TU-160 Blackjacks - Chavez offer base for Russian bombers

[SUBMAN1]

I bet most libs would never have expected to have to worry about this crap ever again. They think the whole world would be gay and peaceful from now on, except for the damn Arabs! Too funny.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14870420

-S

[fatty]

Chávez denies offering base to Russia (http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2009/03/16/ch225vez_denies_offering_base_to_russia/)

Pick your preferred bad guy to trust.

[SUBMAN1]

Chávez denies offering base to Russia (http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2009/03/16/ch225vez_denies_offering_base_to_russia/)

Pick your preferred bad guy to trust.

"Chavez proposed to us a whole island with an airfield that we can use for temporary basing of strategic bombers," said Major General Anatoly Zhikharev, the chief of Russia's long-range aviation staff.

So where is the denial? And considering it happened, how can he deny it after the fact?

-S

[fatty]

Did you follow the link?

"It's not like that," the president said, responding to a report by Interfax news agency quoting the chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Major General Anatoly Zhikharev, as saying some strategic bombers could be based on an island offered by Venezuela.

Zhikharev reportedly said Saturday that Chávez had offered "a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers."

Speaking during his weekly television and radio program, Chávez said he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that his nation's bombers would be allowed to land in Venezuela if necessary, but no such plans have been made.

[SUBMAN1]

Did you follow the link?

I see your link. Sounds like a neutral standing to me where he did and didn't offer the airstrip. Anyone with half a brain can see that he is allowing as much as the Russians want. Chavez needs the Russians in his own pea brained mind. Makes him feel like he has strong allies.

-S

[Zachstar]

Its a great bomber but only with a nation with the equivalent of SA-2s

Its just Chavez wanting more power even if its fake power.

[NeonSamurai]

I think his intent is pretty much to try to get the Russians entangled in the mess he is making and force their involvement if war breaks out between him and his South American neighbors.

I wouldn't put it past him to even stage an attack on Russian military assets in the country and try to frame the US or Colombia for it to bring Russian in. The guy is certainly dumb enough (and crazy enough) to try such a stunt given the past crap he has done.

If Russia was wise they would stay the hell out of that mess, as it almost certainly won't be worth the price (aside from increasing US Russian tensions).

[Max2147]

Hugo was probably just shooting his mouth off at a meeting with some Russian brass.

I think the Russians will be smart enough to keep a guy like Chavez at arm's length. They'll be friendly towards him, but they won't get into bed with him (BAD METAL IMAGE!).

Anyways, as somebody who flies from the US to South America pretty often (looooong flight!), a Russian base in Venezuela doesn't really scare me a whole lot. I'm sure the Canadians will be thrilled though.

As far as the impact a Russian base might have on a US invasion, the only person who thinks an invasion is a possibility is Chavez himself. He really, really, really wants to be important enough to be invaded, but he's just not. He loves shouting "THE US IS GOING TO INVADE ME TOMORROW! I'M REALLY DANGEROUS TO THEM! I HAVE OIL!" but in reality he's just not worth it.

So in conclusion, let windbags be windbags. They're fun to laugh at.

[XabbaRus]

What is the big deal. So Russia will occasionally base bombers there. No different from B-52s in the UK or anywhere else within in striking distance of Russia.

[Tribesman]

What is the big deal.
Exactly .
Its just more backround noise from the political deal that is being done over the missile shield and Iranian arms deal

[HunterICX]

What is the big deal. So Russia will occasionally base bombers there. No different from B-52s in the UK or anywhere else within in striking distance of Russia.

Spot on,

You can't just point a gun at an armed person expecting that he won't do the same thing to you.

HunterICX

[NeonSamurai]

Like I said, that's not what's worrying me so much. Its where they are thinking of basing, and who the dictator is there (and he has been stirring up a lot of trouble with his neighbors, particularly Colombia).

[antikristuseke]

Such lovely spin, noone could have expected that.

[Sea Demon]

What is the big deal. So Russia will occasionally base bombers there. No different from B-52s in the UK or anywhere else within in striking distance of Russia.

I think Xabba is correct here. Ultimately no big deal. And if worse comes to worse, and things get tighter, we can always base a detatchment of Air Defense fighters closer in Florida on constant alert, put a carrier group right up Castro's rear 24/7, and make sure that at least 2 Aegis destroyers are sitting just 12 miles off the coast. These bombers truly aren't a big threat if you deal with them realistically. For now, this is an empty gesture by Russia for the USA's actions in Eastern Europe and Asia. Plus it makes Russia have to commit alot of their resources to base and supply them logistically overseas where there is no real strategic interest for Russia. Let them waste their time and money.

[LobsterBoy]

This is a political move more than a military one. The blackjack has a range of roughly 9,400 nautical miles and it's roughly 5000 nautical miles from Murmansk to Caracas. The point being the blackjack can fulfill its mission from home bases without the risk of basing them where the US could easily destroy them if a conflict developed.

[geetrue]

Russia has made it well known that they are not interested in a missile defense shield in Europe even if suppose to just be against the Iranian threat of a missle attack.

Hence the threat to base long range bombers in Cuba or Venezuela for trading purposes. More like chinese checkers than chess, uh?

The Russians never stop thinking about their next move ... I wouldn't be surprised if they have a strike first plan with the thought the good ole USA would give up rather than fight on.

I wonder what the war colleges do all day with all of their time to think?

Speaking of war colleges the only one I know is the one in Newport, Rhode Island.

Does anyone know the others?

[Max2147]

The Russians never stop thinking about their next move ... I wouldn't be surprised if they have a strike first plan with the thought the good ole USA would give up rather than fight on.
And you think we don't have a first strike plan on Russia? I'm sure we've both had plans to wipe each other out with a sneak attack since the early 50's, if not sooner. Plan R anybody?

I'm sure every major country has a basic plan on how to attack any other major country.

Here's our old plan to invade Canada: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412.html

[NeonSamurai]

I'm sure they got an updated invade Canada plan too.

[Tchocky]

Plan R anybody?



:DL

[Raptor1]

Well, as long as we got enough mineshafts...

Anyway, I doubt that even if they base Tupolevs there it'll change the strategic situation much, put MRBMs there and it's probably a slightly different story

It's a shame whatever real alliance Russia can come up with won't have nearly as catchy a name as 'Warsaw Pact'

[XabbaRus]

I'm not entirely sure and I need to get sources but I have heard that Soviet defese doctrine was that a nuclear war was winnable.

This I think is what made them dangerous is that they would be less afraid to launch the nukes as many are mobile and potentially survivable thus after the US had launched her nukes at the Russian missile fields they would have little left in reserve after a Soviet first strike against ICBMs...

The theory being the Soviets would have enough left to go after the cities which the US wouldn't want as they couldn't retaliate and thus would sue for peace.

This is of course back before the US had precision strike missiles etc...

[Max2147]

I'm not entirely sure and I need to get sources but I have heard that Soviet defese doctrine was that a nuclear war was winnable.

This I think is what made them dangerous is that they would be less afraid to launch the nukes as many are mobile and potentially survivable thus after the US had launched her nukes at the Russian missile fields they would have little left in reserve after a Soviet first strike against ICBMs...

The theory being the Soviets would have enough left to go after the cities which the US wouldn't want as they couldn't retaliate and thus would sue for peace.

This is of course back before the US had precision strike missiles etc...
The Soviets had a clear conventional advantage in Europe during the Cold War, so if a hypothetical WW3 broke out, they would almost certainly have wanted to stay away from nuclear weapons as long as possible. The Soviets also had a no first use policy for nuclear weapons, although I'm sure they could have broken that policy if they had to.

Then there's the issue of escalation. Once war broke out, I think each side would have been cautious about increasing the level of nuclear weapon use. In other words, a few tactical nukes on the battlefield wouldn't have lead straight to an Armageddon nuclear exchange. There was also the possibility of a regional nuclear war, where the Soviets nuked our allies and we nuked theirs, but we specifically avoided nuking each other. It was (and still is) a huge topic of debate whether that escalation could have been stopped. From what I know, American wargames showed that the escalation would have proceeded slowly but inexorably. In other words, Armageddon was the inevitable endpoint, but it might have taken a while to get there.