Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers on mission near South Korea, Japan

[webfact]

Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers on mission near South Korea, Japan

 

A Tupolev Tu-95MS strategic bomber, the carrier of nuclear rockets, lands at the Yemelyanovo airport near Russia's Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, June 8, 2011. REUTERS/Ilya Naymushin

 

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian nuclear-capable strategic bombers have flown over the Pacific Ocean, the Sea of Japan, the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea, prompting Japan and South Korea to scramble jets to escort them, Russia said on Thursday.

 

Russia's Defence Ministry said in a statement the Tupolev-95MS bombers, code named "Bears" by NATO, flew over neutral waters and were accompanied by Russian Sukhoi-35S fighter jets and A-50 early warning and control aircraft.

 

It gave no details about the overall number of aircraft that had taken part in what it called a pre-arranged flight and did not say when or why the mission took place.

 

The TU-95MS bombers were refuelled in mid-air during the mission, the ministry said.

 

During parts of the route, the bombers were escorted by South Korean and Japanese military jets, it added.

 

Russia, which shares a border with North Korea, has repeatedly voiced concerns about rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula caused by Pyongyang's nuclear missile programme, and has complained about Japan's plans to deploy a U.S. anti-missile system on its soil.

 

(Reporting by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-24

[tandor]

..starting to get crowded down that way.

[boomerangutang]

Russia saying:  "Hey y'all, we're in this also."

 

                  It brings to mind how Russia declared war on Japan, days before Japan surrendered.  They got a few islands for their efforts.

[calexapic]

Oh hey there Putin we'd almost forgotten about you with the other 2 crazies. Someone stroke his ego so he'll go back to sleep or include him in the hair swap.

[DoctorG]

Just Russia reminding everyone that they too have a strategic interest in the area. Nothing to get too excited about.

[FritsSikkink]

9 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Russia saying:  "Hey y'all, we're in this also."

 

                  It brings to mind how Russia declared war on Japan, days before Japan surrendered.  They got a few islands for their efforts.

More than 20 million Russians killed in WW2, how many from your country?

[Nilats]

The Soviets were the one's who forced Japan to surrender in 1945. The Soviets destroyed( literally annihilated) the Japanese Kwantung 1 million strong Army in Manchuria in 1945. The impact on the Japanese moral after the complete annihilation of their one and only army which was sworn in by the Samurai code to fight to the death for the Emperor was equivalent to 100 Hiroshima bombs. So the Soviets inflicted more material damage to Japan in just 2 weeks than the Americans did in 4 years. A few days after that Japan capitulated. Just in case if some of you smart ass kids didn't know about this :)

[craigt3365]

50 minutes ago, Nilats said:

The Soviets were the one's who forced Japan to surrender in 1945. The Soviets destroyed( literally annihilated) the Japanese Kwantung 1 million strong Army in Manchuria in 1945. The impact on the Japanese moral after the complete annihilation of their one and only army which was sworn in by the Samurai code to fight to the death for the Emperor was equivalent to 100 Hiroshima bombs. So the Soviets inflicted more material damage to Japan in just 2 weeks than the Americans did in 4 years. A few days after that Japan capitulated. Just in case if some of you smart ass kids didn't know about this :)

No need to be rude. The Soviets did play a major role in all this. And their surprise invasion was a huge reason Japan surrendered. But not the only reason. The emperor had been contemplating surrender for some time. The US was also bombing their cities with conventional weapons. Food was scarce. And yes, the Soviets were attacking. Many reasons for them to surrender.

 

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/08/06/commentary/japan-surrender-world-war-ii/#.WZ-DTs3hWf1

[Scott]

Baiting post removed.   Please stay on topic.  

[Nilats]

Concerning the topic - which I think is laughable, I don't understand how this ever made the headlines. Russia is right there in the region. Maybe Americans should stop flying around the coast of California... because I don't understand how Russians flying near their own border is any of Yankie business to begin with.... If anybody is ever desperate for attention it's always the Americans... and this topic and headline proves it once again... The real question should be why the Yanks keep poking in that area with their dirty fingers and noses when their country is clearly on the other side of the planet...

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, Nilats said:

Concerning the topic - which I think is laughable, I don't understand how this ever made the headlines. Russia is right there in the region. Maybe Americans should stop flying around the coast of California... because I don't understand how Russians flying near their own border is any of Yankie business to begin with.... If anybody is ever desperate for attention it's always the Americans... and this topic and headline proves it once again... The real question should be why the Yanks keep poking in that area with their dirty fingers and noses when their country is clearly on the other side of the planet...

They flew too close to South Korea and Japan. Impossible to compare this to California.  LOL  The flights were not near their own border.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-flies-nuclear-capable-strategic-bombers-over-pacific-unnerving-south-654539

 

https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/japan-scrambles-jets-to-head-off-six-russian-bombers/

 

Quote

 

It has been reported that the Russian jets returned to their home territory after getting close to, but reportedly not quite trespassing into Japanese airspace.

 

 

Russia has a long history of violating other nation's airspace.

[gk10002000]

On 8/24/2017 at 10:25 AM, tandor said:

..starting to get crowded down that way.

Why would Russia complain about Japan's plans to deploy a U.S. anti-missile system on its soil?

[Nilats]

6 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

What you wrote is NOT true.  America does not routinely threaten to use nuclear weapons, and it certainly is not the onky country that has threatened to use them.  Goodness.  The North Korean nut has threatened that repeatedly, never mind some of the other big players over the decades.

You have explicitly and publicly threatened Iran with Nuclear annihilation and you have also threatened North Korea. Which means potentially US can target any country on this planet with their Nuclear Arsenal - there's no other way to interpret the message. This is well within your routine means of potentially achieving your goals of supremacy around the world.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed as well as a reply:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[CaptHaddock]

On 8/25/2017 at 7:59 AM, Nilats said:

The Soviets were the one's who forced Japan to surrender in 1945. The Soviets destroyed( literally annihilated) the Japanese Kwantung 1 million strong Army in Manchuria in 1945. The impact on the Japanese moral after the complete annihilation of their one and only army which was sworn in by the Samurai code to fight to the death for the Emperor was equivalent to 100 Hiroshima bombs. So the Soviets inflicted more material damage to Japan in just 2 weeks than the Americans did in 4 years. A few days after that Japan capitulated. Just in case if some of you smart ass kids didn't know about this :)

The Kwantung Army by the summer of 1945 was stuck in China without transportation to return to Japan.  No doubt the Japanese leadership was surprised at now quickly and completely they collapsed when the Russians came into the war, but the surrender was inevitable even before then.  The Americans had completely destroyed the Japanese Navy and Air Force along with more than sixty cities even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  After the war the US Strategic Bombing Survery, an investigation conducted by the US Air Force, concluded that Japan would have surrendered soon even without the a-bomb attacks or the Soviet declaration of war.

 

In fact, in June, 1945 the Japanese, communicating through the Soviet government with which it was not yet at war, indicated to the Americans that it was willing to surrender as long as the emperor system could be maintained.  Truman, against the advice of nearly all of his advisors, refused claiming that only unconditional surrender was acceptable.  Then, in August Truman accepted the Japanese surrender on the condition that the emperor be retained.  There is a lot of evidence that, rather than saving American lives, the atomic bomb attacks increased US casualties since Truman kept the war going long enough to drop the two bombs, which, at the time, constituted 100% of the US nuclear weapons inventory.  The reason the US dropped the Nagasaki bomb so quickly after Hiroshima was that they wanted to use the plutonium bomb quickly before the Japanese could organize a surrender.

 

Truman was eager to demonstrate the power of the a-bombs so that he could threaten Stalin with them which he was doing by March, 1946.  And the Americans have been threatening ever since.

[Nilats]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

The Kwantung Army by the summer of 1945 was stuck in China without transportation to return to Japan.  No doubt the Japanese leadership was surprised at now quickly and completely they collapsed when the Russians came into the war, but the surrender was inevitable even before then.  The Americans had completely destroyed the Japanese Navy and Air Force along with more than sixty cities even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  After the war the US Strategic Bombing Survery, an investigation conducted by the US Air Force, concluded that Japan would have surrendered soon even without the a-bomb attacks or the Soviet declaration of war.

 

In fact, in June, 1945 the Japanese, communicating through the Soviet government with which it was not yet at war, indicated to the Americans that it was willing to surrender as long as the emperor system could be maintained.  Truman, against the advice of nearly all of his advisors, refused claiming that only unconditional surrender was acceptable.  Then, in August Truman accepted the Japanese surrender on the condition that the emperor be retained.  There is a lot of evidence that, rather than saving American lives, the atomic bomb attacks increased US casualties since Truman kept the war going long enough to drop the two bombs, which, at the time, constituted 100% of the US nuclear weapons inventory.  The reason the US dropped the Nagasaki bomb so quickly after Hiroshima was that they wanted to use the plutonium bomb quickly before the Japanese could organize a surrender.

 

Truman was eager to demonstrate the power of the a-bombs so that he could threaten Stalin with them which he was doing by March, 1946.  And the Americans have been threatening ever since.

We can have endless arguments both ways. Anyway here's a link:

 

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/

 

"In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.

“Hasegawa has changed my mind,” says Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” “The Japanese decision to surrender was not driven by the two bombings.”

President Truman’s decision to go nuclear has long been a source of controversy. Many, of course, have argued that attacking civilians can never be justified. Then, in the 1960s, a “revisionist school” of historians suggested that Japan was in fact close to surrendering before Hiroshima - that the bombing was not necessary, and that Truman gave the go-ahead primarily to intimidate the Soviet Union with our new power."

 

More on the topic... The Russians have never used nuclear weapons or any other WMD ever, and they have also never threatened to use them. And  add to the list that Americans have threatened USSR twice with nukes - one time during the Cuban missile crisis, and second time that I know of was before the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan - some US statesman threatened that US was ready to go nuclear had USSR any intention to go further into Iran as well... though I'm not sure if the Soviets ever had that intention to do that. But with Americans it's just too common to threaten nukes to achieve their political goals around the world again and again. Furthermore the Russians removed the preemptive nuclear strike from their military doctrine, but the Americans still have the preemptive strike, and they keep threatening with nukes including all the examples I mentioned. Do you wonder why the world is becoming more and more dangerous?

 

It should be completely immoral and illegal to threaten nukes against any country, especially those that don't have them.

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

  And the Americans have been threatening ever since.

Only the Americans?  Seriously?  LOL

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Nilats said:

More on the topic... The Russians have never used nuclear weapons or any other WMD ever, and they have also never threatened to use them.

 

Really? LOL

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12139943/Russia-simulated-a-nuclear-strike-against-Sweden-Nato-admits.html

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-threatens-nuke-attack-u-s-nato-enter-crimea/

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-television-warns-nuclear-war-amid-us-tensions/story?id=42773541

 

https://www.thelocal.no/20161031/norway-will-suffer-russia-makes-nuclear-threat-over-us-marines

 

[Nilats]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Really? LOL

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12139943/Russia-simulated-a-nuclear-strike-against-Sweden-Nato-admits.html

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-threatens-nuke-attack-u-s-nato-enter-crimea/

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-television-warns-nuclear-war-amid-us-tensions/story?id=42773541

 

https://www.thelocal.no/20161031/norway-will-suffer-russia-makes-nuclear-threat-over-us-marines

 

This is the last time I'm replying, I will put you on ignore after this. In all these cases Russia is simply quoting its own military doctrine - and each country already has a copy of it - it's like saying Russia has a military doctrine - and therefore it's a threat... Russia does not have a preemptive strike but can potentially use them if Russia's sovereign territory is invaded - so this is not really a threat... Rather a deterrent because NATO's build up is obviously threatening Russia's sovereign territory. They have guns missiles pointed at Moscow and other Russian cities, and troops ready to be deployed on Russia's territory. I don't understand how Russia telling them not to invade its territory can be interpreted as a threat directed at them.

[craigt3365]

22 minutes ago, Nilats said:

This is the last time I'm replying, I will put you on ignore after this. In all these cases Russia is simply quoting its own military doctrine - and each country already has a copy of it - it's like saying Russia has a military doctrine - and therefore it's a threat... Russia does not have a preemptive strike but can potentially use them if Russia's sovereign territory is invaded - so this is not really a threat... Rather a deterrent because NATO's build up is obviously threatening Russia's sovereign territory. They have guns missiles pointed at Moscow and other Russian cities, and troops ready to be deployed on Russia's territory. I don't understand how Russia telling them not to invade its territory can be interpreted as a threat directed at them.

Jeez. I showed where you were wrong and now I'm on your ignore lisr? LOL

 

You are reading  RT too much. Those links prove Russia has plans for preemptive nuclear strikes. Same as every other country. It's called planning.

[CaptHaddock]

19 minutes ago, Nilats said:

This is the last time I'm replying, I will put you on ignore after this. In all these cases Russia is simply quoting its own military doctrine - and each country already has a copy of it - it's like saying Russia has a military doctrine - and therefore it's a threat... Russia does not have a preemptive strike but can potentially use them if Russia's sovereign territory is invaded - so this is not really a threat... Rather a deterrent because NATO's build up is obviously threatening Russia's sovereign territory. They have guns missiles pointed at Moscow and other Russian cities, and troops ready to be deployed on Russia's territory. I don't understand how Russia telling them not to invade its territory can be interpreted as a threat directed at them.

All true.  What the US did with NATO is what it has always done with Russia: renege on its agreements.  Bush I promised Gorbachev not to expand NATO up to the Russian border.  Later the Americans turned around and did exactly what they promised not to do, marching NATO right up to the Russian border. 

[gk10002000]

3 hours ago, Nilats said:

You have explicitly and publicly threatened Iran with Nuclear annihilation and you have also threatened North Korea. Which means potentially US can target any country on this planet with their Nuclear Arsenal - there's no other way to interpret the message. This is well within your routine means of potentially achieving your goals of supremacy around the world.

I did not threaten anybody.   And uh, yes, the US, as well as France, the UK, Russia, China and one or two other countries can target any country on the earth.  That is what intercontinental ballistic missiles do.

[craigt3365]

21 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

All true.  What the US did with NATO is what it has always done with Russia: renege on its agreements.  Bush I promised Gorbachev not to expand NATO up to the Russian border.  Later the Americans turned around and did exactly what they promised not to do, marching NATO right up to the Russian border. 

Gorbachev disagrees with you. This comment seems to come from Putin. And it's not correct.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union.

[Nilats]

11 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

I did not threaten anybody.   And uh, yes, the US, as well as France, the UK, Russia, China and one or two other countries can target any country on the earth.  That is what intercontinental ballistic missiles do.

Targeting is not the same as directly threatening. Threatening is the same as using them, threat in itself is an act of terror - you spread terror to achieve your aims - be it either military, political, economic, or regional or global domination. And it leaves a deep and lasting impact in global mentality the more this kind of rhetoric is being heard the more other countries rush to obtain the same weapons - so they can also use them as either a means to threaten others like America does, or deter a potential American threat or attack.

 

In case with Russia since it doesn't have a preemptive strike in doctrine and doesn't throw words around like American politicians do - like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and others in the past - Russia clearly states that it reserves the right to use them if Russia comes under major attack threatening country's existence. Even then Russian doctrine states that  in case of direct foreign military invasion - Russia will only use nukes if it cannot defeat the invading force via the conventional means - it clearly states that nukes are an absolute last resort in any type of military confrontation. Which in my opinion is a very cautious and conscientious approach to wielding WMDs, in stark contrast to the rhetoric coming from Washington all the time, and considering that Washington does have a preemptive strike in its doctrine.

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, Nilats said:

Targeting is not the same as directly threatening. Threatening is the same as using them, threat in itself is an act of terror - you spread terror to achieve your aims - be it either military, political, economic, or regional or global domination. And it leaves a deep and lasting impact in global mentality the more this kind of rhetoric is being heard the more other countries rush to obtain the same weapons - so they can also use them as either a means to threaten others like America does, or deter a potential American threat or attack.

 

In case with Russia since it doesn't have a preemptive strike in doctrine and doesn't throw words around like American politicians do - like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and others in the past - Russia clearly states that it reserves the right to use them if Russia comes under major attack threatening country's existence. Even then Russian doctrine states that  in case of direct foreign military invasion - Russia will only use nukes if it cannot defeat the invading force via the conventional means - it clearly states that nukes are an absolute last resort in any type of military confrontation. Which in my opinion is a very cautious and conscientious approach to wielding WMDs, in stark contrast to the rhetoric coming from Washington all the time, and considering that Washington does have a preemptive strike in its doctrine.

And we know that Russia doesn't have a preemptive strike in its doctrine because Russia says so. Just like Russia says it doesn't have soldiers in the Ukraine.

[CaptHaddock]

46 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Gorbachev disagrees with you. This comment seems to come from Putin. And it's not correct.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union.

It is a matter of dispute.  Here's an article that takes the opposite view, which I find persuasive.

 

In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

 

However, even in the unlikely event that no promise not to expand NATO in the East was actually made, the actual NATO expansion right up to Russia's border remains an undeniable act of aggression and provocation.  Do you imagine the US would have no response if the Russians made a treaty with Mexico and put troops there? 

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And we know that Russia doesn't have a preemptive strike in its doctrine because Russia says so. Just like Russia says it doesn't have soldiers in the Ukraine.

Some have drank too much of the Russia Today kool-aid.  LOL

[mrwebb8825]

10 hours ago, metisdead said:

Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

please pm this part to ilostmypassword. 

[metisdead]

1 minute ago, mrwebb8825 said:

please pm this part to ilostmypassword. 

 

If he has sent you abusive PM's, you can report them and then action will be taken. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

please pm this part to ilostmypassword. 

Do you understand that the moderators are going to need actual evidence?