Kerry says Navy ship could have fired on Russian planes

[bassman]

I hope the hot heads in Russia and the US won't start a war, the US would not win and would be forced to give up much of its bases. The US would be technological superior but the sovjets are far more willing to take casualties. Just look at WW2, this would tip the advantage to Russia and the US would loose much of its foreign bases.

Probably would end in a draw with Russia scoring a tactical victory and taking over some bases of the US. US does not have the stomach to really go to war (nobody in their right mind would). Far easier to order your soldiers in a dictatorship (Russia) as a Democracy .. the US.

I guess that is why the US did not fire.. they know what would happen otherwise.

If the US lost any land it would be Europe, Russia has no capability to mobilize across oceans, their power is landlocked.

Now I would imagine that if allies like Holland pitched in it might make a difference, just look at the Dutch in WW2, how long did they hold the Germans out? I can't remember if it was 1 or 2 days, but the nation laid on its stomach awful quick.

It is your Euros that need to worry about the Russian's not the Americans.

[Jblood]

Somebody needs to explain why the US with its military budget of US560 B can't defeat a bunch of peasants with kalashnikovs in Afganistan for the last 15 years already.

All of these speculations about the US military might are hilarious - I think it's the most ineffective military in the world. Despite the 100,000 to 1 ratio in budget, manpower, resources, technology, logistics, complete air superiority, training, medical superiority - they still manage to lose one war after another... against a completely inferior enemy. The truth is simple - everything described above is simply not enough to actually win a conflict as the evidence shows.

[boomerangutang]

could have, would have, should have....yawn

It's not a yawn. It could spark serious engagement.

If I was skipper, I would have ordered warning shots fired in the vicinity of, but not directly at the hot shots. The Russian pilots may have been drunk.

'

[johnnywishbone]

Could shoot them out of the sky,

Then deny any knowledge of the incident.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boomerangutang]

Somebody needs to explain why the US with its military budget of US560 B can't defeat a bunch of peasants with kalashnikovs in Afganistan for the last 15 years already.

All of these speculations about the US military might are hilarious - I think it's the most ineffective military in the world. Despite the 100,000 to 1 ratio in budget, manpower, resources, technology, logistics, complete air superiority, training, medical superiority - they still manage to lose one war after another... against a completely inferior enemy. The truth is simple - everything described above is simply not enough to actually win a conflict as the evidence shows.

Afghanistan has been a military quagmire for hundreds of years. Many of the world's major armies have gone through there, but none have every won anything. It's like trying to eradicate crab grass, using a fork, in a large field of meter-high weeds.

Throughout military history, in all venues, it's been shown that inferior weapons don't always = defeat. There have been hundreds of scenarios where the forces with inferior weapons dominated. That's a big reason why I don't agree with military planners in The Pentagon. They're always rooting for the slickest most expensive weapon systems, when less-slick weapons would do as well or better. If you had to attack and commandeer an island, would you rather use the slickest jet fighter with 4 laser guided bombs, or (for the same cost); 15,000 troops, with a plethora of automatic rifles, bazookas, grenades, and other low-tech weapons?

[bassman]

Somebody needs to explain why the US with its military budget of US560 B can't defeat a bunch of peasants with kalashnikovs in Afganistan for the last 15 years already.

All of these speculations about the US military might are hilarious - I think it's the most ineffective military in the world. Despite the 100,000 to 1 ratio in budget, manpower, resources, technology, logistics, complete air superiority, training, medical superiority - they still manage to lose one war after another... against a completely inferior enemy. The truth is simple - everything described above is simply not enough to actually win a conflict as the evidence shows.

Afghanistan has been a military quagmire for hundreds of years. Many of the world's major armies have gone through there, but none have every won anything. It's like trying to eradicate crab grass, using a fork, in a large field of meter-high weeds.

Throughout military history, in all venues, it's been shown that inferior weapons don't always = defeat. There have been hundreds of scenarios where the forces with inferior weapons dominated. That's a big reason why I don't agree with military planners in The Pentagon. They're always rooting for the slickest most expensive weapon systems, when less-slick weapons would do as well or better. If you had to attack and commandeer an island, would you rather use the slickest jet fighter with 4 laser guided bombs, or (for the same cost); 15,000 troops, with a plethora of automatic rifles, bazookas, grenades, and other low-tech weapons?

Boomerangutang you are too simplistic in your thought. Now lets think about what is really needed to take an island: you need to control the surrounding sea and protect shipping routes (ships), you need to own the airspace (long range bombers and carriers), and you need the latest in landing craft to get those 15,000 troops ashore. Warfare does not happen in a vacuum and more tools available to a commander the better. Once on the island would want my troops having the latest of everything including night vision, anti-tank/anti-material missiles. And when we finally get in the trench with the enemy those items you mention might just be enough.

[Jblood]

Somebody needs to explain why the US with its military budget of US560 B can't defeat a bunch of peasants with kalashnikovs in Afganistan for the last 15 years already.

All of these speculations about the US military might are hilarious - I think it's the most ineffective military in the world. Despite the 100,000 to 1 ratio in budget, manpower, resources, technology, logistics, complete air superiority, training, medical superiority - they still manage to lose one war after another... against a completely inferior enemy. The truth is simple - everything described above is simply not enough to actually win a conflict as the evidence shows.

Afghanistan has been a military quagmire for hundreds of years. Many of the world's major armies have gone through there, but none have every won anything. It's like trying to eradicate crab grass, using a fork, in a large field of meter-high weeds.

Throughout military history, in all venues, it's been shown that inferior weapons don't always = defeat. There have been hundreds of scenarios where the forces with inferior weapons dominated. That's a big reason why I don't agree with military planners in The Pentagon. They're always rooting for the slickest most expensive weapon systems, when less-slick weapons would do as well or better. If you had to attack and commandeer an island, would you rather use the slickest jet fighter with 4 laser guided bombs, or (for the same cost); 15,000 troops, with a plethora of automatic rifles, bazookas, grenades, and other low-tech weapons?

Personally I don't believe that military can ever really "solve" anything - they only create problems. You are better off dismantling the Pentagon altogether and try to solve each conflict through diplomacy, trade agreements, negotiations and so on. What they are doing at the moment - is complete madness which is a huge problem for the entire planet.

[slipperylobster]

Makes you wonder what the Murcans do when there's a Russian destroyer parked 70 miles off the coast of New York.

Not anything dumb like that. Russkies just always cruisin' for a bruisin'.

Darn lucky the skipper was in a good mood...and the sailors got a few souvenir videos/photos.

“Khibiny” is the newest complex for radioelectronic jamming of the enemy.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=588_1398932554

In 2014, the Russian state-run news media outlets ran stories that claimed that in April 2014 a Su-24 equipped with Khibiny had disabled the Aegis Combat System of the USS Donald Cook, a U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, then deployed in the Black Sea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khibiny_%28electronic_countermeasures_system%29

...and what you makes you think we could not do the same...or even more?

Problem here is that the Russkies and North Koreans make the huuuuuuuge mistake of showing the world that they got tech. Well, our tech is kept under wraps. If you show the world what you got, then that just provides a way for a potential enemy to adapt.

Our tech is obvious..but we don't show off every capability for every theater of operations. Much as the military does not release certain tech for the public (or enemy) to scrutinize.

Nothing wrong with keeping silent, and being thought foolish....then to show what you got, so the world knows for sure (that Russia/North Korea) is foolish.

of course..it may have been Abe Lincoln that gave me that idea.

"Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and prove it"

just substitute "act out your capabilities"

Edited April 16, 2016 by slipperylobster

[smedly]

Somebody needs to explain why the US with its military budget of US560 B can't defeat a bunch of peasants with kalashnikovs in Afganistan for the last 15 years already.

All of these speculations about the US military might are hilarious - I think it's the most ineffective military in the world. Despite the 100,000 to 1 ratio in budget, manpower, resources, technology, logistics, complete air superiority, training, medical superiority - they still manage to lose one war after another... against a completely inferior enemy. The truth is simple - everything described above is simply not enough to actually win a conflict as the evidence shows.

Afghanistan has been a military quagmire for hundreds of years. Many of the world's major armies have gone through there, but none have every won anything. It's like trying to eradicate crab grass, using a fork, in a large field of meter-high weeds.

Throughout military history, in all venues, it's been shown that inferior weapons don't always = defeat. There have been hundreds of scenarios where the forces with inferior weapons dominated. That's a big reason why I don't agree with military planners in The Pentagon. They're always rooting for the slickest most expensive weapon systems, when less-slick weapons would do as well or better. If you had to attack and commandeer an island, would you rather use the slickest jet fighter with 4 laser guided bombs, or (for the same cost); 15,000 troops, with a plethora of automatic rifles, bazookas, grenades, and other low-tech weapons?

Personally I don't believe that military can ever really "solve" anything - they only create problems. You are better off dismantling the Pentagon altogether and try to solve each conflict through diplomacy, trade agreements, negotiations and so on. What they are doing at the moment - is complete madness which is a huge problem for the entire planet.

so when Saddam was rolling into Kuwait your solution was what .......pass that by me again

Ultimately a diplomatic solution is always best but only possible if you have something to actually bargain with whether it be sanctions - threat of military intervention or investment and financial support, in most cases they have all been tried and exhausted, Power greed and money is what drives most of these conflicts and innocents are the victims, should the west stand by and let it happen ? should the west stand by and let Iran develop Nuclear weapons, should the west stand by and let N. Korea develop same - if it was a regional threat then sure why get involved but it isn't regional it is global and a threat to everyone on the planet

as for the afgan discussion, not really a war in the true sense of the meaning, it is always difficult to fight an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform and runs hides and blends with the locals or escapes across a border to be sheltered by supporting factions there - including governments.

[hawker9000]

1905 a Tsarist fleet destroyed at Tsushima by the Japanese, 1940 The Fins inflicted a huge defeat on the Soviet Armies in the Winter War, 1941 the Germans attacked a Soviet Union in the middle of a re equipping program with new Officers coming on stream. Before US and British aid arrived they stopped the Germans at Moscow. Yes lend lease helped but a revitalised Soviet army bled the Germans dry. Now after years of neglect the Russians are reequipped. Maybe they are not as well equipped as the USA do not under estimate your adversary. National pride is one thing. Nationalistic arrogance is another.

Nope. Not quite right. The Germans were famously stopped by autumn rains (read MUD), and then a Russian winter which the Germans weren't expecting (they thought they'd be in Moscow before that.). Some bad decision-making with Hitler over-ruling his generals helped the Soviets as well. And you already mentioned the river of aid received from the US and Allies. Finally, the U.S. entry to the war after December 7th was an answer to Stalin's (and Churchill's) prayers. "Lend Lease" was a whole new ballgame from that point. The Russian defense tactic was simply to sacrifice oceans of manpower to slow down the Germans and let the cold and impossibly long supply lines do the rest. It worked, not by a lot - some historians say they came within 10 miles - but it worked.

No. The Russians are not now "reequipped". There's been some relative improvement since the Soviet demise certainly, but by no means a return to the Soviet order of battle. Putin would be reasonably adept in an old Soviet-style command economy, but Russia now has a money economy and Putin is way out of his depth, not to mention scraping by on shriveled financial resources. The real danger with Russia now is Putin himself, an ego-centric autocrat with a Napoleon complex: he wants to resurrect the Soviet Empire. Such men are dangerous when they wield power. Others are correct however in assessing Obama as way over his head in this arena. He won't stand up to Putin, and that only encourages a personality like Putin's. Much like Hitler was enabled by non-committal, conflict-averse Britain & France in 1938-1939, still weary from WWI and willing to overlook almost anything to avoid another European war. That's Obama to a 'T'.

Edited April 16, 2016 by hawker9000

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[Kiwiken]

1905 a Tsarist fleet destroyed at Tsushima by the Japanese, 1940 The Fins inflicted a huge defeat on the Soviet Armies in the Winter War, 1941 the Germans attacked a Soviet Union in the middle of a re equipping program with new Officers coming on stream. Before US and British aid arrived they stopped the Germans at Moscow. Yes lend lease helped but a revitalised Soviet army bled the Germans dry. Now after years of neglect the Russians are reequipped. Maybe they are not as well equipped as the USA do not under estimate your adversary. National pride is one thing. Nationalistic arrogance is another.

Nope. Not quite right. The Germans were famously stopped by autumn rains (read MUD), and then a Russian winter which the Germans weren't expecting (they thought they'd be in Moscow before that.). Some bad decision-making with Hitler over-ruling his generals helped the Soviets as well. And you already mentioned the river of aid received from the US and Allies. Finally, the U.S. entry to the war after December 7th was an answer to Stalin's (and Churchill's) prayers. "Lend Lease" was a whole new ballgame from that point. The Russian defense tactic was simply to sacrifice oceans of manpower to slow down the Germans and let the cold and impossibly long supply lines do the rest. It worked, not by a lot - some historians say they came within 10 miles - but it worked.

No. The Russians are not now "reequipped". There's been some relative improvement since the Soviet demise certainly, but by no means a return to the Soviet order of battle. Putin would be reasonably adept in an old Soviet-style command economy, but Russia now has a money economy and Putin is way out of his depth, not to mention scraping by on shriveled financial resources. The real danger with Russia now is Putin himself, an ego-centric autocrat with a Napoleon complex: he wants to resurrect the Soviet Empire. Such men are dangerous when they wield power. Others are correct however in assessing Obama as way over his head in this arena. He won't stand up to Putin, and that only encourages a personality like Putin's. Much like Hitler was enabled by non-committal, conflict-averse Britain & France in 1938-1939, still weary from WWI and willing to overlook almost anything to avoid another European war. That's Obama to a 'T'.

When you threaten anyones territory they will respond. Kaliningrad or Konigsberg as it was know in the time of Prussia is Russian territory. 70 miles off the coast would be considered Russian . As 200kms off NZ is territorial. Unarmed aircraft hardly a threat and the US ship would have detected that early . Hence why fire? The Russians were just playing and the US Captain kept his head and did not get baited. Kerry's statement is also just postering. Frankly all a storm in a teacup

[hawker9000]

So a lone destroyer in the Black Sea is a threat to Russian territory? Rubbish.

'Just had to know a topic like this was going to bring out all the America-haters. Here it's the Russians clearly engaged in a provocation, a provocation handled responsibly and with total restraint, and yet it's still the Americans consumed with lust for world domination and greed. Agenda much?

Edited April 16, 2016 by hawker9000

[mopar71]

It shows how easy it is to breach defence zones of floating Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers.

At least for single ships on their own, but I have never heard of an aircraft carrier being buzzed by another country's fighter jet. Has it happened? If not, why not?

[boomerangutang]

Somebody needs to explain why the US with its military budget of US560 B can't defeat a bunch of peasants with kalashnikovs in Afganistan for the last 15 years already.

All of these speculations about the US military might are hilarious - I think it's the most ineffective military in the world. Despite the 100,000 to 1 ratio in budget, manpower, resources, technology, logistics, complete air superiority, training, medical superiority - they still manage to lose one war after another... against a completely inferior enemy. The truth is simple - everything described above is simply not enough to actually win a conflict as the evidence shows.

Afghanistan has been a military quagmire for hundreds of years. Many of the world's major armies have gone through there, but none have every won anything. It's like trying to eradicate crab grass, using a fork, in a large field of meter-high weeds.

Throughout military history, in all venues, it's been shown that inferior weapons don't always = defeat. There have been hundreds of scenarios where the forces with inferior weapons dominated. That's a big reason why I don't agree with military planners in The Pentagon. They're always rooting for the slickest most expensive weapon systems, when less-slick weapons would do as well or better. If you had to attack and commandeer an island, would you rather use the slickest jet fighter with 4 laser guided bombs, or (for the same cost); 15,000 troops, with a plethora of automatic rifles, bazookas, grenades, and other low-tech weapons?

Boomerangutang you are too simplistic in your thought. Now lets think about what is really needed to take an island: you need to control the surrounding sea and protect shipping routes (ships), you need to own the airspace (long range bombers and carriers), and you need the latest in landing craft to get those 15,000 troops ashore. Warfare does not happen in a vacuum and more tools available to a commander the better. Once on the island would want my troops having the latest of everything including night vision, anti-tank/anti-material missiles. And when we finally get in the trench with the enemy those items you mention might just be enough.

These are discussions entailing sentences and paragraphs. They don't entail multiple pages with details required for books. I purposefully mentioned a simple scenario to make a simple point. I could have added a lot more detail in my hypothetical, such as: the island occupied was by a small force with hand-held weapons with no outside support. My point was and is: often low tech weapons get more done than very expensive highest-tech weapons. Here are some examples:

>>> a man with a knife can sneak into a drone control booth and kill the drone operator

>>> putting a cup of molasses in a tank's fuel tank can disable it.

>>> a lone gunman can take out one of the CIA's top operatives and a dozen of her aides (happened in Afghanistan)

>>> a homemade ED (made by a man who probably earns $2/day) can take out a truck full of US GI's, value: $23 million.

>>> a wild boar can take out an F-15 (happened on a runway in Pakistan)

>>> a $25 boat and 2 men with a $40 bomb nearly sunk the USS Cole while killing nearly 20 sailors.

>>> a few angry men throwing stones over a fence in Gaza can start a small war.

>>> a truck bomb can kill nearly 100 US marines in a minute. Happened in Lebanon while Reagan was prez.

NOTE: it sometimes happens that adversaries will buzz (or otherwise go alarmingly near) each other - in order to test/gauge the other's responses. During the Cold War, US and Soviets would often push boundaries. Main reason: to see what sort of defenses (radar / preparedness) the other side would respond with. the Korean commercial jet which strayed went into Russian airspace is but one example. Some say it had US tracking electronics on it. The Pueblo navy ship (commandeered by N.Koreans) is another example, .....of many.

My gut feeling is the Russkies that buzzed the US navy ship were mainly hot-rodding. Testosterone-riven daredevils, possibly also drunk. They're lucky they weren't shot out of the sky.

Edited April 16, 2016 by boomerangutang

[StasD]

As former NAVY officer I should say we did the same almost every day during Cold War. Americans also flayed above our ships as lower as they could. I could see every spot on their planes

Edited April 16, 2016 by StasD

[up2u2]

It shows how easy it is to breach defence zones of floating Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers.

they didn't breach anything, they were allowed to do what they did with the crew onboard cheering them on, perhaps under different circumstances there would be no cheering, you understand the concept of threat levels, as in the example I posted above, Turkey issued a clear threat warning - fly into our airspace and you will be shot down, if this ship had issued a similar warning .................................

Smedly sorry but you are incorrect. Russia China can eliminate every surface floating military asset of the US Navy with ease. ICBM technology easily breaches the defence zone capability of floating warships. Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers are only effective with non ICBM capability Nations. Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers are just a show of strength. Submarines are the fatal threat between the major military powers. Very difficult to target them and they have Missile capabilities. Russia has 60 Submarines which will easily account for 19 US Aircraft Carriers. China has 68 Submarines. You never really hear about submarines do you? There is a very good reason for that. The sneaky little buggers are hiding around the Oceans unseen and undetected. I dare say the US Destroyer was already targeted by any number of Russian Submarines. Do you feel lucky punk, well do you?

[Jingthing]

As former NAVY officer I should say we did the same almost every day during Cold War. Americans also flayed above our ships as lower as they could. I could see every spot on their planes

Interesting.

So cold war again, is it?

[hawker9000]

As former NAVY officer I should say we did the same almost every day during Cold War. Americans also flayed above our ships as lower as they could. I could see every spot on their planes

ABSOLUTE, and I mean total, unmitigated, flat out, no fine print, rubbish!

[Grouse]

Sun Tzu - know your enemy

This is one of many things that frighten me about you people

As ALWAYS you don't read the history. This is why you get into trouble

The USSR won the Second World War with American money and some British intelligence

Did we supply all those T34 tanks?

You thing Zukov was incompetent?

The key point to understand about the "Soviets" and now the Russians is that they have been invaded several times in the last 250 years

That is why they desire a buffer zone

Coming so close to Kalingrad was an act of almost criminal incompetence. Maybe you could have shot down the Sukois but should?

I suggest that for once the Americans wind in their necks

Putting radars in Turkey to be as close to the USSR as possible was one of the precursors to the Cuba crisis

Try being a little smarter than just flexing your muscles or you will end up with yet another overseas expensive cockup

Edited April 16, 2016 by Grouse

[Grouse]

Somebody needs to explain why the US with its military budget of US560 B can't defeat a bunch of peasants with kalashnikovs in Afganistan for the last 15 years already.

All of these speculations about the US military might are hilarious - I think it's the most ineffective military in the world. Despite the 100,000 to 1 ratio in budget, manpower, resources, technology, logistics, complete air superiority, training, medical superiority - they still manage to lose one war after another... against a completely inferior enemy. The truth is simple - everything described above is simply not enough to actually win a conflict as the evidence shows.

Afghanistan has been a military quagmire for hundreds of years. Many of the world's major armies have gone through there, but none have every won anything. It's like trying to eradicate crab grass, using a fork, in a large field of meter-high weeds.

Throughout military history, in all venues, it's been shown that inferior weapons don't always = defeat. There have been hundreds of scenarios where the forces with inferior weapons dominated. That's a big reason why I don't agree with military planners in The Pentagon. They're always rooting for the slickest most expensive weapon systems, when less-slick weapons would do as well or better. If you had to attack and commandeer an island, would you rather use the slickest jet fighter with 4 laser guided bombs, or (for the same cost); 15,000 troops, with a plethora of automatic rifles, bazookas, grenades, and other low-tech weapons?

Personally I don't believe that military can ever really "solve" anything - they only create problems. You are better off dismantling the Pentagon altogether and try to solve each conflict through diplomacy, trade agreements, negotiations and so on. What they are doing at the moment - is complete madness which is a huge problem for the entire planet.

so when Saddam was rolling into Kuwait your solution was what .......pass that by me again

Ultimately a diplomatic solution is always best but only possible if you have something to actually bargain with whether it be sanctions - threat of military intervention or investment and financial support, in most cases they have all been tried and exhausted, Power greed and money is what drives most of these conflicts and innocents are the victims, should the west stand by and let it happen ? should the west stand by and let Iran develop Nuclear weapons, should the west stand by and let N. Korea develop same - if it was a regional threat then sure why get involved but it isn't regional it is global and a threat to everyone on the planet

as for the afgan discussion, not really a war in the true sense of the meaning, it is always difficult to fight an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform and runs hides and blends with the locals or escapes across a border to be sheltered by supporting factions there - including governments.

Yeah, I hate it when they don't play by the rules!

BTW, I would not have lost any sleep if Sadaam had just held on to Kuwait. However Schwartzkopf probably got it right by forcing them back over border AND THEN STOPPING. It took a fool like GW to go ahead and take over the country

[Grouse]

Russian kit has been destroyed all over the planet when faced with western technology, their aircraft - ships are scrap - submarines are outdated, they have nothing that will combat an enemy that they will never see hear or detect and they know it, the only endgame they have is nuclear and even then the chances of what they launch actually reaching a target is questionable, so lets not kid ourselves here - Russia is spent and militarily defunct, the only way they have a chnace of taking on the west is to partner up with China and that isn't going to work either

It's like a big dumb ass muscle bound numty getting in the ring with a trained elite killer, the fight is over before it starts and he can bring along his numpty chinese mate who will look on and get out of the ring and run.......end

Are you keeping up with what's been happening over the last 5 years. VERY substantial investment courtesy of Putin.....

[Grouse]

Putin wants an incident where the USA and Russia directly engage in that region because then he can justify invading "Nato protected" Baltic countries to his own people. He would easily win that and if he's going to do it, it will be before the USA election.

The USA and Russia are already in a proxy war. In this case the U.S. right wing is correct, Obama has shown weakness and a strong man dictator like Putin takes advantage, because that's the nature of that kind of beast.

I don't know if Putin has decided to invade or not yet, but you can sure he's thinking about it, dancing some dances, calculating the price of doing so.

It's not like something he hasn't done before in Georgia and Ukraine.

It will be interesting to see how these events influence the U.S. election.

Trump who I don't think will be nominated by the republicans, but might be, has shown an even softer tone towards Putin's aggression than Obama, and that's saying something.

Putin got his engagement in Turkey, boundaries were crossed after mutiple warnings and the result was that a russian jet got shot down, Putin's days are numbered, he has his billions and is right now wondering how he can deflect the fact that Russia is bankrupt and he can retire, flying past a US warship at 30ft isn't going to bolster the national interest, everyone knows that these aircraft were a few seconds from being no more, I applaud the Captains restraint this time but perhaps a warning that if it happens again these pilots might not be so lucky and end up in the sea

How foolish

Do you not understand that they were giving a "shot over the bows". The Donald Duck could have been sunk by a submarine or cruise missile

[Grouse]

I hope the hot heads in Russia and the US won't start a war, the US would not win and would be forced to give up much of its bases. The US would be technological superior but the sovjets are far more willing to take casualties. Just look at WW2, this would tip the advantage to Russia and the US would loose much of its foreign bases.

Probably would end in a draw with Russia scoring a tactical victory and taking over some bases of the US. US does not have the stomach to really go to war (nobody in their right mind would). Far easier to order your soldiers in a dictatorship (Russia) as a Democracy .. the US.

I guess that is why the US did not fire.. they know what would happen otherwise.

If the US lost any land it would be Europe, Russia has no capability to mobilize across oceans, their power is landlocked.

Now I would imagine that if allies like Holland pitched in it might make a difference, just look at the Dutch in WW2, how long did they hold the Germans out? I can't remember if it was 1 or 2 days, but the nation laid on its stomach awful quick.

It is your Euros that need to worry about the Russian's not the Americans.

Deary me!

Please read and learn the history ?

[Grouse]

1905 a Tsarist fleet destroyed at Tsushima by the Japanese, 1940 The Fins inflicted a huge defeat on the Soviet Armies in the Winter War, 1941 the Germans attacked a Soviet Union in the middle of a re equipping program with new Officers coming on stream. Before US and British aid arrived they stopped the Germans at Moscow. Yes lend lease helped but a revitalised Soviet army bled the Germans dry. Now after years of neglect the Russians are reequipped. Maybe they are not as well equipped as the USA do not under estimate your adversary. National pride is one thing. Nationalistic arrogance is another.

Nope. Not quite right. The Germans were famously stopped by autumn rains (read MUD), and then a Russian winter which the Germans weren't expecting (they thought they'd be in Moscow before that.). Some bad decision-making with Hitler over-ruling his generals helped the Soviets as well. And you already mentioned the river of aid received from the US and Allies. Finally, the U.S. entry to the war after December 7th was an answer to Stalin's (and Churchill's) prayers. "Lend Lease" was a whole new ballgame from that point. The Russian defense tactic was simply to sacrifice oceans of manpower to slow down the Germans and let the cold and impossibly long supply lines do the rest. It worked, not by a lot - some historians say they came within 10 miles - but it worked.

No. The Russians are not now "reequipped". There's been some relative improvement since the Soviet demise certainly, but by no means a return to the Soviet order of battle. Putin would be reasonably adept in an old Soviet-style command economy, but Russia now has a money economy and Putin is way out of his depth, not to mention scraping by on shriveled financial resources. The real danger with Russia now is Putin himself, an ego-centric autocrat with a Napoleon complex: he wants to resurrect the Soviet Empire. Such men are dangerous when they wield power. Others are correct however in assessing Obama as way over his head in this arena. He won't stand up to Putin, and that only encourages a personality like Putin's. Much like Hitler was enabled by non-committal, conflict-averse Britain & France in 1938-1939, still weary from WWI and willing to overlook almost anything to avoid another European war. That's Obama to a 'T'.

I agree generally but....

1) The Americans did not come to help us until over 2 years since the war started

2) USSR and Germany were allies during that time

3) only after Hitler concluded that he would never be able to invade Great Britain ( thanks to the RAF) did he turn East.

Thanks for the lend lease!

We only recently managed to pay back the war debt!

Again, please read the history ?

[Grouse]

Sorry to bleat on!

It's a dangerous world and cool heads are required

?

[Kiwiken]

1905 a Tsarist fleet destroyed at Tsushima by the Japanese, 1940 The Fins inflicted a huge defeat on the Soviet Armies in the Winter War, 1941 the Germans attacked a Soviet Union in the middle of a re equipping program with new Officers coming on stream. Before US and British aid arrived they stopped the Germans at Moscow. Yes lend lease helped but a revitalised Soviet army bled the Germans dry. Now after years of neglect the Russians are reequipped. Maybe they are not as well equipped as the USA do not under estimate your adversary. National pride is one thing. Nationalistic arrogance is another.

Nope. Not quite right. The Germans were famously stopped by autumn rains (read MUD), and then a Russian winter which the Germans weren't expecting (they thought they'd be in Moscow before that.). Some bad decision-making with Hitler over-ruling his generals helped the Soviets as well. And you already mentioned the river of aid received from the US and Allies. Finally, the U.S. entry to the war after December 7th was an answer to Stalin's (and Churchill's) prayers. "Lend Lease" was a whole new ballgame from that point. The Russian defense tactic was simply to sacrifice oceans of manpower to slow down the Germans and let the cold and impossibly long supply lines do the rest. It worked, not by a lot - some historians say they came within 10 miles - but it worked.

No. The Russians are not now "reequipped". There's been some relative improvement since the Soviet demise certainly, but by no means a return to the Soviet order of battle. Putin would be reasonably adept in an old Soviet-style command economy, but Russia now has a money economy and Putin is way out of his depth, not to mention scraping by on shriveled financial resources. The real danger with Russia now is Putin himself, an ego-centric autocrat with a Napoleon complex: he wants to resurrect the Soviet Empire. Such men are dangerous when they wield power. Others are correct however in assessing Obama as way over his head in this arena. He won't stand up to Putin, and that only encourages a personality like Putin's. Much like Hitler was enabled by non-committal, conflict-averse Britain & France in 1938-1939, still weary from WWI and willing to overlook almost anything to avoid another European war. That's Obama to a 'T'.

I agree generally but....

1) The Americans did not come to help us until over 2 years since the war started

2) USSR and Germany were allies during that time

3) only after Hitler concluded that he would never be able to invade Great Britain ( thanks to the RAF) did he turn East.

Thanks for the lend lease!

We only recently managed to pay back the war debt!

Again, please read the history ?

A point on the difference in fighting in Russia. Up until the invasion of the Soviet Union German losses were some 98,500 dead. In the first 3 months of Barbarrossa it exceeded 98,500, The soviets fortified Cities and forced the German to fight Street to street. 3,850,000 German Soldiers died in Russian campaign. Some 400,000 in the Western field. Yes a lot of Russian hardware now seems inferior to Western equipment but look at who is using it when you engage. Perhaps a better quality of Pilot in a Russian aircraft would be a different story. In the end it is not the technology but the quality of the man /woman using it

[Scotwight]

A point on the difference in fighting in Russia. Up until the invasion of the Soviet Union German losses were some 98,500 dead. In the first 3 months of Barbarrossa it exceeded 98,500, The soviets fortified Cities and forced the German to fight Street to street. 3,850,000 German Soldiers died in Russian campaign. Some 400,000 in the Western field. Yes a lot of Russian hardware now seems inferior to Western equipment but look at who is using it when you engage. Perhaps a better quality of Pilot in a Russian aircraft would be a different story. In the end it is not the technology but the quality of the man /woman using it

Two guys are flying two jets. They never see each other. Electronics identify an enemy and they push a button. What? Quality of a finger push?

One guy on the ground in a bunker. Another guy flying a jet. The guy in the bunker sees a jet on radar and takes a sip of Starbucks coffee as a computer fires a rocket and kills the guy in the jet.

It is the quality of the guy who designed the software and built it or in other words who has the highest tech.

One geek with a drone or a platoon of Rambos? Give me the geek. It is no longer bravery it is technology.

If you can't see my bomber it makes no difference how good you are - you dead and I'm not - the better stealth technology wins.

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. This is not a rehash of World War II.

[up2u2]

So why didn't it?

Exactly. The US has enough on its hands without thinking they are in any position to take on Russia.