Cuba silent on Russian bomber report: Fidel Castro | U.S. | Reuters

I understand the fuzz, but where is it different from US bases in Afghanistan or elsewhere in Central Asia? Let alone US anti-missile batteries at Russian borders ...

__________________
Exposing the dark side.

At least they will be easier for us to hit, should the need arise.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

its called the Monroe doctrine.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

So all Russia needs to do is come up with the Putin Doctrine and the US will not put bases in central Asia, not put bases in Cuba.

__________________
Two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the US

I've been around since "Buy American" meant "Made in the USA".

If you added some historical and geographical context you would see that your argument is a non starter.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I was an adult during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when JFK finally convinced Russia to take their missiles out of Cuba by using a blockade. A blockade is an act of war, but he called it a deterrent or something instead of a blockade. I know we have silos in Europe that can easily reach Russia, but don't think we have them in Afghanistan or central Asia. None of us would be privy to that kind of information, so we don't know for sure. I am confident our airforce could take out any nuclear bomber threat in the air before it would reach our shores, but what is to stop the Russians from setting up silos in Cuba with nuclear missiles if we allow the bombers to be stationed there? Bach in '62 we were scared shitless and dug bomb shelters in our back yards and stocked it with months of supplies. We just knew we were going to get bombed. Wake up folks, and don't take this lightly. You certainly don't want to be voting for a pussy like Obama at a time like this.

see above....

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Yes I know all about the Monroe Doctrine, but Cuba just doesn't seem to kow-tow to American laws and philosophy since they became a communist country. Neither does Russia. They deny any of this, but they have done the denial thing many times historically. The Monroe Doctrine just makes sure our government keeps this from happening.
>>>The Monroe Doctrine states three major ideas, with one more added by President Theodore Roosevelt. First, it conveys that European countries cannot colonize in any of the Americas: North, Central, or South as well as islands of the Caribbean which were considered to be a part of the Americas. Second, it enforces Washington's rule of foreign policy, in which the U.S. will only be involved in European affairs if America's rights are disturbed. Third, the U.S. will consider any attempt at colonization a threat to its national security. Roosevelt added to the doctrine, and summed up his additions with the statement, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

Nuclear weapons and airplanes were not around during this time. We have to react to modern times and modern weapons threats. If this threat is indeed a true thing that is happening, then Bush and company need to put a stop to it immediately.

Well... you do not need silos... the Russian Bombers carry cruise missiles with a range of 3000km. That would cover about half the US.
So practically it is the same / worse than that old missile crisis.

But since Russia already has the capability to hit any place on earth with it's several thousand ICBMs that carry a dozen of warheads each... this sounds like and is, a political stunt for inner politics.

__________________

I don't think the US has much to worry about...I think this country will implode socially and politically before anybody has the balls to nuke us.
Cuba is its own country, and Russia is its own country. We can't tell them what they can and can't do unless it directly threatens or jeopardizes the safety of US citizens. I say instead of running everyone else's lives for them, we merely keep tabs on the military presence in Cuba and ensure our ability to defend our borders (Interceptors? Ground-to-air missiles?).

__________________
Josiah

The post underneath this one is a lie.

Nobody in Russia will nuke anyone - we are not Americans, we don't have the doctrine of preventive nuke strike. The US will be nuked by some terrorist one day, by one of those guys whom the US trained for the terrorist war against Russia and China, and who showed impressive abilities to act independently.
The situation with airfields in Cuba is simple. There is such thing as the strategic nuclear balance, the basis of MAD concept. The rockets on the eastern border of Poland and radar station in Czech Republic upheavel this balance, because the US refused to set the AMD station in Azerbaidjan, which could lead to the safe co-operation of Russia and the US and created the knot of global united US-Euro_Russian system of anti-missle defense. The US have chosen to threaten Russia and now everyone can see that danger from Iran was the trick. Rockets in Poland will be offencive, Polish pro-US anti-EU marionette government openly declared this system gonna be anti-Russian.
Whatever truth is, Russia must compensate the upheavel of the nuclear balance. The airfields in Cuba are nothing else but small counterweight on the opposite cup of scales. If AMD rockets in Poland are really intended to intercept Iranian ICBM, there is no reason for the US to get worried. The anti-missile project rearranges the architecture of balance, but leaves it's core the same as ten years ago.

As for the Monroe Doctrine, I found it good enough with one remark - the desires and appetites must correlate with reality. The attempts not to let anyone into the Western hemisphere are ridiculous. The american bases protect the American interests in the former Soviet republics, despite all former Soviet doctrines. Therefore it must not be surprise, if Russian and Chinese bases will protect interests of those countries somethere despite old Monroe who created his doctrine when Europe collapsed and weakened in continental wars, Americans didn't put their nose to Ukraine and Caucasus and China was colony of the West. This doctrine worked somehow in time of Bipolar World and Cold War stand-off. But now it all is in the past.

nice try..lets take a look- in the 80s Reagan sent med range ball. missiles to to Europe....why then did the ussr not send some to cuba? Because they knew that would not float, its been settled since the 60’s......the abm missile shield is such a strawman..nice try though.


IF the ussr wish to put abms in cuba, I say be my guest, they will have as little impact as these would if placed were the ussr wants them now. Physics doesn’t respect political machinations, it is what it is, calculations of trajectories, courses of intercept etc.

But putting bombers that have zero defensive capability and are offensive weapons there, is a huge ratcheting up of the cold wear, which inho has existed for the last 4-5 years as soon as putins poorly crafted mask slipped.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Russia might not have a doctrine of a pre-emptive nuclear strike, but the Soviet Union sure did. The Soviet government believed that a nuclear war was winable.

__________________
Politics for Smart People Please stop by and leave some comments.
Sensible Alternative Energy

I think there is a lot more fuss about the nuclear capable bombers than there should be.

There still are a lot of ballistic missile submarines still out there that are much scarier than these bombers. It's just that the bombers are a more visible threat.

On a side note (since it was mentioned under this thread), I still don't think we should be pushing for putting anti ballistic missile weapons in Europe when there is so much anger against them. This fight should be made by the Europeans, and if they want them then they can contend with Russia. We should stay out of this. I personally like having Russia as a friend instead of an enemy.

__________________
Politics for Smart People Please stop by and leave some comments.
Sensible Alternative Energy

I don't see why we can't have both. But, if I had to choose with an either/or ultimatum (all hypothetical, of course), I would go with Russia - hands down.