, -11/+51Hmmm. The good ol' days are here again. [sarcasm]
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3It's like deja vu all over again.
    • sgtpppr, on 07/24/2008, -0/+10Nuclear subs make this pretty much irrelevant. They could launch ICBMs within 50 miles of the coast and no one would now until it was too late. Same goes for the US launching missiles against Russia...or China...or basically any other country of the world. Sub-based ICBMs are easily the biggest threat to any country in danger of being struck by nukes.
      • xptweakerntn, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Know?
      • homer420032003, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2What?
      • bryan2008, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1This is why Russia ought to know what this SHIELD is about. SLBMs, ICBMs, and long-range bombers (Tupolevs still?) are countermeasures that would easily overwhelm this shield. Upcoming/aspiring countries (Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Pakistan, al Qaeda, et. al.) don't have any, let alone all, of these countermeasures. We never could use the shield against them, even if we wanted to. Why would we spend billions on a system that wouldn't work against Russia? Obvious. To have one to protect the Western European heartland: allies that have stood by us since 1945. We offered to place Russia within the shield and they refused. Not surprising considering the dictator for life over there.
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2THIS IS PERFECT !

      Let's just *hope* the sociopath russians and americans end up playing thermonuclear chicken. Europe will declare itself neutral, kick out american imperial occupiers for good from european soil. Reduce the US and Russia back to third world status - best thing that could possibly happen for world peace.

      EXCELLENT !
    • Donwangugi, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Its okay.
      If push comes to shove, we will just unleash the enemy combatants we hold in Gitmo all over Cuba.

      Game over.

      Wait....
  • UltX, on 07/24/2008, -9/+241Is it getting cold?
    • shutaro, on 07/24/2008, -27/+2It's getting hot in here...
    • EricAnderton, on 07/24/2008, -2/+26Da, comrade.
    • treed, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6But, baby, it's cold outside.
    • acegi, on 07/24/2008, -1/+38We could use another cold war.

      This time we might even land on Mars
    • Donwangugi, on 07/24/2008, -2/+21Uncle Sam: 1 vs Soviet Zombie Stalin: 0
      Round 2
      Fight!
      ...
      A new challenger!!!!!!
      Red Awakening Dragon!
      Communist Tag Team!!!
      OH NOS OMGBBQ!!!!
      • heystoopid, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Except this time the Yankee treasury is the one running on empty fumes and much rhetoric like in the good old Soviet times of old !
    • MrCoke, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7cold war to combat global warming. an epic fight.
    • xDynaBlade, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5I think I can feel a draft.
      • personalj, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1That's just you getting your enlistment assignments.
    • echelonist, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Ouch. Reading your comment gave me the chill.
    • tas08, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0Oh man. Now we need global warming to be true.
  • mastersquirrel3, on 07/24/2008, -32/+11This is why I ***** love Russia.
    More crazy Russian ***** below.
    http://digg.com/politics/USAF_F_15_Eagles_Escort_R ...
    http://digg.com/world_news/Two_UK_jets_shadow_a_Ru ...
    Go CCCP
  • centran, on 07/24/2008, -21/+99Bombers? Seriously?
    They wouldn't even have a chance to take off. If we where nice about it and didn't want to kill Cubans then we would let them get over the water first.
    We don't have to worry about bombers. Now if they set up ICBMs in Cuba then yeah, we have should be worried. I hope this puppy is ready then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser
    • darneveryone, on 07/24/2008, -5/+43They don't need to set up ICBMs in Cuba. They can hit us with ICBMs from Russia. That's pretty much the point of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

      I'd feel more confident if our government relied more on diplomacy and less on lasers that may or may not work.
      • waxoff, on 07/24/2008, -4/+18The time it takes for an ICBM to hit us from Cuba will be far less than the time it takes to hit us from Russia. It also put's nukes in yet another country (proliferation) and increases the chances of nuclear war. That's pretty much the point of keeping them out of Cuba.
      • avonalt, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7Hate to burst your bubble waxoff, but ICBMs aren't the only delivery devices for nuclear warheads. Darneveryone is right when he says Russia wouldn't put ICBMs in Cuba. ICBM's by design limitation have a minimum target range much greater than 100 miles. If Russia does decide to put nuclear missiles in Cuba, they won't be ICBMs.

        ICBMs also have a mostly static flight time +/- 5 minutes, so it's a much better choice to keep the expensive missiles in the Pacific, Atlantic, and back in Russia.
      • Veriander, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6@darneveryone, I prefer President Reagan's approach -- bring military might to the diplomatic process. Negotiating from a position of strength is much more effective. So let's keep working on the Buck Rogers tech AND pursue diplomatic solutions, OK?
    • Airforcefalco, on 07/24/2008, -1/+41If you shoot them over the waters though you might hit some Cubans that are swimming north.
    • rz8472, on 07/24/2008, -10/+5I had to say it. Frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads is the way to go.
    • AddictedToMosh, on 07/24/2008, -12/+1you do realize that an a bomb exploding in the sea will cause a massive tsunami? which will wipe out all of the us coastal towns
      • brettg102, on 07/24/2008, -0/+13the US, Israel, Britain, and France all have done underwater nuclear tests. You are sorely mistaken.
      • wolferz, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5You do realize you don't have a clew what your talking about?

        A nuclear explosion can't just happen. It's actually quite difficult to start the reaction that results in a nuclear explosion. If even one of the shape charges doesn't detonate at exactly the right moment there is no nuclear explosion. Unless the missile or bomb is intentionally armed and then detonated at worst it would function as a "dirty bomb" similar in explosive power to an air-to-air missile... but also releasing radiation.
    • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -2/+14Please, look up what the "IC" in "ICBM" stands for. Only the Polish would try to put ICBMs 90 miles away from their enemies' border. LOL
      • treed, on 07/24/2008, -5/+2Or someone who wants to give their enemies less warning and ability to shoot it down.
      • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8@treed: That's what the MRBMs and TBMs are for. :)
    • s0l0s0ul, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0were
    • Airforcefalco, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5ICBMs (at least MMIIIs) fly into space when they launch and then it waits until the earth rotates the target to it starts to fall towards the target.

      By the time it flew up into space the ICBM might have to wait until the US came back below it.

      I think cruise missiles or IRBMs would work better and reach the target quicker.
      • Airforcefalco, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1ICBMs (at least MMIIIs) fly into space when they launch and then it waits until the earth rotates the target to it starts to fall towards the target.
      • pahoehoe, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2ICBMs do not wait for the earth to rotate under them. They go directly to their target. While the earth's rotation needs to be accounted for in targeting calculations, it's not like the ICBM goes up, waits twelve hours for the earth to rotate under it, and then decide to fall back down. The ICBM falls during most of its ~30 minute flight (~5 minutes is for boost). ICBMs in Cuba would be pretty stupid though, which is why the Russians would use theatre weapons, as you stated.
      • Airforcefalco, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Psst....I work on MMIIIs

        1. They don't carry that much fuel.
        2. It doesn't take 12 hours for a satellite to make a trip around the planet, why a missile?
      • jgzman, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Think hard about the word 'ballistic.'
      • pahoehoe, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1To airforcefaico

        My point was that they (ICBMs) do not wait for the earth to rotate under them, as you had originally stated. I never said they took 12 hours to make a trip around the planet. I said IF they did wait for the earth to rotate under them (as you stated), then it would take that long (assuming they need to go half way around the world). Understand? I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your statement that and ICBM waits for its target to rotate under it before it "starts to fall towards the target." The ICBM flight is typically about 30 minutes, of which ~25 is free-fall. I stated all this in my first comment. I don't know how I could have been misunderstood. Please let me know, so that I can express myself clearer in the future.
      • Airforcefalco, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1You did say that the ICBMs don't wait 12 hours

        "waits twelve hours for the earth to rotate under it"

        Satellites go around the entire planet in 90 minutes or less. I never claimed that the ICBM stood still or stopped once it reached space. The last stage is gone before the missile even gets into possition and before it reaches the heigth of it's flight because of momentum.

        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9074275271 ... - I can't watch this from work but it should be what I think it is, an animated video of a MMIII
        http://www.techbastard.com/missile/minuteman/opera ...
        http://www.techbastard.com/missile/minuteman/fligh ...
        http://www.techbastard.com/missile/minuteman/index ...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_missile
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/john_w ...
    • suntzusputnik, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2just 90 miles to florida, not that there's anything worth bombing there...
    • digitallysick, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1But do we have sharks with lasers?
    • heystoopid, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I would suggest you read up on the "Star Fish Prime Test" then you will realize just how futile that option is !
    • mybeat, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1They are always flying out there, when they run out of fuel, they land and new ones come in their place..
  • richmomz, on 07/24/2008, -8/+93It's just posturing - their bombers are about as much threat to us as our missile shield is to them, which is to say, not much. How far do you think a bomber from Cuba would get before being blasted out of the sky (especially if its of the ancient prop-driven variety like the one in the photo)? Now if they start parking missiles there again that's a different story...

    Both sides have nuclear subs milling around near each other's borders all the time anyway, and any one of those suckers could wipe out half the planet by themselves. This is nothing to get worked up about.
    • cyberdork, on 07/24/2008, -18/+13After all those epic fails the US government AND military have presented to us over the past decade you are still that confident? WOW

      If there is one thing the US military has managed to do in the last years it is showing the world what kind of bureaucratic and inefficient organization it is. 400.000 of the 1.5 million personnel are in iraq and everyone is whining 'Boohoo, we are overstretched.' Oh yeah, that will make the world shiver.
      By the way, how are those unarmoured Hummers, dust sensitive helicopters and crashing stealth bombers doing?
      • Mavital, on 07/24/2008, -2/+12As an occupying force, I agree that the U.S. military is over stretched. As a military force capable of winning a war, this is not the case. The military won the "war" in Iraq with far less troops and with very few causalities. It is the occupation period of the country that is causing so many problems.

        My proof? Technology - for now. With the current generation of aircraft, it would be impossible for any country to have a chance in the air against the U.S. air force. I'm sure over time this will change, especially with China in the picture, but for the time being the U.S. controls the air. With the way wars happen today, you cannot win without air superiority.

        That being said... I'm pretty damn tired of war. I know I'll never see the day when wars cease to exist, but I hope humanity can one day learn that forward progress is only going to happen if we stop killing each other.
      • Badandy127, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5Yay for not understanding the military, cyberdork!
      • legendxx, on 07/24/2008, -3/+7LOL another mis-informed America-hater on digg? NO WAY! Military strength has absolutely nothing to do with converting a countries culture. It does have something to do with conquering it. Which we did in record time with record-low casualties with cutting-edge technology that hadn't been tested in a war-zone up to that point and they performed nearly flawlessly.

        Keep spewing your sensationalist propaganda that the US is a helpless nation headed for the toilet.
      • Flytrap, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5Clearly you have no idea how modern strike bombers work.

        These bombers wouldn't even need to reach the coast of Cuba before they release their multi-warhead payloads... which in turn rocket upwards into space, where the warhead opens up to release multiple missiles and/or several decoys - Nothing new here, the Americans and Chinese have the same capabilities. But this is where the problem lies, it make predicting the target near impossible, because the missiles come down more vertically than say and ICBM would (ICBM, in modern warfare, would only be effective against an adversary with poor inflight tracking capability, or when configured to overwhelm a foe's air defence systems).

        So, why are strategic strike bombers still relevant in a world full of ICBM's? because they greatly reduce the time and distance between launch and targeting... and of course they are almost always in the air - yes for the fools saying that the Russian planes would even be able to take off, these things are designed to maintain a permanent contingent that is always airborne, so when the order is given to launch an attack, that order will probably be issued to a flight contingent that will probably have already have been in the air for several hours on a supposed routine flight.
    • bratterscain, on 07/24/2008, -0/+14Disregarding politics, I'm wondering if this is the Great Filter. The more advanced man gets, the more people he can wipe out with less effort. Will there be a time when one man can wipe out the whole planet, directly or indirectly as we advance?

      And any organism that wants to thrive has to have the same selfish initiatives and when something's out of balance, that advanced life will likely kill itself and grind to a hault. The few left will rebuild, make advances again, rinse and repeat. ***** like this doesn't give me much faith in man.
    • InvisibleInk, on 07/24/2008, -7/+5"How far do you think a bomber from Cuba would get before being blasted out of the sky..."

      The planes wouldn't have to go far, not if they are equipped with cruise missles armed with nukes. All they'd have to do is take off, then shoot.
      • ShisouKen, on 07/24/2008, -9/+4lol what??
      • Flytrap, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4A strike bomber would not need to even leave Cuban airspace before it released its ballistic missiles. So don't could on having much warning because the bombers would never even fly towards the US to launch their multi-warhead payloads. They would probably fly away and launch from over international waters.
      • MacGyver2210, on 07/24/2008, -7/+1I highly doubt if they're using BOMBERS that they're equipped with CRUISE missiles. I think the idea behind a BOMBER is using BOMBS.
        Not to mention, Russia's not exactly a beacon of wealth in our present-day world, so I doubt we're going to see red B-2's flying over anytime soon.
      • InvisibleInk, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Our B-52s patrolling the Artic circle do not carry bombs, but instead have air-launched cruise missles. It is the same with B-1s and B-2s. This allows them to stand off but still destroy hardened missle silos in Russia from hundreds of miles away from the target. This has been true for decades.

        http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blB_5 ...

        The Russian bomber pictured is the venerable Tupolev Tu-95, which can also lauch air-to-surface missles.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95
      • Kyan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1MacGyver - come one now, with a name like that you need to be more creative. Sure a cruise missile CAN be used as a bomb. Just don't shoot it, drop it. Well, and do a little hot wiring before you drop it.
      • rieux, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Flytrap - Last time I checked nobody puts ballistic missiles on aircraft. We tried it in the 50's or 60's (skybolt) and it didn't work out, turns out subs were a better idea.
      • appleseed1234, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3reix:

        Cruise missiles.
      • rieux, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Appleseed, you are correct bombers use cruise missiles not ballistic missiles. I fail to see where I was wrong, since I was addressing a statement about ballistic missiles.
      • richmomz, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1If the bomber isn't going anywhere then you might as well launch those cruise missiles from the ground then.
    • ThrstForKnwldge, on 07/24/2008, -7/+17Yeah the U.S. military will shoot them down just like they shot down those planes on 9/11 before they were able to hit their targets.
      /s
      • SpectreFire, on 07/25/2008, -3/+5Yeah, no one's gonna notice a fleet of cold-war era bombers coming up from the south into American airspace. That is EXACTLY THE SAME as four innocent passenger planes crashing into four American targets.

        Idiot.
    • notque, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Our missiles are intended as a threat to them, and their counter response of Nuclear bombers and subs in Cuba is intended as a threat to stop them from putting missiles near Russia.

      And our counter threat is, we will attack you if you do that.

      So we are forcing a war with Russia based on our desire to put missiles near Russia.
  • jei731, on 07/24/2008, -16/+59You reap what you sow, in life as in foreign policy.
    • cheezintern, on 07/24/2008, -3/+7Yup, it's a good thing we have an intelligent president with the incredible foresight to see how his actions will play out in foreign relations...oh wait, we're *****....
    • saxmaster, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5I don't know about that. Most of the time you reap disaster just for being weaker than someone else and minding your own business. Our history is full of examples of weaker civilizations being wiped out by stronger ones. I don't think there's really any sense of justice in all of it. We westerners are unique in our moral reservations about conquering others and subjecting them, but that doesn't make us immune to getting our asses kicked. The fall of Rome is a good example of how a once strong empire can be weakened by weak leadership and a multitude of small threats.
    • wirerat1, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2The Russians are just being pricks going for a cheap PR trick in the last few days of the Bush presidency. They know nothing will change in the next few months. So "Wow" look at them, they're tough. Whoopie.
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -5/+21In the early 60s Cuba really couldn't refuse the financial aid offered by their fellow communist country in the east. Hopefully Raul doesn't fall into the same exact routine as his older brother.
    • gn0stik, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3too late
    • Ravatar, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6Maybe we should stop ***** oppressing them?
      • CRCulver, on 07/25/2008, -2/+1While the US does not trade with Cuba, all over developed nations do. If their economy stays in the gutter due to incompetent centralized management, it is not the fault of the US.
    • heystoopid, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1You forget he now desperately needs a big brother mentor because of what the Cubans have found in the under sea floor of the Florida Straight !
  • highps3, on 07/24/2008, -2/+19One day one of these nuclear bombs (30k of them now?) will go into the wrong hands and someones going to wind up screwed if not all of us.
    • YoureAllSoDumb, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5They already are winding up in the wrong hands. After the fall of the Soviet union, the hot new thing for these new rich Russian capitalists is to own a nuclear warhead. You can't find a larger symbol of power than that.
    • apackofmonkeys, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Don't worry, Jack Bauer will save us.
    • twinklyJesus, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Did you think that up all by yourself?

      You know, if someone does get one, we should have a missile shield to shoot it down before it gets here.

      OR, we could just confuse non-nuclear anti-missile systems with those that aren't.

      What's that on your nametag D-O-L-T. Oh.
    • decet, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1They already ARE in the wrong hands. The US government's and military's, that is.
  • zorocke, on 07/24/2008, -7/+14The Cubans should simply ask for US support this time around instead of Russian support. It would be in the US's best interest to support Cuba since it is so close to our coast and such, I don't think we would have a problem with it, except some voters may refuse because of the recession claiming we need to worry more about domestic problems. But I would think it is worth a try on Cuba.
    • Scrappy1850, on 07/24/2008, -1/+351st state! we would get cigars and a club med. east coast needs more beach destinations anyway.
    • notque, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6The Cubans would not receive U.S. support, and the very idea requires a complete lack of knowledge of the history.
    • mdepaul, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Yeah, except for all the Cubans in Florida who can swing an election one way or another.
    • appleseed1234, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1It seems as though this is just another attempt by them to stick it to us, knowing full well that we have no greater desire with them than to set up a puppet regimes to funnel profits out of their country.
    • arjie, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Oh yes, like the time Castro flew to America right after the Cuban revolution to talk to Eisenhower, but the US President was too damn busy attending a golf tournament. The US actively turned Cuba away. The US has sanctions in place against Cuba now. They went to the length of delaying and denying aid from Cuba during your infamous New Orleans hurricane fiasco. And now they will turn around and allow them into the fold? *****.
  • Shoebox639, on 07/24/2008, -3/+39Holy ***** I thought this was a joke. Because it sounded way too much like the Cuban missile crisis.
    • legendxx, on 07/24/2008, -2/+17Then you saw it on digg and knew it had to be true? That's sad.
      • Shoebox639, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1lol. noooo. I read the article and then decided it was true.
    • notque, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8This isn't even a new issue. It's a new development in an old issue that has dominated real news coverage for the past year. The U.S. has been trying to put missiles near Russia, which breaks treaties we've signed.

      As the move gets closer and closer, Russia has threatened, and now Russia is upping the ante. That's what countries do when you threaten their security. They create deterrents. That's why Iran would be crazy to not develop nuclear weapons. They need a deterrent for U.S./Israeli aggression.

      Any time you threaten another country (which is against international law, and is the textbook definition of terrorism), the response you will get is an increase for more deterrents.

      The U.S. is aware of this, and has used this to great success as justification to then attack.

      There's a lot of posturing about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, but we're breaking it. Every day we break the treaty by not lowering our arms.

      Further, Israel broke the treaty. Our support for them breaks the treaty.

      The whole thing is a farce for real goals. That's the point. The U.S. has goals, and will use any justification it can muster.

      Like the World Court. It will cite the World Court when it's in their interests, and say the World Court is meaningless when it isn't.

      All of international law is like this to the U.S.

      These are simple, uncontroversial statements that are widely held in even U.S. foreign policy journals. But you don't know anything about them because they aren't disseminated in news that is meant for the mass public.
  • Rotzooi, on 07/24/2008, -13/+6Clearly, nothing to do with Bush and his neocon cronies - this is our Democratic Congress at work.
    /Fox News
    • ASHole71, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1Auto Dugg Down, not for saying Neocon or Fox, just for being stupid and bringing nothing to the conversation.
    • notque, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3This is a non-partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans. They are on the same side here, which puts us further towards destruction.
  • InvisibleInk, on 07/24/2008, -0/+25I've always wanted to build a bomb shelter in my back yard. This gives me an excuse to move forward on that.
    • transform100, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1would you have time to get into it?
    • orbitalia, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3and once in their just how are you planning on overcoming a 300 year nuclear winter, and radation with a half life of 25,000. I hope you have a really big budget.
      • letherial, on 07/24/2008, -0/+12duct tape....duh!!..
      • Tenlow, on 07/24/2008, -0/+10That's why the only thing I'm putting in my bunker is whiskey and corn chips. I'm gonna die on my terms, comfortable, drunk, and with a full stomach of junk food. The real American dream.
    • kestrel7e7, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Contact Vault Tech today, before it's too late!
  • darneveryone, on 07/24/2008, -8/+33Our terrible relations with Russia are one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of the Bush administration. Russia is a very paranoid country and they think we're out to get them. Our policymakers failed to understand the consequences of encircling Russia with NATO allies and invading their traditional spheres of influence. This may seem funny, and sure, the bombers themselves don't pose much of a threat, but Russia is a very real threat, and they are pissed.
    • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -2/+24Seriously. We have broken every promise that we made to the Russians before they dismanted the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. If Russia was a guy, NATO and the US would seem like a bunch of dudes armed with baseball bats, encircling him, while saying "You have nothing to worry about. We are friends now."
    • bomarizza, on 07/24/2008, -3/+10U.S. as much paranoid as Russsia I would say even more. I am curious how U,S. would react if Russia will place similar anti-missle complex next to US borders? Aha! So be quiet. That complex in Europe more for secret spying then anti-missle purpose that's why Russians so worried. Also, government feeding you with those threat stories to push their own agenda - more money spend for military and so on - it's all about money.
      US elite will neve give up idea of "global threat" and will always look for enemy. all goverments suck!
      • loki49152, on 07/24/2008, -5/+0If Russia put an anti-missile shield next to US borders, the US would think they drank a case of bad Vodka. Which is what we think pretty much any time the Russian government does anything, in any case.

        Russian government has never made any sense at all. At least under the Romanovs (pre-Rasputin) there was some pretense that they were striving to better themselves.
    • cheezintern, on 07/24/2008, -2/+14All Russia wants is respect as a world power that it is. They don't consider themselves to have lost the cold war and despise how the US looks on to them as a poor third world nation which it isn't.
    • legendxx, on 07/24/2008, -6/+3Although I dislike Bush.. you have to see the point of his strategy. Russia is reeling from losing the cold war, multiple uprisings, trouble feeding its own people. They are a wounded animal and it's enemies (NATO) are going in for the kill (not literally.. more like crippling a country by hoping to reduce its military might).

      I'm just thinking out loud here. I don't pretend to know a lot of the details.. but the strategy seems pertinent. We starved the USSR before by pressuring them with better weapons in the 80's.. recent events just seem like an extension of that policy.

      Discuss.
      • Kyan, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4I'll discuss. First, the Soviet union through its absurdly inept economic policies, starved itself. Bureaucrats in the USSR could not even figure out how make a decent combine. Farmers in the 1980s joked calling them "disposable combines" because they broke down beyond repair after the harvest. (Well, that kept the people making the combines employed of course, so maybe they were designing them that way on purpose?)

        Second, the Russian economy is getting stronger - that is a fact. But it is still based on a faulty foundation of government cronyism and corruption from top to bottom. Problem is, Russians - especially ethnic Russians - totally eat up the populist "shows of might". If Russia is strong enough to thumb its nose at the West, millions of Russians will cheer in front of their crappy TVs while sitting in homes with no indoor plumbing and a fridge full of vodka and sardines. Completely unaware of the fact that their government officials, while thumbing their collective nose at the west are silently saying "пошли вы все к чертовой матери" to their own citizens.
    • ASHole71, on 07/24/2008, -8/+3Who cares what Russia wants? respect as a world power? How is that, when did they become a world power?
      • appleseed1234, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2When Peter the Great showed up?
    • futureisours, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2Oh yes, you can blame Bush for Russia's behavior. Everything is always his fault. Stupid libtard.
    • frequentFlyer, on 07/24/2008, -3/+0You know they're collectively pissed? You've asked Putin?
    • icantdenythis, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1they have our calling card (oil) and we can't do ***** about it.

      with that in mind, maybe they do deserve some respect?
    • Dejital, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Russia is not paranoid; conspiracy theorists are paranoid. Conspiracy theorists are the ones that think the Cold War is coming back. Times have changed; it's not coming back no matter how many tin foil hats you fold. All they have going for them are sensational headlines on Digg.
    • wirerat1, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Our relationship with the Russians went bad during the Clinton years too. We let the Russians fall back to communism. While I despise Bush, he did not start the trend. He just continued it.
  • leerayIG88, on 07/24/2008, -3/+23Red ALERT!!! (hell march)
    • SomGuye, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1TWO THREE FOUR FIVE, TENNN HUT!
    • achoi, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8Hell march is my favorite CNC soundtrack

      /geek
    • Telionis, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Time will tell... sooner or later... time will tell...
    • glutamate, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1**humms Hell March aloud**

      duuuun do do-do-do do-do

      chicka-chicka-chicka chaaaa

      duuuun do do-do-do do-do

      chicka-chicka-chicka cha-chaaa
  • MommaLu, on 07/24/2008, -8/+3Fight! Fight! Fight!
  • vivalanation734, on 07/24/2008, -2/+20didn't this happen in the 60s?
    • notque, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3No. It was a completely different scenario that only sounds similar if you're entirely unaware of the events.
  • bluepill2, on 07/24/2008, -0/+44Wolverines!!
    • waxoff, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8All that hate's gonna burn you up, kid.
      It keeps me warm.
      • ventralnet, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4best beginning of a movie ever
      • waxoff, on 07/24/2008, -0/+11I was 11 when Red Dawn came out. My friends and I were all Army Brats living in Germany. We put together an "Armory" of BB guns and stockpiled "Ammo" (pellets and BBs) to get ready for the Soviet Invasion. We built outlook posts and sandbagged bunkers in the woods. Then the real fun came: training. Basically an excuse for BB gun wars. That summer was epic. I still have a nice scar from a BB hitting my leg (3 pumps my ass).
    • jack104, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2The one movie that made me proud charlie sheen's in hollywood.
  • DrunkenSavior, on 07/24/2008, -2/+12Let's send Big Boss in!
  • PolishLogic, on 07/24/2008, -3/+12Last I recall, we had an Air Force and missiles in the US. Probably why I'm not really worried.

    Let them park as many bombers as they'd like in Cuba, it doesn't mean a thing.
  • notque, on 07/24/2008, -8/+11This is over the U.S. putting first strike weapons near Russia. This has been going on for over a year.
    • repins, on 07/24/2008, -5/+5Since when is a missle defense shield a FIRST STRIKE WEAPON?
    • notque, on 07/24/2008, -1/+41. By your logic, we didn't attack Iraq or Afghanistan because the defense department is incapable of war.
      2. Every aggressive war has been called defense by those who started it.
      3. If Russia put a missiles as defense in Cuba, would that be fine?

      From 2000

      A National Intelligence Estimate predicts that NMD deployment will trigger buildup of nuclear-armed missiles by China, India, and Pakistan, with a further spread into the Middle East. Russia will assume that such a system can be quickly upgraded and will therefore also regard it as a first-strike threat. As many have observed, Russia's "only rational response to the NMD system would be to maintain, and strengthen, the existing Russian nuclear force" (Michael Byers), undermining hopes for nuclear disarmament.

      So, I'm agreeing with the Government here.
      • mdepaul, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Hey just me here but I'd rather have the Russians maintain their weapons then not.
  • MarcVilla, on 07/24/2008, -3/+8History does repeat itself doesn't it? Obama is having his JFK moment in Berlin, it's another Cuba crisis deja-vu set up for the chosen one, after he takes office of course, I wonder if Hillary will be Vice President? .......just in case JFK history plays out on Obama. After all Hillary's Robert, F. Kennedy moment did not occur as she desperately wished.
    • theloofa, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2"Ich bin ein Berliner"

      haha
    • gn0stik, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Some interesting parallels, to be sure.
    • Scrappy1850, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3hillary wanted to bang marilyn monroe too
    • Treoinmypocket, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I love how Obama - in his infinite wisdom and foreign policy expertise - chose to give his speech from the symbol of Germany's vistory over Denmark, France and Austria.
    • nixfu, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Uh...ICH...uh.....BIN....er...uh...ummmm....what I mean...uh.....is......uh.....EIN...er.....uh......uh...saying.....uh....im...uh...BERLINER.


      Yep...world class candidate the dems ummm...have.

    • PunkRockGeoff, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1In all likelihood, Obama can't win with Hillary on the ticket and McCain can't win without her on the ticket.
  • skidme, on 07/24/2008, -13/+7Anyone else think we should invade Cuba? They've been annoying for the past several decades.
    • dynamojoe, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0Hell no. I live in Miami.
      • ASHole71, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2If we took over Cuba and gave it right back, i think Miami might empty. Let them all go home!
      • letherial, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0i could do without miami...or florida for that matter...better you then me!!
  • nblsavage, on 07/24/2008, -0/+44This information is from an unnamed source, printed in a Russian newspaper and then posted on a blog. I'll refrain from panic.
  • peticsu, on 07/24/2008, -0/+18how soon till my car grows tail fins?
  • chrissku, on 07/24/2008, -9/+1In Russia the train rides you.
  • HouseofEl, on 07/24/2008, -5/+5Seriously, even as posturing this is stupid. There is no threat here. Honestly Russia should be smarter than this.
  • BattleScars, on 07/24/2008, -5/+8So we've gone from blaming everything on commies to blaming everything on terrorists and now we're all set to give commies a second bashing. That's got to be a neo-con's wet dream.
    • ASHole71, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2Silly Lib, go play with your toys
    • vxp19, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2We aren't commies any more than you are Nazis.

      • mdepaul, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0that's not a good arguement way about 50% of political diggers believe that America is Corporatist or Fascist.
      • appleseed1234, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1By definition, and rightfully so?
  • rearlgrant, on 07/24/2008, -6/+1Maybe they'll bomb Gitmo first...
    • fleischner, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2...but you support the troops.
    • rearlgrant, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1"... no unlawful orders..."
      Better DHD or jailed in Leavenworth than accepting an assignment there.
      Republican's -- NOT the party of personal responsibility.
  • alexonix, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8Red Alert IRL?
  • serif69, on 07/24/2008, -4/+3Don't make us send Coleman Francis after you, Russia.

    I'm Cherokee Jack.
    • iamjasonc, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0yeah! Red Zone Cuba!! Although I've only seen the MST3K version :-P
  • rodon, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4The name; John Titor is now coming to mind.
    • gn0stik, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3go join a shotgun infantry.
    • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3How was that Mad Cow Disease epidemic in 2007 again?
  • osuchasenuts, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9What happened to the good old days when we didn't tell the world where every one of our nukes were? There was more surprise. More adventure!!
  • TherealObadiah, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4w
  • WCL23, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5old news is old
  • opensourcer, on 07/24/2008, -1/+34Should we start harvesting Tiberium?
    • eddyheart, on 07/24/2008, -4/+0I agree. We could use another James Kirk.
    • rsHoratio, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8I think you have your sci-fis mixed up
    • xDynaBlade, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1It was actually iron ore. And rainbow ore for extra points.
      • opensourcer, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I know harvesting Tiberium was during Command and Conquer. I just want to get ahead of the curve and start mining Tiberium. I know that Kane is up to no good.
  • NinjaBoy, on 07/24/2008, -2/+999 red balloons go POP!
  • PhillyMJS, on 07/24/2008, -1/+10This is just a marketing ploy for the upcoming remake of Red Dawn. The studio is paying off the cash-strapped Russkies to do a little saber-rattling.
  • cloud3151, on 07/24/2008, -8/+1u kno that the russians r one of the only countries to make nuclear weapons and they hav nothing against us so nothing's going to happen. theyre probably putting missiles in cuba just in case somthing happens. hell even the cubans has nothing against us so nothings going to happen.
    • rsHoratio, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3lernz 2 tulkz
    • xEn1gma, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the reassurance cloud3151 -- your vernacular compels me to take your opinion seriously.

  • thegrantman, on 07/24/2008, -9/+3I call *****. Russia simply can't afford this...politically or economically.
    • dynamojoe, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Economically they're doing well lately. Something about all their oil going up in value or something.
      Politics follows the money.
    • BabyWookie, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1LOL. This is not the 90's. Currently, the Russian gov has some of the largest monetary reserves in the world.
    • bacchante, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Whew for a minute there I thought someone with credentials called *****.
    • thegrantman, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1True,it's not the 90's.But the World Bank reported last month that the Russian economy is overheating due to inflation,rising labor costs,etc.Well beyond the initial cost of the installation comes the very real chance of military escalation on both sides.The economic disaster that was, in part,a result of the last escalation is still quite fresh in the memories of Russians.Do we pose enough threat for them to take that risk on a base that isn't crucial? It sounds to me as if they are just flexing their political muscle.
  • eddyheart, on 07/24/2008, -3/+20The US is being a touch hypocritical, as we have nuclear-capable bases in multiple countries in proximity to Russia... Turkey, Afghanistan, Germany etc. Former Soviet Bloc countries are joining NATO with propsects of more nuclear bases bordering Russia. I don't blame Russia for trying to maintain parity.
    • mbraynard, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Russia doesn't need to maintain parity. The bombers in Cuba are just them being stupid and provacative - for no military reason.

      There is no way a bomber from Cuba would get much off the ground sans any air support and it would probably be shot down within about 3 minutes of taking off.

      This is Russia's response to the US missile defense shield - which is no threat to Russia whatsoever since while it might stop a couple of missiles from Iran or N Korea or some other unsavory element, it could never stop an onslaught of ICBMs from Russia.

      Similarly, US bases in Europe are relics of the time when Russia had military bases in Eastern Europe (Warsaw PACT). Right now they are just way stations for Middle East operations.

      Russia is just being a immature childish dick and are betting that the US isn't going to put them in their place. It's time to prove them wrong. How about starting with cutting of US AID projects meant to electrify rural areas of Russia? How can a nation that depends on foreign aid depend have the balls to play games like this?
      • eddyheart, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I don't know for sure, but I imagine Russia has cruise missiles that can carry warheads and be launched from a bomber, just as we do...
        At some point our missile defense system *will* threaten Russia's nuclear deterrence. Immediately prior to that point, it would make some sense for Russia to launch a first strike, from a game-theoretic view.
      • mbraynard, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1EddyHeart - They could easily launch the missiles from the ground as with bombers.... like 50 years ago. There is no military advantage to the Russians.

        Besides, the US has the Russians so wired that any communication to Cuban base would be in the hands of the US before they are in the hands of the Russian airmen on the ground in Cuba and would then be turned into flaming compost.
    • vxp19, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5It's precisely why we are doing it.

      USA is upsetting the balance of power, it needs to be restored.

      MADD must remain intact.
      • duffman03, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2MADD is a GREAT idea because all the weapons leaking out of Russia isn't a cause of concern.
      • zaptoman, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1There hasn't BEEN a balance of power for 17 years.
  • amirpc, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news ...
  • Andrwmorph, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5Time to invest in bomb repellent!
  • srodrigo, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5how are they planning to fuel these "bombers" to take off in Cuba lol... Probably the Russians are storing them in there so they don´t have to pay for maintenance
  • ironhide, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4Welcome to the new (old?) boogeyman for McCain and company to rally around. Mark my words.
  • jorisb, on 07/24/2008, -3/+22while(1) {
    History();
    }
    • eddyheart, on 07/24/2008, -5/+0class GoodbyeWorld
      {
      public static void main(String args[])
      {
      System.out.println("Goodbye World!");
      }
      }
    • Vuredel, on 07/24/2008, -2/+15More like

      while (idiots_in_power) {
      History();
      }
    • billizm, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1And unfortunately, there is no "try, catch" if a critical error happens. Must be old ANSI C.
    • nixfu, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3But still people keep trying socialism.

  • Scrappy1850, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12Somebody get a shovel! We need JFK back!
    • mbraynard, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9Uh, yeah, because he handled the situation so well....
    • invisiblelemur, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1better get some superglue too...or at least some duct tape.
    • cwoolf34, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0You mean get his brother, who secretly threatened the Soviets by letting them know we had missiles too, but in Eastern Europe and then played it off as if his brother John was a hero.
  • WhoDoneIt, on 07/24/2008, -7/+4Red Dawn FTW!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.