Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I have been reading this stuff all over the net (no source needed). They are actually sending the missile cruiser with some other anti-submarine stuff for the so called joint "naval exercise". I'm predicting a similar move to Iran but will probably be on high scale basis (three to four cruisers and a lot of missile this & that stuff). The only question is, how does the US respond considering all of our so called allies are in Europe?
This is a lot of blustering. The Russians found a few naval vessels they can actually put to sea and that's about it. The Bahamanian fishing fleet could do more damage than the Russians these days, even after the recent hurricane.
Perhaps Russia and Venezuela have a defense agreement. If Russia's constitution is anything like our (and no doubt is is surpsisingly so), any treaty with Venezuela is the law of the land, whereby Russis is as obliged to defend them as diligently as their homeland. Just as the US, by treaty, is obliged to defend Turkey against a Kurdish uprising, which has been simmering on the back burner for about 7 years now.
My question stands. How did 50 years of our Cuba policy benefit the Cuban people. How did it make America more secure? This is not a spin, it is a question. Please answer it. In what way are the Cuban people today better off as a result of a Cuba policy that will soon be carried out by its eleventh president? And it is relevant to the original question, because you have advocated such a policy for Venezuela.
Since you insist on discussing Cuba, which has nothing to do with this thread, I'll address your redirect (since you dislike "spin").
Let's see, Cuba estimated per capita GDP for 2007 was a whopping $4,500, as compared to countries such as the Bahamas ($25,000), Argentina ($13,300), Mexico ($12,800), Peru ($7,800) and even Ecuador ($7,200). Looks like Russia really helped them out a whole bunch there, but at least they have a lot of cool 1950's vintage vehicles still in operation, kind of a living car museum.
Not buying oil from Venezuela, and working with the world on alternative sources so both Venezuela and Russia can't extort the world for their natural resources is something I really champion. Fortunately, it looks like the country might be starting to go in this direction, so hopefully Venezuela and Russia better learn to convert oil to food.
Perhaps Russia and Venezuela have a defense agreement. If Russia's constitution is anything like our (and no doubt is is surpsisingly so), any treaty with Venezuela is the law of the land, whereby Russis is as obliged to defend them as diligently as their homeland. Just as the US, by treaty, is obliged to defend Turkey against a Kurdish uprising, which has been simmering on the back burner for about 7 years now.
I hope Russia and Venezuela have a defense compact, and you can toss in Bolivia too.
Since you insist on discussing Cuba, which has nothing to do with this thread, I'll address your redirect (since you dislike "spin").
Let's see, Cuba estimated per capita GDP for 2007 was a whopping $4,500, as compared to countries such as the Bahamas ($25,000), Argentina ($13,300), Mexico ($12,800), Peru ($7,800) and even Ecuador ($7,200). Looks like Russia really helped them out a whole bunch there, but at least they have a lot of cool 1950's vintage vehicles still in operation, kind of a living car museum.
Not buying oil from Venezuela, and working with the world on alternative sources so both Venezuela and Russia can't extort the world for their natural resources is something I really champion. Fortunately, it looks like the country might be starting to go in this direction, so hopefully Venezuela and Russia better learn to convert oil to food.
Answer my question or leave me alone. I used bold so you can find it. When (or if) you answer mine, you may ask me some. My question is about the US policy that you approve of, which was applied to Cuba, and which you wish to apply to Venezuela. Answer my question about the results of applying that policy in the case where we have alrady used it and can clearly see the results. My question is about how YOUR Venezuela policy worked when we applied it to Cube. Go and read the question and ansewr it. Here it is again:
In what way are the Cuban people today better off as a result of our Cuba policy ?
Answer my question or leave me alone. I used bold so you can find it. When (or if) you answer mine, you may ask me some. My question is about the US policy that you approve of, which was applied to Cuba, and which you wish to apply to Venezuela. Answer my question about the results of applying that policy in the case where we have alrady used it and can clearly see the results. My question is about how YOUR Venezuela policy worked when we applied it to Cube. Go and read the question and ansewr it. Here it is again:
In what way are the Cuban people today better off as a result of our Cuba policy ?
You aren't getting my point. Developing oil independence greatly damages the economy of Venezuela (and as a bonus, Russia too). This causes greater hardship for their citizens, which is fine with me. Unhappy citizens may decide that Chavez isn't such a great idea, and replace him with someone who doesn't nationalize companies where others have taken all of the risk and efforts.
Discuss Cuba with someone else, it is of no interest to me at all.
Only in your wildest goat-urine induced fantasies.
The function of the Kirov, Kara, and Kynda class guided missile cruisers is anti-shipping. Their function is to approach carrier strike groups, amphibious ready groups and surface action groups and destroy them with missiles.
They are not designed to attack land based targets and do not carry missiles for that purpose.
The Kirov's primary weapon is the SS-N-19 anti-ship missile.
I used to love Russian warships; they just bristle with armorment.
It has 20 cruise missile launchers. But you are right most of its complement is made up of surface to surface missiles.
The $64,000 quetion is whether or not there will be subs going along. Knowing the way they operate their subs (like continuing to routinely perform exercises in the BAHAMAS - especially the Tungue of the Ocean) we can safely say there will be nuclear subs tagging along.
Furthermore, the defensive missiles are not Nuclear. Only the drive shaft of the ship's propeller is nuclear. Those ships, militarily, are about as nuclear as your local hospital. I hope you understood that when the OP deceptively put the word 'nuclear' in the heading.
WRONG!!!
Might I suggest some simple research before you post.......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
