• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America Sends Missile-Destroying Warship Into Russian Waters.....

WCH said:
I hadn't envisioned a time in the near future when Russia might use it's nuclear forces but, this bold move by the US might make it come sooner than expected.

Dangerous indeed.
Click to expand...

Your paranoia of Russia is radical. How can a person live in such constant fear?
 
joko104 said:
Your paranoia of Russia is radical. How can a person live in such constant fear?
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?

The only thing I'm even slightly 'paranoid' about is who's running this country.
 
MMC said:
Heya HB.....I am willing to bet that Putin knows about that weakness.
Click to expand...

No doubt at all. It's exactly the type of thing that could occur if the west continues to wobble. More resolution on the defensive front is necessary to avoid such things.
 
MMC said:
Showing the flag
Ever since Russian armed forces invaded and annexed the Ukrainian province of Crimea last month, the U.S. government has struggled to find an appropriate response. Trade sanctions and visa freezes on Russian government officials could punish Russia for what it's done in Crimea. But what could the U.S. do to deter further aggression?

This week, it appears the Obama administration hit upon its solution. It took the USS Donald Cook and sent it to Russia. Armed with new Standard Missile-3 IB weaponry from Raytheon (NYSE: RTN ) , the Cook boasts a robust version of Lockheed Martin's (NYSE: LMT ) Aegis ballistic missile defense system capable of shooting down supersonic, high-trajectory missiles such as Russia uses to carry its nuclear warheads. The warship was modified for ballistic missile defense (BMD) duty as part of a $22 billion project to build shipborne and land-based missile defense stations to protect Europe from Iranian long-range missiles. But just as President Putin predicted, it appears to have use in countering Russian threats as well.

cook_large.jpg


Departing its new base in Spain, the Cook is now en route to the Black Sea, where it will "show the flag" off the Ukrainian and Russian coasts -- a concrete demonstration to President Putin of how aggression in Crimea could bring about the very thing he fears: U.S. ballistic missile defenses set up right next to the Russian border.

What this move does show us, though, is that the $22 billion ballistic missile defense system has wider application than it was initially planned for. It can help to contain the threat of a future Iranian nuclear missile and it can help to disarm Russia's nuclear arsenal as well.....snip~

America Sends Missile-Destroying Warship Into Russian Waters. President Putin Presumably Not Pleased.


Our ship arrived there yesterday. Now it will sit off the Coast of the Ukraine. Think we have Putin's attention now? What say ye?
Click to expand...

It's a single ship. This affects nothing and no one of substance in the West or in Russia cares. Now if we'd sent a flotilla? Maybe.
 
Sherman123 said:
It's a single ship. This affects nothing and no one of substance in the West or in Russia cares. Now if we'd sent a flotilla? Maybe.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's not a single ship, but rather a single ship on the surface. The US has 72 active submarines by what I looked up.
 
joko104 said:
I suspect it's not a single ship, but rather a single ship on the surface. The US has 72 active submarines by what I looked up.
Click to expand...

I doubt we have sent a flotilla of submarines into the Black Sea. It's also largely unnecessary.
 
Sherman123 said:
It's a single ship. This affects nothing and no one of substance in the West or in Russia cares. Now if we'd sent a flotilla? Maybe.
Click to expand...



Yeah, other than to sit off the Coast and show the Flag.....Even if we had 10 ships there. Its not enough to intimidate The Russians. Not when they have 50 some ships of their own.....plus the 51 they captured.
 
MMC said:
Yeah, other than to sit off the Coast and show the Flag.....Even if we had 10 ships there. Its not enough to intimidate The Russians. Not when they have 50 some ships of their own.....plus the 51 they captured.
Click to expand...

are we supposed to send more ships into the black sea to counter this? we have very few friendly ports in the region.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
are we supposed to send more ships into the black sea to counter this? we have very few friendly ports in the region.
Click to expand...

Nope.....we did what we needed to do with this regard. We cycled in two others before this one. Plus Biden is going there. So if they are going to invade. Better not do it when he is there. The French have 3 ships there. I don't know how many of the Brits have.

Not to mention Poland has armed up along with some others. Now I heard the Romanians have a ship joining in.
 
MMC said:
Yeah, other than to sit off the Coast and show the Flag.....Even if we had 10 ships there. Its not enough to intimidate The Russians. Not when they have 50 some ships of their own.....plus the 51 they captured.
Click to expand...

The Black Sea Fleet is irrelevant when balanced against the massive preponderance NATO, and more specifically the United States has at its disposal. It's bottled in the Black Sea and the bulk of it's ships would be sunk effortlessly on the first day of the war. There is a reason it's the most underfunded and derelict branch of the Russian military.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
are we supposed to send more ships into the black sea to counter this? we have very few friendly ports in the region.
Click to expand...

What? Virtually every port in the Black Sea is friendly. Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania are NATO states, Ukraine is obviously aligning with the West, and Georgia is desirous of NATO membership.
 
Sherman123 said:
What? Virtually every port in the Black Sea is friendly. Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania are NATO states, Ukraine is obviously aligning with the West, and Georgia is desirous of NATO membership.
Click to expand...

But I don't think these friendly ports have the facilities needed to support a fleet large enoungh to counter the entire black seas fleet.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
But I don't think these friendly ports have the facilities needed to support a fleet large enoungh to counter the entire black seas fleet.
Click to expand...

Istanbul and it's adjoining cities has massive port facilities that dwarf Sevastopol in addition to a constellation of deep water ports and naval facilities stretching all along the rim. We regularly make carrier port visits and conduct major naval exercises from them. Not to mention that the Black Sea fleet is the least of our military concerns--it would be almost effortlessly devastated on the first day of the war. It's a shoddy fleet bottled up in the Black Sea where it can be lashed to pieces.
 
Sherman123 said:
The Black Sea Fleet is irrelevant when balanced against the massive preponderance NATO, and more specifically the United States has at its disposal. It's bottled in the Black Sea and the bulk of it's ships would be sunk effortlessly on the first day of the war. There is a reason it's the most underfunded and derelict branch of the Russian military.
Click to expand...


Say what.....Irrelevant. :roll: Funny that's not how our own DOD assessment of the that region plays out. Nor IHS Jane. As well as what the Russians have to say about it.
 
MMC said:
Say what.....Irrelevant. :roll: Funny that's not how our own DOD assessment of the that region plays out. Nor IHS Jane. As well as what the Russians have to say about it.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. The Black Sea Fleet is the least important part of this crisis. It's a largely derelict orphan navy that would be effortlessly contained and destroyed in a war with NATO.

"But the Black Sea Fleet "has been given very little attention over recent years," says Alexander Konovalov, president of the independent Institute of Strategic Assessments in Moscow. "There's been a bit of upgrading, but not very much."

The fact is, he says, "Russia is a classical land power, and the navy has usually been seen as something that guards the coast. Russia could easily fight a war with Georgia or even, God forbid, Ukraine, without calling on naval forces at all."

The officially acknowledged roster of the Black Sea Fleet includes a few dozen warships, most of them light. Many date back to the Soviet era and, experts say, are not in operational shape. The fleet has no aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines."

Russia's naval base in Ukraine: Critical asset or point of pride? - CSMonitor.com
 
Sherman123 said:
No it isn't. The Black Sea Fleet is the least important part of this crisis. It's a largely derelict orphan navy that would be effortlessly contained and destroyed in a war with NATO.

"But the Black Sea Fleet "has been given very little attention over recent years," says Alexander Konovalov, president of the independent Institute of Strategic Assessments in Moscow. "There's been a bit of upgrading, but not very much."

The fact is, he says, "Russia is a classical land power, and the navy has usually been seen as something that guards the coast. Russia could easily fight a war with Georgia or even, God forbid, Ukraine, without calling on naval forces at all."

The officially acknowledged roster of the Black Sea Fleet includes a few dozen warships, most of them light. Many date back to the Soviet era and, experts say, are not in operational shape. The fleet has no aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines."

Russia's naval base in Ukraine: Critical asset or point of pride? - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...



Well, with that I concur about the Deep water Navy and offensive fire power.....but then I was looking at this region being nothing but basically defensive for the Russians. Wherein they have more than just ships that can drop Torpedoes. The other issue is the Europeans an Russians have been into Geo-politics forever. The US hasn't.


Crimea: The Revenge of Geography?

The Obama administration claims it is motivated by the G-8, interdependence, human rights and international law. Russian President Vladimir Putin is a more traditional historical actor. He is motivated by geopolitics. That is why he temporarily has the upper hand in the crisis over Ukraine and Crimea.

Geopolitics, according to the mid-20th century U.S. diplomat and academic Robert Strausz-Hupe, is "the struggle for space and power," played out in a geographical setting. Geopolitics is eternal, ever since Persia was the world's first superpower in antiquity. Indeed, the Old Testament, on one level, is a lesson in geopolitics. Strausz-Hupe, an Austrian immigrant, wanted to educate the political elite of his adopted country so that the forces of good could make better use of geopolitics than the forces of evil in World War II.

Likewise, the Berlin Wall may have fallen in 1989, but Russia is still big and right next door to Central and Eastern Europe. And Russia remains illiberal and autocratic because, unlike Britain and America, it is not an island nation, but a vast continent with few geographical features to protect it from invasion. Putin's aggression stems ultimately from this fundamental geographical insecurity. Though, this does not doom him to be a reactionary. A far-sighted ruler would see that only civil society can ultimately save Russia. But Russia's geographical setting does place Putin in an understandable context.

And Ukraine and Crimea are but prologue to a reality across the globe.

In Asia, the crises in the South and East China seas are all about geography -- lines on the map in blue water and where they should be drawn. This is traditional geopolitics, stunningly unaffected by the advance of Western liberal thought. In the Middle East, Israel faces the tyranny of distance in its planning for any military strike against Iran -- the fundamental fact of the Israel-Iran conflict. Tunisia and Egypt, while politically troubled, are nevertheless cohesive, age-old clusters of civilization -- natural outgrowths of geography, in other words. This keeps them viable as states, unlike Libya, Syria and Iraq, which are geographically illogical within their present borders and thus have collapsed in various degrees following the weakening or toppling of their dictatorships.

Geography is no less relevant to the 21st century than it has been throughout history. Communications technology has not erased geography; rather, it has only made it more claustrophobic, so that each region of the earth interacts with every other one as never before. Intensifying this claustrophobia is the growth of cities -- another geographical phenomenon. The earth is smaller than ever, thanks to technology. But like a tiny wristwatch with all of its mechanisms, you have to disaggregate its geographical parts and features in order to understand how it works.

Thus, any international relations strategy must emanate initially from the physical terrain upon which we all live. And because geopolitics emanates from geography, it will never go away or become irrelevant. Strausz-Hupe had it right. If liberal powers do not engage in geopolitics, they will only leave the playing field to their enemies who do. For even evolved liberal states, such as those in America and Europe, are not exempt from the battle for survival. Such things as the G-8, human rights and international law can and must triumph over geography. But that is only possible if geopolitics becomes part of the strategy of the West.....snip~

RealClearWorld - Crimea: The Revenge of Geography?

175534_1_.jpg
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Well, I guess it would have his attention if Putin said, "Oh snap!! I was going to fire off a few nuclear missiles. Now I can't." I doubt it made any difference to him actually. Just a show of support, and he already knew that.
Click to expand...

Conservatives have been banging the drums about how "Obama is too weak" .. now he sends a warship that is capable of intercepting any missiles Russia has in its arsenal and everyone is like "what a waste of time"... can everyone please make up their damn mind or is just a Obama did it, I hate it kinda thing?
 
OnWisconsin said:
Conservatives have been banging the drums about how "Obama is too weak" .. now he sends a warship that is capable of intercepting any missiles Russia has in its arsenal and everyone is like "what a waste of time"... can everyone please make up their damn mind or is just a Obama did it, I hate it kinda thing?
Click to expand...

Okay you say just conservatives.....what do you consider Leaders of other countries? Oh.....and we aren't talking the opposition or enemies. We are talking direct allies.

Did you want to call all of them Conservatives too? What about those in Defense and security analysis? Are all of them Conservative too?

Do you think Obama repeatedly saying he is hitting the Reset button on his Foreign Policy. In each theatre of operations. Might actually be a clue?
 
MMC said:
Okay you say just conservatives.....what do you consider Leaders of other countries? Oh.....and we aren't talking the opposition or enemies. We are talking direct allies.

Did you want to call all of them Conservatives too? What about those in Defense and security analysis? Are all of them Conservative too?

Do you think Obama repeatedly saying he is hitting the Reset button on his Foreign Policy. In each theatre of operations. Might actually be a clue?
Click to expand...

I'm speaking about conservatives on this website and specifically what maggie had to say as well as others in this thread.. where in what I said do you apply leaders from other countries? Do you think I give a damn what they think? I don't occupy that much of my life worrying about what defense and security analysts think or say, nor what conservatives or otherwise think in foreign countries. Do you normally go off on tangents about leaders from other countries when addressing questions that weren't directed at you?


edit-

And yes, in previous threads as well, conservatives have been beating the drum about Obama being too weak on this issue, yet when he sends a warship in they all claim its futile and pointless.
 
Last edited:
OnWisconsin said:
I'm speaking about conservatives on this website and specifically what maggie had to say as well as others in this thread.. where in what I said do you apply leaders from other countries? Do you think I give a damn what they think? Do you normally go off on tangents about leaders from other countries when addressing questions that weren't directed at you?


edit-

And yes, in previous threads as well, conservatives have been beating the drum about Obama being too weak on this issue, yet when he sends a warship in they all claim its futile and pointless.
Click to expand...


Oh.....did you think that was going off? :roll:

I addressed your rant about conservatives.....basically reminding you that it goes well beyond them. Now whether you care or not. It's not my concern.

and yes.....It looks like you did miss some of those conservatives talking about no US Involvement. But then.....I wasn't surprised by it.
 
MMC said:
Oh.....did you think that was going off? :roll:

I addressed your rant about conservatives.....basically reminding you that it goes well beyond them. Now whether you care or not. It's not my concern.

and yes.....It looks like you did miss some of those conservatives talking about no US Involvement. But then.....I wasn't surprised by it.
Click to expand...

I don't read every post that is written on DP. That would consume far to much of my precious time (quite like this argument). I did however direct my question at maggie, and not you. I don't need reminding, if its not your concern why did you feel the need to enter into a question that wasn't directed at you?
 
OnWisconsin said:
I don't read every post that is written on DP. That would consume far to much of my precious time (quite like this argument). I did however direct my question at maggie, and not you. I don't need reminding, if its not your concern why did you feel the need to enter into a question that wasn't directed at you?
Click to expand...

Its called a Political Forum.....and like you calling on Maggie. I came in and responded to your statement. Quite simple really.

That's great you consider your time Precious.....but then around here when mentioning Obama. Then the change in the pocket gets revealed. Just sayin!
yo2.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom