Russian general says watching Arctic militarization Feb 23, 2009 - MOSCOW (Reuters) - Makarov also said in Abu Dhabi that Russia had not yet received any official proposals from Washington on significant cuts in strategic nuclear forces.
"When there is a proposal, there will be a discussion," Interfax quoted Makarov as saying. "It is much too early to speak about that now."
To: Tailgunner Joe
Saber rattling . . . Obama will soil his shorts and cave just like the wimp that he is.
2 posted on
02/23/2009 2:22:35 PM PST by
txnativegop
(God Bless America! (NRA-Endowment))
To: Tailgunner Joe
On the bright side, Obama will make sure out Navy is ordered to port, so that no escalation takes place.
Peace in our time...
3 posted on
02/23/2009 2:22:41 PM PST by
DoughtyOne
(Resolved: Gregg, McCain, Snowe, Spectre: 2010, Collins, Graham: 2014)
To: Tailgunner Joe
We’ve heard this many time before.
4 posted on
02/23/2009 2:24:26 PM PST by
onedoug
To: Tailgunner Joe
When Palin brought up the real Russian threat, the media mocked her and played down the relevancy of Alaska.
13 posted on
02/23/2009 2:33:02 PM PST by
SolidWood
(Palin: "In Alaska we eat therefore we hunt.")
Hmmmmm.... Okay... I can see where the Russians would announce that they would respond to any militarization of the Arctic, seeing as how much of Russia borders on the Arctic.
The question I have is: What militarization of the Arctic is he talking about? Militarization by WHOM?
I guess I should probably have gone and read the original article, because it’s not clear to me what “militarization” the Russian fellow is referring to.
The U.S. and the Soviets / Russians have long sent nuclear subs into the arctic on various missions - that’s been going on for well over 40 years now, so it’s not exactly “news”.
Considering that there still is no way to actively defend against a sub-launched or land-launched ballistic missile (ICBM) and that the sub-launched missiles can easily reach Russia without the sub even necessarily leaving the dock, I’m not sure I see why supposedly “militarizing” the Arctic would even offer any advantages.
To: Tailgunner Joe
20 posted on
02/23/2009 2:43:05 PM PST by
P.O.E.
("Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness")
To: Tailgunner Joe
Sounds to me, from the threat, that Russia has already militarized the Arctic.
23 posted on
02/23/2009 2:50:22 PM PST by
DustyMoment
(FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
To: Tailgunner Joe
What's he talking about? The Canadian effort to put a base in the far north?
Last I heard there was some proposal to station an icebreaker at Barrow, but I'm not aware of much we're doing.
24 posted on
02/23/2009 2:50:52 PM PST by
colorado tanker
("I just LOVE clinging to my guns and my religion!!!!" - Sarah Palin)
To: Tailgunner Joe
![GLOBAL WARMING 4](http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc46/gearyb/HABITS.jpg)
To late, the polar bears are armed...(right to bear arms...)
29 posted on
02/23/2009 4:13:19 PM PST by
odin2008
(EVIL TRIUMPHS WHEN GOOD MEN DO NOTHING)
To: Tailgunner Joe; GMMAC; Clive; exg; kanawa; backhoe; -YYZ-; Former Proud Canadian; Squawk 8888; ...
30 posted on
02/23/2009 4:15:18 PM PST by
fanfan
(God, Bless America, please.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Russia has already Militarized the Arctic.They have bases all over the North.Who are they to dictate the national security needs of other nations.
Here we go again.Russia is throwing a temper tantrum in order to get attention like a disobedient three year old.
31 posted on
02/23/2009 4:20:48 PM PST by
puppypusher
(The world is going to the dogs.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson