PDA

View Full Version : Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers


Polamalu Princess
02-11-2008, 07:24 PM
Interesting...



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UODA4G0&show_article=1

Borski
02-11-2008, 07:42 PM
I think Russia is up to something, we better keep an eye on them.
they did a bomber flyover just south of Tokyo the other day. (http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=23478)

SteelCityMan786
02-11-2008, 07:44 PM
I think Russia is up to something, we better keep an eye on them.
they did a bomber flyover just south of Tokyo the other day. (http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=23478)

They sure seem fishy.

Polamalu Princess
02-11-2008, 07:49 PM
They sure seem fishy.

I agree with both of you. Something is just not right about what has been going on.

SteelersMongol
02-12-2008, 10:52 AM
The problem is (or was) Russians have been treated as redheaded stepchild ever since the fall of the Berlin wall. Now they're trying 2 get back 2 where they were before.

Polamalu Princess
02-12-2008, 02:08 PM
The problem is (or was) Russians have been treated as redheaded stepchild ever since the fall of the Berlin wall. Now they're trying 2 get back 2 where they were before.

Many people say that it could never happen, but I am one that is not so sure about it.

Borski
02-12-2008, 03:42 PM
I have a feeling we'll be hearing alot more from Russia in the coming months/years.

There are rumors of a potential Iran/Russia alience, not much scarier then two upset nations that have nukes.

83-Steelers-43
02-12-2008, 05:24 PM
Let the UN deal with them. Maybe they can finally prove to me that they actually have a role and some use in this world. Up to this point, they have been a joke. While they are at it, they can go have a talk with Iran, China and North Korea.

Much like always though, I'm sure we will be the ones who will have to pacify and deal with Putin/The Russian mafia and like always, we will end up looking like the bad guys. What else is new? :yawn:

MasterOfPuppets
02-12-2008, 06:20 PM
Let the UN deal with them. Maybe they can finally prove to me that they actually have a role and some use in this world. Up to this point, they have been a joke. While they are at it, they can go have a talk with Iran, China and North Korea.

Much like always though, I'm sure we will be the ones who will have to pacify and deal with Putin/The Russian mafia and like always, we will end up looking like the bad guys. What else is new? :yawn:either that, or writing them a big financial aid check....:coffee:

OneForTheToe
02-12-2008, 07:44 PM
Let the UN deal with them. Maybe they can finally prove to me that they actually have a role and some use in this world. Up to this point, they have been a joke. While they are at it, they can go have a talk with Iran, China and North Korea.

Much like always though, I'm sure we will be the ones who will have to pacify and deal with Putin/The Russian mafia and like always, we will end up looking like the bad guys. What else is new? :yawn:

It would be difficult for the UN to deal with the Russians when said Russians maintain a veto on the only committee at the UN with power - the Security Council.

Add this to this issue the problems the Russians had recently with Japan and the comments they made today regarding the Ukraine and it does seem to be a pattern.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm

Putan has also set himself up to be a ruler behind the scenes after the Russian Election. I think things could get very dicey over the next few years.

Polamalu Princess
02-12-2008, 07:50 PM
[QUOTE=OneForTheToe;366170]Add this to this issue the problems the Russians had recently with Japan and the comments they made today regarding the Ukraine and it does seem to be a pattern.QUOTE]

I think that is what concerns me the most...it seems to be a pattern and that is not good. I am also concerned with North Korea and what they threaten as well.

83-Steelers-43
02-12-2008, 08:16 PM
either that, or writing them a big financial aid check....:coffee:

Just wake me when the UN actually becomes useful MOP. :wink02:

Borski
02-13-2008, 01:43 AM
I think this should just be the offical "Eye on Russia thread",

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/12/wrussia112.xml)


By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 7:57pm GMT 12/02/2008

Russia has threatened to target the Ukraine with nuclear warheads if the former Soviet republic joins Nato and accepts the deployment of United States anti-missile defences on its territory.

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine
The Russian and Ukrainian leaders had just held emergency talks in the Kremlin

President Vladimir Putin of Russia warned Ukraine's leader Viktor Yushchenko of "retaliatory actions" should his country join the Western alliance during a joint press conference in Moscow.

"It's frightening not just to talk about this, but even to think about, that in response to such deployment, the possibility of such deployments - and one can't theoretically exclude these deployments - that Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory," he said.

The Russian and Ukrainian leaders had just held emergency talks in the Kremlin to avert a energy supply crisis over Kiev gas bill - a similar dispute two years ago led to power cuts across Europe.

Mr Yushchenko responded to the Russian pressure by insisting on Ukraine's right to decide its own foreign policy while stressing that his country's constitution would not allow US military bases on its territory.

"You understand well that everything that Ukraine does in this direction is not in any way directed at any third country, including Russia," he replied.

"We follow the principle that any nation has the right to define its own security. Our constitution does not allow deployment by a third country or bloc on Ukrainian territory."

Mr Putin has condemned Washington's plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield as a "new phase in the arms race".

Russia fears the shield will threaten its national security and tip strategic military balance in Europe.

"The goal [of the missile shield] is to neutralise our nuclear capabilities," said Mr Putin.

"This would prompt Russia to take retaliatory action."

Moscow has already declared that Russia will pull out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), which came into force in 1992 and restricts the deployment of troops and tanks near sensitive European frontiers.

Last week, John Chipman, the head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, warned that the "next target of Moscow's assertive revisionism "could be the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987.

Both would be moves that would allow Russia to build a new generation of medium-range nuclear missiles capable of striking Western Europe. As relations between Russia and many of its near neighbours deteriorate, Ukraine has submitted a formal membership request to Nato, to be considered a summit of alliance leaders in the Romanian capital of Bucharest this April.

Mr Putin has accepted an invitation to attend the meeting and Russia's parliament last month voted to stop using Soviet-built military radars in Ukraine because of Kiev's Nato ambitions.

The prospect of Nato membership is also deeply controversial in the Ukraine, where opinion polls show that over half of the country opposes it.

Russia has revived the long-range air patrols that were once a standard feature of the Cold War and US defence officials confirmed that a pair of Russian TU-95 Bear bombers overflew a US aircraft carrier in the western Pacific at an altitude of 2,000 feet (660 meters) over the weekend.

Four F-18 fighters jets intercepted the Russian bombers on Saturday morning, but not before they had overflown the USS Nimitz.

It was the second time since July 2004 that a Russian Bear bomber has overflown a US aircraft carrier.

It was not immediately known whether the United States issued any protests with the Russians.

revefsreleets
02-13-2008, 08:17 PM
This is the very definition of "Saber rattling". The Russians were marginalized for a long time, and they, much like a jealous ex-girlfriend who got a little chunky but still can clean herself up on occasion, are out to make some kind of impression with whatever tools they have left to them. Problem is, they have a ton of nukes, so they need to be handled with kid gloves.

Polamalu Princess
02-13-2008, 09:17 PM
This is the very definition of "Saber rattling". The Russians were marginalized for a long time, and they, much like a jealous ex-girlfriend who got a little chunky but still can clean herself up on occasion, are out to make some kind of impression with whatever tools they have left to them. Problem is, they have a ton of nukes, so they need to be handled with kid gloves.

My husband told me about "Saber Rattling" and I understand what is meant by the phrase, and I hope and pray that you are right. However, I am inclined to agree with you tenfold about the nukes - we have to make the right decisions and tenacious moves as necessary.

revefsreleets
02-13-2008, 09:36 PM
Keep in mind that the threat of nuclear annihilation is gone. That threat died once everyone realized what kind of genie was actually in that bottle that we unleashed. But the threat of arming a terrorist state is very real. And once the Russians start down this path, how do we know where they will stop? They know we don't have the manpower right now to counter them directly (conventionally), and they are taking advantage of our preoccupation in the middle east. It's ugly, and it makes the next election even more important than it would have been before.

Sorry, Obama looks like Carter to me. Diplomacy at any cost spells failure. Hilary? Too much wag the dog from her husband for me to trust her. McCain is the only guy I'd trust.

Polamalu Princess
02-13-2008, 09:45 PM
Keep in mind that the threat of nuclear annihilation is gone. That threat died once everyone realized what kind of genie was actually in that bottle that we unleashed. But the threat of arming a terrorist state is very real. And once the Russians start down this path, how do we know where they will stop? They know we don't have the manpower right now to counter them directly (conventionally), and they are taking advantage of our preoccupation in the middle east. It's ugly, and it makes the next election even more important than it would have been before.

Sorry, Obama looks like Carter to me. Diplomacy at any cost spells failure. Hilary? Too much wag the dog from her husband for me to trust her. McCain is the only guy I'd trust.

Actually, I am on track with you so very much.

revefsreleets
02-13-2008, 09:52 PM
Actually, I am on track with you so very much.

Well, thanks! I, lately, have felt like common sense has died and gone to purgatory!

Polamalu Princess
02-13-2008, 10:14 PM
Well, thanks! I, lately, have felt like common sense has died and gone to purgatory!

Hehe!!!!

Common sense has just about died, but I have faith that someday, somewhere purgatory will be defeated!

Dino 6 Rings
02-15-2008, 03:17 PM
Alot of Russia's current "saber rattling" has to do with the situation in Serbia/Kosovo. The Balkins have always been a problem, for Europe, since the days of the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire. Quick breakdown of what's going on.

Southern Serbia, known to the UN and the world as Kosovo, wants to declare independence from Serbia. Serbia doesn't want them to have autonomy, for various reasons, historic landmarks, land grab by the Albanians, access to the Sea. The UN is backing Kosovo in this bid for independence, Russia is backing the Serbs.

Breakdown. Kosovo is currently run by a majority rule of Albanians, who are Moslim. The Serbs, majority, are Orthodox Christian. This is religious as much as any war, and also about land and resources, just like any war. The problem, now with Russia backing the Serbs, is they also in the same breath can't back Iran, see, that would upset the Serbs, cause of the religous nature. Russia isn't forming an alliance with Iran, its finding a buyer for his products, (weapons) and that's it. They don't agree on anything other than, the US is bad, and weapons need to exchange hands.

Anyway...I study this stuff, in my spare time, and follow it very closely. Serbia/Kosovo is going to be a huge problem if it isn't contained. And history shows us, that area is where all the world wars start. Its the gateway and clash of civilizations, look at a map, notice who borders all that land, its the "wall" between cultures. Its a mess.

revefsreleets
02-15-2008, 06:47 PM
True dat. WWI started right there over Franz Ferdinand's assassination, although it became a World War because of newly formed alliances that obligated countries to come to each others aid. I found this after a quickie search, but it's pretty good (although I'm going off on another tangent here):

One Thing Led to Another

So then, we have the following remarkable sequence of events that led inexorably to the 'Great War' - a name that had been touted even before the coming of the conflict.

*

Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914.

*

Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete.

*

Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russia on 1 August.

*

France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary following a German declaration on 3 August. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route.

*

Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the terms of a 75-year old treaty.

With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.

*

With Britain's entry into the war, her colonies and dominions abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.

*

United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.

*

Japan, honouring a military agreement with Britain, declared war on Germany on 23 August 1914. Two days later Austria-Hungary responded by declaring war on Japan.

*

Italy, although allied to both Germany and Austria-Hungary, was able to avoid entering the fray by citing a clause enabling it to evade its obligations to both.

In short, Italy was committed to defend Germany and Austria-Hungary only in the event of a 'defensive' war; arguing that their actions were 'offensive' she declared instead a policy of neutrality. The following year, in May 1915, she finally joined the conflict by siding with the Allies against her two former allies.

Polamalu Princess
02-16-2008, 08:58 PM
Dino and Reve,

I appreciate both of you for your input. I really want to look up and study all that you both wrote. It all scares the crap out of me regardless, as I feel we as a nation are in dire straights.

Have a grand night.

TeeJay
02-17-2008, 09:19 PM
I wouldn't worry about them Ruskis - those planes just got 'lost' whilst trying to help out their American and British allies in Afganistan!! *Shitfy eyes*.
I'm more concerned with Russian dissidents 'just dying' in Britain - all opponents of Putin! I One is careless, two is worrying! :jawdrop:(And one by plutonium is disturbing). Seeing as Plutonium deaths in London are, shall we say, rather minimal at best!

But if you really want to be worried, I'd start with the UN. Bunch of useless [profanity blocked swear words].

I wouldn't trust the UN with a Kindergarten, let alone world peace!

Dino 6 Rings
02-18-2008, 10:58 AM
Today Kosovo "declared" independance from Serbia...

what's that hitting the fan?

oh a big pile of shiiiit.....