Russia and Mr. Trump

[Bonam]

23 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Either way, deploying a new generation of cruise missiles with nuclear capabilities is really stirring-up the hornet's nest.

America has pretty much eliminated nuclear cruise missiles as they are a very iffy weapon. Only strategic bombers carry them now (the model 86). Even then, only on certain occasions...or by mistake!

The reason why they are iffy should be obvious...but if not: you never know if you're under nuclear attack with cruise missiles. That is until one explodes...or crashes on an unintended target. Many cruise missiles have both nuclear and conventional warheads. So in a crisis situation...you might need to wait an hour or more to find out the truth. No such ambiguity exists with ICBMs. The last thing one wants when facing global nuclear annihilation is a bunch of question-marks before your forces react. 

Seems like, from the point of view of a nation that wanted to actually use nuclear weapons, cruise missiles would then be an ideal delivery method since you could try to fool your enemy into thinking it is only a conventional attack until it's too late. And if it's an enemy that has no reliable second strike (SLBM) capability, you could effectively "win" a nuclear war. 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Bonam said:

Seems like, from the point of view of a nation that wanted to actually use nuclear weapons, cruise missiles would then be an ideal delivery method since you could try to fool your enemy into thinking it is only a conventional attack until it's too late. And if it's an enemy that has no reliable second strike (SLBM) capability, you could effectively "win" a nuclear war. 

That was the deal during the Cold War. NATO was outnumbered by many factors.

An intentional question mark.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

That was the deal during the Cold War. NATO was outnumbered by many factors.

An intentional question mark.

 

Right....American ALCMs or Tomahawks with nuclear warheads were considered to be tactical, theatre based weapons, not strategic assets.   We even had nuclear torpedoes, depth bombs, and artillery shells.

It is important not to mix the two for a host of reasons.  Tactical nuclear assets present a much bigger security risk, are more difficult to forward deploy/base without huge protests and logistics, and became less necessary as precision guided, conventional "smart" munitions were perfected.

Russia has caught up a bit and will want to establish the new normal with President Trump.  Many presidents have experienced this in the past.

Edited February 16, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

The squirrelly thing about the Russians is what they consider range safety. They're willing to put-up with a certain percentage of ICBMs failing upon launch...much like the safety factor of the S-300/S-400 antiaircraft system...see video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s77cqabHsM

Now imagine yer RT-2PM2 Topol-M doing that. Let's hope the safety fuses are still engaged, eh?

Edited February 16, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[SpankyMcFarland]

The lesson is clear: when the FBI pop round for a chat, say nothing. 

[Topaz]

Today, the Rep. on the Intel Committee held a press conference about Russia and any connection to Trump and so far there isn't any BUT Grapevine told me just before the election, Hillary's  manager  (?) made a deal with the Russian, u give money to the Clinton Foundation and u will get the Uranium u want from the State Depart. help and that money was used  for the campaign. The Clintons are smart, they just create that action against Trump, which THEY are guilty of themselves.

[Argus]

Well, here we go again, as Jeff Sessions is under pressure because he met with the Russians before the elections and then denied doing so in his confirmation hearing. There was also an interesting story in the New York Times about how Obama administration people put in place a number of information requests about Trump and the Russians to ensure the Trump administration couldn't bury it.

 In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald Trump and Russians — across the government. Former U.S. officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling is not duplicated in future U.S. or European elections and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

U.S. allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin — and Trump’s associates, according to three former U.S. officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence. Separately, U.S. intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump’s associates.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/in-last-days-obama-aides-seeded-trail-of-intelligence-on-russian-meddling-for-investigators-to-find

[?Impact]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, here we go again, as Jeff Sessions is under pressure because he met with the Russians before the elections and then denied doing so in his confirmation hearing.

I am far more concerned about the latter. Don't these guys learn, stop lying period. I don't think lying in general is better than lying under oath, only the legal consequences are different. A professional liar is spelt lawyer, and the penultimate professional liar must be Attorney General. 

[Topaz]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

I am far more concerned about the latter. Don't these guys learn, stop lying period. I don't think lying in general is better than lying under oath, only the legal consequences are different. A professional liar is spelt lawyer, and the penultimate professional liar must be Attorney General. 

Let's not rush to judgement before the whole story comes out because at this  time (5PM) today, Session didn't lie and apparently I was told by Grapevine, that someone from Trumps  group went over and told the Democrats that if they want to play dirty, then there are many Dems  that can be investigated with Russia also and  charges could be laid. I would be surprised if some in the FBI and CIA and other are on a witch hunt against Trump.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Topaz said:

Let's not rush to judgement before the whole story comes out because at this  time (5PM) today, Session didn't lie and apparently I was told by Grapevine, that someone from Trumps  group went over and told the Democrats that if they want to play dirty, then there are many Dems  that can be investigated with Russia also and  charges could be laid. I would be surprised if some in the FBI and CIA and other are on a witch hunt against Trump.

Certainly there may be threats against Democrats, but they are not in the position of having an administration of people being confirmed before Congress. The problem is not that Sessions met with the Russian ambassador, but that he told Congress he did not. Now he is trying to limit the scope of the question he responded to, but he does not deny that he both met with the Russian ambassador (twice) and that he told Congress that he did not. The written questionnaire specifically qualifies his contact as being 'about the 2016 election' so he has an out there assuming that indeed the 2016 election was not discussed (to be confirmed). At the verbal confirmation hearing his words were “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians” - that sounds very similar to not having sexual relations with that woman, in other words we are to accept his interpretation of what he meant and not his words. 

The two meeting he had with the Russian ambassador are a quick informal one (sounds like a handshake at some other event), and then an actual sit down meeting. He said he brought along two senior advisors, and possibly one younger one. The press were asking him for the names of those advisors, obviously to further investigate, but he ducked that question. 

[DogOnPorch]

It's another one of those who cares?? moments...

Only the Democrats.

It's not like the Democrats and friends didn't already have this русский tidbit waiting to go for weeks. They just wanted to release it at a high-point in hopes of dragging Trump's momentum down.

Did it work?

[Topaz]

Session is going to be on FOX at 9PM tonight.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

It's another one of those who cares?? moments...

Only the Democrats.

 

 

And a number of Republicans...

They certainly weren't dismissive of at FOX. In fact, they thought it was very concerning, and didn't like his 'I don't recollect' business.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Argus

[?Impact]

Just to add to the never ending story of Trump and Russia, apparently his son-in law Kushner met with the Russian ambassador in December.

[Topaz]

So to be fair, let's look at the other side, it seems many people met with the Russians but the problem would be did any of them break the law...like  Clinton's campaign manager and his Bro. who took money from other nations and placed it in the Clinton Foundation, because they don't have to report it and used it on the election, or the fact Clinton made a deal with Russia for campaign money,  for favours to Russia, which I understand the feds are looking into  it. What ever the Dems are  accusing Trump group of... the Dems are  more likely guilty of !  It's a mess.

[BubberMiley]

The Democrats didn't repeatedly meet with Russia during the campaign and they didn't lie about it. The Democrats also obviously weren't the beneficiaries of Russian hacking.  Your deflection tactics don't work. It's getting less and less reasonably deniable that Trump's campaign committed treason.

[Topaz]

33 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

The Democrats didn't repeatedly meet with Russia during the campaign and they didn't lie about it. The Democrats also obviously weren't the beneficiaries of Russian hacking.  Your deflection tactics don't work. It's getting less and less reasonably deniable that Trump's campaign committed treason.

 

Isn't  treason what Bill Clinton gave info to China?  When Hillary was in government  she made a deal with the Russian who wanted Uranium and she got money that went into the Foundation was reported again on TV news last night all the connection with Russia  with the Dems. So.. they all had connection to Russia but which ones  did any illegal??????

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Topaz said:

So to be fair, let's look at the other side, it seems many people met with the Russians

The issue here is lying under oath to Congress. I'm sure many Democrats also tied their shoes every morning, but that is irrelevant.

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Topaz said:

 

Isn't  treason what Bill Clinton gave info to China?  When Hillary was in government  she made a deal with the Russian who wanted Uranium and she got money that went into the Foundation was reported again on TV news last night all the connection with Russia  with the Dems. So.. they all had connection to Russia but which ones  did any illegal??????

Ever had kids?  Cause I did and it never worked when they tried to use what a neighbor kid did to get away with doing things they weren't supposed to do.  

If the Trump administration engaged in treasonous behavior, the defense of "Clinton did ___________" won't work.  Doesn't work here either, just looks like desperate scrambling.  Even if Clinton were guilty, as you claim, do you really think that should excuse treasonous behavior by the current administration?  

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

 

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Since when is meeting with Russians considered to be "treason" ?   Was President Reagan a "traitor" ?

Is meeting with Canadians also treason ?

Edited March 3, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

This is why Hillary lost, eh?

So when is Hillary installing herself as President?

[BubberMiley]

43 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

This is why Hillary lost, eh?

So when is Hillary installing herself as President?

You need to move on from Hillary. It's over.

Colluding with a foreign government to influence the election is treason. It was obvious they were doing that from the moment in the debate where Trump denied Russia's involvement in the hacking. It's more obvious now as they get caught in their lies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Meeting with Canadians about the U.S. election is treason ?

Russians....or Canadians...trying to influence the U.S. election: what's the difference ?

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

17 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

You need to move on from Hillary. It's over.

Colluding with a foreign government to influence the election is treason. It was obvious they were doing that from the moment in the debate where Trump denied Russia's involvement in the hacking. It's more obvious now as they get caught in their lies.

 

Oh noes!

The Russians are coming!!!! Fleeeeeee!!!

[Canadianjim]

Lying about seems to be an issue but only if you have ethics.,