Kerry says Navy ship could have fired on Russian planes

[Jingthing]

So why didn't it?

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

Of course, the U.S. doesn't want to take on Russia.

BUT if Putin invades a "Nato protected" nation, then what?

He could do so easily so it's a just a matter of figuring out what the price is and whether it's worth it.

It would obviously be a bigger deal than Crimea.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

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?

And you obviously know nothing about US Navy carrier strike groups.

Here's a quick wikipedia recap for you:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A carrier strike group[1] (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates,[2] and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship. The carrier strike group commander operationally reports to the commander of the numbered fleet, who is operationally responsible for the area of waters in which the carrier strike group is operating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Any carrier strike group will have the necessary weapons platforms around for both defensive and offensive action, to include those "sneaky little buggers" you claim will be the death of the strike group. This includes submarines and other ASW capable ships and helicopters.

As a matter of fact, that lone little USS Donald Cook had the following ASW capabililties:

AN/SQS-53C Sonar Array

AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar

AN/SQQ-28 LAMPS III Shipboard System

AN/SLQ-32(V)2

Decoys:

AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Torpedo Countermeasures

MK 36 MOD 12 Decoy Launching System

AN/SLQ-39 CHAFF Buoys

The USS Donald Cook also can carry up to 90 Cruise missiles with an operational range of 1,500 miles should offensive action be required.

It is likely the only thing that could destroy a strike group would be a nuclear weapon. If that happens then not only will the strike group be gone but so will Moscow, St. Petersburg and most everything west of the Ural Mountains.

[Grouse]

Hurrah! We'll all sleep soundly tonight.....

[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?

And you obviously know nothing about US Navy carrier strike groups.

Here's a quick wikipedia recap for you:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A carrier strike group[1] (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates,[2] and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship. The carrier strike group commander operationally reports to the commander of the numbered fleet, who is operationally responsible for the area of waters in which the carrier strike group is operating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Any carrier strike group will have the necessary weapons platforms around for both defensive and offensive action, to include those "sneaky little buggers" you claim will be the death of the strike group. This includes submarines and other ASW capable ships and helicopters.

As a matter of fact, that lone little USS Donald Cook had the following ASW capabililties:

AN/SQS-53C Sonar Array

AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar

AN/SQQ-28 LAMPS III Shipboard System

AN/SLQ-32(V)2

Decoys:

AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Torpedo Countermeasures

MK 36 MOD 12 Decoy Launching System

AN/SLQ-39 CHAFF Buoys

The USS Donald Cook also can carry up to 90 Cruise missiles with an operational range of 1,500 miles should offensive action be required.

It is likely the only thing that could destroy a strike group would be a nuclear weapon. If that happens then not only will the strike group be gone but so will Moscow, St. Petersburg and most everything west of the Ural Mountains.

So why didn't they fire? The world knows why. That was the point Putin was making. Kerry's comment is for US domestic consumption only. Putin called the US's bluff and he knew the outcome before it occurred. So did the Commander of the Destroyer. Basically take your little boat and bugger off and if the US is smart that is exactly what they will do.

[chuckd]

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?

And you obviously know nothing about US Navy carrier strike groups.

Here's a quick wikipedia recap for you:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A carrier strike group[1] (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates,[2] and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship. The carrier strike group commander operationally reports to the commander of the numbered fleet, who is operationally responsible for the area of waters in which the carrier strike group is operating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Any carrier strike group will have the necessary weapons platforms around for both defensive and offensive action, to include those "sneaky little buggers" you claim will be the death of the strike group. This includes submarines and other ASW capable ships and helicopters.

As a matter of fact, that lone little USS Donald Cook had the following ASW capabililties:

AN/SQS-53C Sonar Array

AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar

AN/SQQ-28 LAMPS III Shipboard System

AN/SLQ-32(V)2

Decoys:

AN/SLQ-25 Nixie Torpedo Countermeasures

MK 36 MOD 12 Decoy Launching System

AN/SLQ-39 CHAFF Buoys

The USS Donald Cook also can carry up to 90 Cruise missiles with an operational range of 1,500 miles should offensive action be required.

It is likely the only thing that could destroy a strike group would be a nuclear weapon. If that happens then not only will the strike group be gone but so will Moscow, St. Petersburg and most everything west of the Ural Mountains.

So why didn't they fire? The world knows why. That was the point Putin was making. Kerry's comment is for US domestic consumption only. Putin called the US's bluff and he knew the outcome before it occurred. So did the Commander of the Destroyer. Basically take your little boat and bugger off and if the US is smart that is exactly what they will do.

"So why didn't they fire? The world knows why."

If the world knows why, isn't your question somewhat redundant?

This type action has been going on for years. The Donald Cook's Captain knew there was no threat and it was simply another stunt by the Russians. The aircraft was unarmed. Didn't you see the photos?

The Captain probably didn't realize they were going to be so stupid as to fly within 9 meters of his ship.

I'm quite certain that aircraft was painted long before it ever got near the ship. The Russians do not have the capability to shut down the Aegis combat system regardless of what Moscow claims.

That "little boat" as you so sarcastically put it is 505 feet in length and has a beam of 66 feet and can carry up to 90 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

For your information, "Boats" of this size are called "ships".

[off road pat]

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.

We would all be losing if one of those morons start WW III there can be no winners in this !

On the other hand ? ! it would clear out a bit of the world's over population !!! maybe that's the plan ???

Best regards.

[MiKT]

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.

You forgot, about the Roman geese or the 6 CIA who killed 600 Taliban.....happened in Afghanistan!

[arjunadawn]

Kerry's buffoonery insults his office, and the nation. What the US could have done is irrelevant, and mentioning a negative exacerbates the weakness. As Josh Earnest also declared such "could/should have beens" and it is meaningless. It is the national equivalent to rolling over, exposing the belly, tail tugged, legs still in the air. In Kerry's defense, his superior drove this train of abject weakness.

In fact, this same weakness, as national policy/SOP, is what fuels the ratcheting of Russian provocation, of Iranian provocation... North Korean provocation... China provocation... jihadi expasion... Cuban rhetoric in response to Obama/US' overtures of subordination, etc. However, Kerry is accountable; it cannot be overlooked that Kerry forever forfeited any moral legitimacy to comment on firing on others/firing on us, in any context.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities."* The manipulation of state, elections, and stupidity may have gotten him later elected and appointed a cabinet post, but he can never escape the utter bankruptcy of his past. Kerry is the right man and this time. Any other man or woman may have had friction/conflict with an executive that genuflects to every challenger/nemesis on earth. Kerry, an American-loathing radical, is a perfect mate for Obama's America-Last diplomacy (transparently entitled "Leading From Behind").

Were I Russia (China, Iran, N. Korea, etc) I would be pushing the envelope now, rather than measuring slowly. Obama has, by the omission of power, broadly defined the furthest reaches adversaries may penetrate US policy. Russia knows these various aggressive moves against the US, and the US bending over, are equal to arriving at prison, choosing the biggest guy, and punching him in the face without response. Russia is keenly aware that NATO members are losing confidence that an Article 5 invocation would have the US support. Kerry is the perfect face for a foreign policy who's chief aim is the regression of the nation. Russia is chasing the NATO herd and looking for stragglers.

*https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War_Statement

[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'.

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 ?

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

Obviously because the U.S. wasn't even IN the war until Dec 7th, after which Hitler foolishly declared war on the U.S. Yes, please read history!

2) USSR and Germany were allies during that time

LOL. Yes, and your point is?

Hitler hated the Soviets, but baiting Stalin into concluding the secret pact allowed him to invade Poland, then France (Belgium, etc.), and essentially start WWII. Stalin was rewarded with the Baltic States and half of Poland. Stalin deserves nearly as much credit for starting WWII as Hitler. Yes, read history!

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

Well, that's debatable. Some historians would say Hitler had an opportunity immediately after Dunkirk, when the Wehrmacht probably could've arrived mostly be rowboat and encountered little resistance. Others that Hitler blundered in switching the Luftwaffe from targeting the RAF to targeting London & British cities, thus giving the RAF exactly the respite it badly needed. But so what? Your point is?

The essential truth is that Hitler considered the Russians far more the "natural enemy" of Germany than the English. Had it not been for the vastness of Russian territory, the almost limitless supply of Russian manpower (and consummate human expendability as practiced by Stalin), the epically bad winter (and German non-preparedness for any winter campaigning at all, let alone what they actually experienced), Hitler taking personal command of the German Army precipitating a series of tactical blunders, and U.S. aid (yes, beginning for main part after 7 DEC when the U.S. entered the war), the outcome for Russia, and thence for Europe and the world, would probably have been much different. Russians really only have Stalin to thank for the horrendous losses suffered by the Soviet Union during the war. It needn't have happened, but Stalin literally made it all possible.

Yes, read history! (Perhaps something besides the Stalinist version of it.)

What's this got to do with the present Russian misbehavior? Not much, except the actual material condition of Russian forces was quite bad then (at the outset at least), and pretty much is now, with some exceptions.

Readers might find it interesting to acquaint themselves with the Kaliningrad Oblast situation, and then decide for themselves what's really going on here in the Baltic Sea...

Edited April 18, 2016 by hawker9000

[Rancid]

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.

Yes, just like Poland started the war with Germany by attacking a border post. A little reading on the history of false flags and their prevalence may well change ones view of distorted history.

I understand this has been going on since Cold War I, no doubt there are military reasons but it really doesn't help anything peacewise.

As I understand it Russia doesn't have the projection capacity to invade Europe and quite frankly why would they invade bankrupt countries, their economy couldn't support it.

Likewise NATO is less than optimistic of its chances of invading Russia. That aside both sides have said they would use tactical nukes so what's the point? Probably just an excuse to increase MIC profits.

[Publicus]

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

Very easy eh

So very easy in fact izzit

The Thomas Cook was aware the Russian SU-24 flying boxcars were unarmed. So was US Europe Command instantly aware, as was Nato Command. All of us knew this in the Black Sea in 2014 and we knew it in the Baltic on this one too.

Easy come, easy go is the Russian Air Force motto in these instances. Russian military commanders knew we knew. Russians also know we exercise restraint, wisdom, prudence and enjoy a good laugh throughout and afterward. These Russian incidents are vacuous exercises in joy riding. There is no consequence to 'em because the events themselves are of no consequence.

This buzzing is a routine Russian behavior. It is a highly visible one which the US and Nato are accustomed to. The Russian Khibiny system is a toy the Russians can and do play with, make wild claims about and that the Putin fanbois can chat tripe over. It's all as empty as Putin's head and as blank as his eyes are.

Nato led by the United States learned a great deal during the cold war as did the Russians. Almost all of it continues to apply. Others who drivel tripe did not learn a thing however except simple rhetoric and a disregard of serious analysis to include a basic knowledge of Russian-US game theory and play.

The playful Bois in the Kremlin do this fun and games stuff by the liter and SecState Kerry well knows it. Others have no clue.

[Berkshire]

Kerry's buffoonery insults his office, and the nation. What the US could have done is irrelevant, and mentioning a negative exacerbates the weakness. As Josh Earnest also declared such "could/should have beens" and it is meaningless. It is the national equivalent to rolling over, exposing the belly, tail tugged, legs still in the air. In Kerry's defense, his superior drove this train of abject weakness.

In fact, this same weakness, as national policy/SOP, is what fuels the ratcheting of Russian provocation, of Iranian provocation... North Korean provocation... China provocation... jihadi expasion... Cuban rhetoric in response to Obama/US' overtures of subordination, etc. However, Kerry is accountable; it cannot be overlooked that Kerry forever forfeited any moral legitimacy to comment on firing on others/firing on us, in any context.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities."* The manipulation of state, elections, and stupidity may have gotten him later elected and appointed a cabinet post, but he can never escape the utter bankruptcy of his past. Kerry is the right man and this time. Any other man or woman may have had friction/conflict with an executive that genuflects to every challenger/nemesis on earth. Kerry, an American-loathing radical, is a perfect mate for Obama's America-Last diplomacy (transparently entitled "Leading From Behind").

Were I Russia (China, Iran, N. Korea, etc) I would be pushing the envelope now, rather than measuring slowly. Obama has, by the omission of power, broadly defined the furthest reaches adversaries may penetrate US policy. Russia knows these various aggressive moves against the US, and the US bending over, are equal to arriving at prison, choosing the biggest guy, and punching him in the face without response. Russia is keenly aware that NATO members are losing confidence that an Article 5 invocation would have the US support. Kerry is the perfect face for a foreign policy who's chief aim is the regression of the nation. Russia is chasing the NATO herd and looking for stragglers.

*https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War_Statement

Geez man, get a grip. This was a circus-stunt fly-by, not an act of war. It would have been much worse had the US overreacted. And all of your made-up accusations, sounds like GOP talking points. This is why I'm relieved the US will not be electing a Republican President anytime soon.

[Publicus]

Kerry's buffoonery insults his office, and the nation. What the US could have done is irrelevant, and mentioning a negative exacerbates the weakness. As Josh Earnest also declared such "could/should have beens" and it is meaningless. It is the national equivalent to rolling over, exposing the belly, tail tugged, legs still in the air. In Kerry's defense, his superior drove this train of abject weakness.

In fact, this same weakness, as national policy/SOP, is what fuels the ratcheting of Russian provocation, of Iranian provocation... North Korean provocation... China provocation... jihadi expasion... Cuban rhetoric in response to Obama/US' overtures of subordination, etc. However, Kerry is accountable; it cannot be overlooked that Kerry forever forfeited any moral legitimacy to comment on firing on others/firing on us, in any context.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities."* The manipulation of state, elections, and stupidity may have gotten him later elected and appointed a cabinet post, but he can never escape the utter bankruptcy of his past. Kerry is the right man and this time. Any other man or woman may have had friction/conflict with an executive that genuflects to every challenger/nemesis on earth. Kerry, an American-loathing radical, is a perfect mate for Obama's America-Last diplomacy (transparently entitled "Leading From Behind").

Were I Russia (China, Iran, N. Korea, etc) I would be pushing the envelope now, rather than measuring slowly. Obama has, by the omission of power, broadly defined the furthest reaches adversaries may penetrate US policy. Russia knows these various aggressive moves against the US, and the US bending over, are equal to arriving at prison, choosing the biggest guy, and punching him in the face without response. Russia is keenly aware that NATO members are losing confidence that an Article 5 invocation would have the US support. Kerry is the perfect face for a foreign policy who's chief aim is the regression of the nation. Russia is chasing the NATO herd and looking for stragglers.

*https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War_Statement

Kerry is the perfect face for a foreign policy who's chief aim is the regression of the nation.

Nonsensical fringe whinge spam.

Barack Obama is in fact on the verge of his greatest success, i.e., sending the Republican party and the extreme lunar right that drives it into oblivion in the November election.

So thx and keep up the great work over there at the margin.

Within a few months after Ashton Carter took over at the Pentagon as SecDef the United States ended 15 years of strategic ambiguity. The Pentagon announced that Russia is behind Door Number One, CCP China is behind Door Number Two, Iran is behind Door Number Three. This ended a period of confused uncertainly that had begun at the turn of the century when GW Bush and his Dick Cheney put their focus on the Middle East and Afghanistan. Old man Bush had put his boundless adventurism into the Middle East too. It's easy to see why Jeb never got out of the starting gate.

This little incident involving the Cook is but an extension of the Russia-US cold war, i.e., the buzzing is nothing more than the usual Kremlin fun and games by the liter. The standard and well handled Russian game playing does not lend itself to a single statement made in the littered and loitering bad penny post. The post is indeed right whinge overkill. It is yet more overblown and overplayed hype from the far side.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Publicus

[boomerangutang]

Once Republicans get their teeth clamped down on an enemy, they do several things; they concurrently cast aspersions at everyone associated with that person. So put-downs for Obama, become put-downs on HRC and now also Kerry (who I think is doing an exemplary job). It reminded me of a classic line in the Wizard of Oz.....

[arjunadawn]

Kerry's buffoonery insults his office, and the nation. What the US could have done is irrelevant, and mentioning a negative exacerbates the weakness. As Josh Earnest also declared such "could/should have beens" and it is meaningless. It is the national equivalent to rolling over, exposing the belly, tail tugged, legs still in the air. In Kerry's defense, his superior drove this train of abject weakness.

In fact, this same weakness, as national policy/SOP, is what fuels the ratcheting of Russian provocation, of Iranian provocation... North Korean provocation... China provocation... jihadi expasion... Cuban rhetoric in response to Obama/US' overtures of subordination, etc. However, Kerry is accountable; it cannot be overlooked that Kerry forever forfeited any moral legitimacy to comment on firing on others/firing on us, in any context.

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities."* The manipulation of state, elections, and stupidity may have gotten him later elected and appointed a cabinet post, but he can never escape the utter bankruptcy of his past. Kerry is the right man and this time. Any other man or woman may have had friction/conflict with an executive that genuflects to every challenger/nemesis on earth. Kerry, an American-loathing radical, is a perfect mate for Obama's America-Last diplomacy (transparently entitled "Leading From Behind").

Were I Russia (China, Iran, N. Korea, etc) I would be pushing the envelope now, rather than measuring slowly. Obama has, by the omission of power, broadly defined the furthest reaches adversaries may penetrate US policy. Russia knows these various aggressive moves against the US, and the US bending over, are equal to arriving at prison, choosing the biggest guy, and punching him in the face without response. Russia is keenly aware that NATO members are losing confidence that an Article 5 invocation would have the US support. Kerry is the perfect face for a foreign policy who's chief aim is the regression of the nation. Russia is chasing the NATO herd and looking for stragglers.

*https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Vietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War_Statement

Geez man, get a grip. This was a circus-stunt fly-by, not an act of war. It would have been much worse had the US overreacted. And all of your made-up accusations, sounds like GOP talking points. This is why I'm relieved the US will not be electing a Republican President anytime soon.

Of course these acts are casus belli- causes of war-- In all times and all places this would be considered "aggressive" in diplomatic speak; war provoking in lay terms. This is how wars start. Just review history! The US solicits this by its weakness, false telegraphing, aiding enemies, and abandoning allies.

These acts are one more example of the consequences of Obama's "leading from behind" and illustrates the genius of "our reset with the Russians." No one suggested- other than you- reaction or over-reaction. I only noted the conditions that invite such contempt for the US. I indict Kerry. You indict me. That says it all.

[HLover]

Based on their recent war win/lose record, the United States may be wise to sit this next 50 years on the sidelines.

[boomerangutang]

Based on their recent war win/lose record, the United States may be wise to sit this next 50 years on the sidelines.

It's been a mixed bag. some notables:

Vietnam: Lost

East/West Germany: took a long time, but the wall did come down

former Yugoslavia: lessened conflict there. Enabled Bosnia to become independent

East Timor: gained independence

First Iraqi war: Won

Second Iraqi war: won the combat, but the country is now in shambles

Afghani War: kicked out Taliban, sort of. Country in shambles

Syria: Keeping ISIS in a holding pattern.

Note: in the Middle East, there are never success stories. The best that can be expected is: things are less bad than they would ordinarily be.

[Publicus]

Russia is in a superior military position in the Baltic region.

In the Baltic states bordering Russia yes, Putin could overnight send in a couple of divisions of troops or only a bunch of little green men if he wanted to do that. He has that immediate geographic advantage in respect of the Baltic states at the Russian border.

Of course the time and activity to build and position such an attack force apart from little green men would give him dead away, which would quickly eliminate his geographic and military advantage over the Baltic states. A Putin division sized force of three (or more) brigades would take Putin longer to build or assemble.

In the time it would take for Putin to build and position brigade sized land and also supporting air and naval forces Nato would easily respond. Nato has already established an active military defense line from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The Nato defensive line is reinforced by selected units of US troops from the 3rd Infantry Division, the 4th Infantry Division, the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

If Putin moved any of his forces against one or more Baltic states Nato easily and instantly could also or either drop missiles on Putin's forces still on the Russian side of the borders as they await the forward Russian forces to clear the borders. While it takes only hours for middle and rear brigade forces to follow the front spearhead forces in, it takes minutes to launch a warning missile drop or a mass missile barrage. Putin would have to respond with his air defenses and anti-missile systems which would mean Nato-Russia Game On.

So it's a good thing Putin has his own military commanders who know the situation and the humongous risk and fatal exposure of land maneuver (large unit) forces in Europe, which means nothing along these lines is happening, was going to happen, will ever happen.

As to little green men instead, Nato has positioned forces at the borders of the Baltic states that are looking for anything that looks green coming from across from the Russian side as happened in Ukraine, and Putin knows this too.

Say again, good thing Putin has his own generals to analyse the situation.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Publicus

[Publicus]

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

Read and learn.

The following statement by a retired USN captain (colonel equivalent) speaks to US Rules of Engagement that go back to the 1950s concerning Russia and the Russians. The retired captain is a former commander of a missile cruiser of a carrier strike force....

"You don’t get to kill people just because they’re being annoying," retired frigate and cruiser commanding officer Capt. Rick Hoffman told the Navy Times about the incident.

"We’re not at war with Russia," Capt. Rick Hoffman said.

"It would be one thing to be operating and have a threatening attack profile from someone who might not recognize me — that’s not the case here."

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-navy-didnt-shoot-down-russian-jets-2016-4

Annoying.

Not threatening.

Not disabling of the Aegis weapons system.

In fact joy riding their 1970s vintage SU-24 flying boxcars.

The statement in the post is not only vacuous, it is comical.

[Publicus]

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.

You are better off dismantling the Pentagon altogether

Advocating this reveals a zero credibility in a national defense to include everything related to it. It means zero credibility in matters of diplomacy, trade agreements, negotiations and so on.

Zero credibility or trust in anything and everything. A complete waste.

[Thongkorn]

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

Did you know that an English lad shut down the whole of the8th fleet from his back bed room of his mama house in England. He was looking for proof of UFOs in the pentagone.

[boomerangutang]

Did you know that an English lad shut down the whole of the8th fleet from his back bed room of his mama house in England. He was looking for proof of UFOs in the pentagone.

Did he find proof of UFO's in the pentagone? ...or perhaps in a pentagram

[Publicus]

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

Did you know that an English lad shut down the whole of the8th fleet from his back bed room of his mama house in England. He was looking for proof of UFOs in the pentagone.

When you find the 8th USN Fleet let us all know.

When you find the kid the lad ask him where the 8th Fleet wuz cause USN hasn't had an 8th Fleet since 1950.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/unit/fleet_n.htm

Maybe Putin made the 8th Fleet disappear.

With one SU-24 flying boxcar and its Khibiny thingy.

[Publicus]

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

Red October kind of thingy?

There are several Nazi U-Boats at the bottom out off there.

The U-Boats were a better and safer craft for crew than the Russian subs are. Russian submarines have killed more Russian sailors than any enemy ever has.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and replies removed.