6 ms·

Silly bombs. Not like the Russians invade our Dutch (European) air space every other month or so... Oh, wait they do! Russian nuclear bombers (TU-95) do in fact

Silly bombs. Not like the Russians invade our Dutch (European) air space every other month or so... Oh, wait they do! Russian nuclear bombers (TU-95) do in fact invade our airspace on a regular basis. I can hear the F-16 Quick Reaction Force scramble every now and then. http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2013/03/21/46204057/f_16_s_onderscheppen_russische_bommenwerpers http://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2013/03/21/46204057/f_...

t0mas88 13y ago
[conspiraciy mode] They made a deal with the Russians to fly-by once every 6 weeks to make sure we can justify spending 7.6 billion euros on the JSF program ;-) [/conspiraciy mode]
- arethuza 13y ago
  Looks to me more like simple macho posturing by Putin: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa
  - digitalengineer 13y ago
    Good find! From the article: "In another move with cold war overtones, Russia took the BBC's Russian-language FM broadcasts off the air. The Moscow distributor of the broadcasts said the programmes were "foreign propaganda." Makes me think if the US project to place a rocket-shield in Central Europe has anything to do with Russia re-activating it's cold war methods.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      I can remember the Cold War rhetoric quite clearly - we were told that the Soviet tank armies were poised to pour through the Fulda Gap and drag us all of to Gulags. Meanwhile, the Soviets lived in terror of a nuclear first strike by the West, which they expected at any time and that would utterly destroy their country. My understanding is that it was Ronald Reagan, of all people, who realised that inflamatory rhetoric ("Evil Empire") is a bad idea when you are facing an opponent who is terrified that you are going to attack them - which the Soviets were (with some justification). Reagan deserves a lot of credit for helping end the Cold War - but it was largely achieved by discussion rather than threats. I really hope we don't begin that stupendous silliness all over again.
      - youngerdryas 13y ago
        There was something ironic about playing Missile Command at the height of the Cold War. No matter how well you did in the end you always lost all your cities.
      - cema 13y ago
        we were told that the Soviet tank armies were poised to pour through the Fulda Gap Yes they were. I remember the official rhetoric from the days of my military service (private in the Soviet Army) and the military studies in college (which I later abandoned during Perestroika). In private, many of the officers had different thoughts, but some (I would say, the more stupid ones) were very happy with the official line. And the rhetoric was supported by the facts on the ground. The quality of training was poor, but the quality and especially quantity of military equipment was enormous.
        arethuza 13y ago
        Deterrence worked during the Cold War - I'm not arguing that each side didn't present a real threat to the other. What I do take issue with is the crazy degree to which vast arsenals were constructed on both sides to a level that was much much more than that required to politically deter an attack. The problem I have isn't that deterrence with nuclear weapons doesn't work - clearly it does. Rather that we have no good mechanism for limiting the size of arsenals. Here is a question - are there any records of the Soviets having military leaders who advocated actually invading Western Europe (rather than just planning for it)? [NB I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to score points.]
        cema 13y ago
        Records are an interesting matter. I think I have read about some documents, however the semi-closed nature of the Soviet government, as well as the current Russian government, leaves large portions of it unavailable to the general public. And what is available is often difficult to place in the context, because the context is insufficient. I will see if I can find anything, it is indeed interesting.
    - znowi 13y ago
      >Makes me think if the US project to place a rocket-shield in Central Europe has anything to do with Russia re-activating it's cold war methods. Yes, in the same way the US invaded Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction :)
      - digitalengineer 13y ago
        I wasn't kidding. There were plans to set up a missile shield. After pressure by Putin they were canceled and replaced by the 'Aegis LEAP Intercept (ALI) program'. "This system was given major new importance by President Obama in September 2009, when he announced plans to scrap the plans for a missile defense site in Poland, in favor of missile defense systems located on US Navy warships. On 18 September 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin welcomed Obama's plans for missile defense which may include stationing American Aegis armed warships in the Black Sea, as these would be less effective against Russia's missile attacks." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense...
        znowi 13y ago
        Well, it was a sarcastic comment. Sorry :) What I'm trying to convey is that it is not Russia that is a threat in the region. And hasn't been since the Soviets dissolved. As I said elsewhere, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia back in 2002. This treaty had been active since the 70s and attempted exactly that - decrease the amount of anti-ballistic missiles installed. There was no rational reason to put up a whole new defense system in Europe (under a false premise of the Iranian threat). It is in no one's interest except the US. And rightly so, many, including Russia, considered this move aggressive. If the past decade is of any lesson, the magnitude of the US influence and military presence in the world is a greater threat than anything else.

t0mas88 13y ago

[conspiraciy mode] They made a deal with the Russians to fly-by once every 6 weeks to make sure we can justify spending 7.6 billion euros on the JSF program ;-) [/conspiraciy mode]

arethuza 13y ago
Looks to me more like simple macho posturing by Putin: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/17/russia.usa
- digitalengineer 13y ago
  Good find! From the article: "In another move with cold war overtones, Russia took the BBC's Russian-language FM broadcasts off the air. The Moscow distributor of the broadcasts said the programmes were "foreign propaganda." Makes me think if the US project to place a rocket-shield in Central Europe has anything to do with Russia re-activating it's cold war methods.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    I can remember the Cold War rhetoric quite clearly - we were told that the Soviet tank armies were poised to pour through the Fulda Gap and drag us all of to Gulags. Meanwhile, the Soviets lived in terror of a nuclear first strike by the West, which they expected at any time and that would utterly destroy their country. My understanding is that it was Ronald Reagan, of all people, who realised that inflamatory rhetoric ("Evil Empire") is a bad idea when you are facing an opponent who is terrified that you are going to attack them - which the Soviets were (with some justification). Reagan deserves a lot of credit for helping end the Cold War - but it was largely achieved by discussion rather than threats. I really hope we don't begin that stupendous silliness all over again.
    - youngerdryas 13y ago
      There was something ironic about playing Missile Command at the height of the Cold War. No matter how well you did in the end you always lost all your cities.
    - cema 13y ago
      we were told that the Soviet tank armies were poised to pour through the Fulda Gap Yes they were. I remember the official rhetoric from the days of my military service (private in the Soviet Army) and the military studies in college (which I later abandoned during Perestroika). In private, many of the officers had different thoughts, but some (I would say, the more stupid ones) were very happy with the official line. And the rhetoric was supported by the facts on the ground. The quality of training was poor, but the quality and especially quantity of military equipment was enormous.
      - arethuza 13y ago
        Deterrence worked during the Cold War - I'm not arguing that each side didn't present a real threat to the other. What I do take issue with is the crazy degree to which vast arsenals were constructed on both sides to a level that was much much more than that required to politically deter an attack. The problem I have isn't that deterrence with nuclear weapons doesn't work - clearly it does. Rather that we have no good mechanism for limiting the size of arsenals. Here is a question - are there any records of the Soviets having military leaders who advocated actually invading Western Europe (rather than just planning for it)? [NB I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to score points.]
        cema 13y ago
        Records are an interesting matter. I think I have read about some documents, however the semi-closed nature of the Soviet government, as well as the current Russian government, leaves large portions of it unavailable to the general public. And what is available is often difficult to place in the context, because the context is insufficient. I will see if I can find anything, it is indeed interesting.
  - znowi 13y ago
    >Makes me think if the US project to place a rocket-shield in Central Europe has anything to do with Russia re-activating it's cold war methods. Yes, in the same way the US invaded Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction :)
    - digitalengineer 13y ago
      I wasn't kidding. There were plans to set up a missile shield. After pressure by Putin they were canceled and replaced by the 'Aegis LEAP Intercept (ALI) program'. "This system was given major new importance by President Obama in September 2009, when he announced plans to scrap the plans for a missile defense site in Poland, in favor of missile defense systems located on US Navy warships. On 18 September 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin welcomed Obama's plans for missile defense which may include stationing American Aegis armed warships in the Black Sea, as these would be less effective against Russia's missile attacks." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense...
      - znowi 13y ago
        Well, it was a sarcastic comment. Sorry :) What I'm trying to convey is that it is not Russia that is a threat in the region. And hasn't been since the Soviets dissolved. As I said elsewhere, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty with Russia back in 2002. This treaty had been active since the 70s and attempted exactly that - decrease the amount of anti-ballistic missiles installed. There was no rational reason to put up a whole new defense system in Europe (under a false premise of the Iranian threat). It is in no one's interest except the US. And rightly so, many, including Russia, considered this move aggressive. If the past decade is of any lesson, the magnitude of the US influence and military presence in the world is a greater threat than anything else.