![]() | Peak Oil Booklet - Chapter 4: What Should We Do Now? | The Oil Drum | The Status of Canadian Oil Production | ![]() |
155 comments on DrumBeat: August 18, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
155 comments on DrumBeat: August 18, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
—Mark Twain
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Russian Bombers Resume Strategic Patrols
President Vladimir Putin said Russia permanently resumed long-distance patrol flights of strategic bombers on Friday which were suspended in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After 15 years, once again we are on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070817/72189719.html
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20070818_Russia_puts_bombers_bac...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/18/wputin11...
That profile of the TU-160 looks remarkably like the B1-B, the red stars giving it away. (I was a very small part of the B1 design many years ago)
Given Russia's access to crude oil resources and the facts that 97% of the US government's expenditure for fuel is for the Department of Defense, that 53% of this is for the Air Force, 89% being for aviation, and every $10 per barrel increase in crude oil increasing the aviation costs by $600M per year, what better way is there for Russia to "stick it in the eye" of the US? In the current environment that includes U.S. dependency on foreign crude oil supplies from politically unstable regions, IMO gearing all that cold war stuff all back up, including sufficient stockpiles to mitigate supply disruption, to match this global presence is going to make the U.S. response very, very expensive.
Perhaps with this development the urgent need to convert the civilian wheeled transportation fleet to electricity will begin making a lot more sense to a lot more people and we can begin making serious moves in that direction, including serious initiatives for light rail.
Prior apologies for pondering without facts and with a feeble understanding of the economics but:
Suppose every dollar Putin "invests" in projecting Russia's nuclear power globally results in a U.S. expenditure of $2 on a resource in a tightening supply and demand situation. This increases global crude oil demand and, given tightening supplies, drives the price up. Given that Russia is a supplier of this resource, Putin gets part of his investment back. Then, if he invests this return in more bombers and naval vessels, Russia can project more power requiring even more U.S. investment to project an equivalent response. Demand increases more rapidly, even more global capital flows into Russian coffers and the chess game continues.
Is this the beginning of the second arms race (really a fuel race) with a high likelihood being the rise rather than the fall of Russia (with China as the trump card) as a world superpower and the U.S. descent this time?
This is true insanity (not that insanity is limited to the Russian side by any means). I guess that Putin is resuming these flights to help his image with the Russian public, but I can't see what other good it would do. Nuclear chest-thumping might play well with the nationalists, but it seems like a huge waste of energy and money. Even if the USA can't respond with similar flights (because the USA is rapidly going broke in both energy and funds), if push came to shove there are still enough nuclear missiles in silos and on submarines to destroy the world several times over.
A nuclear war between the USA and Russia would be a lose-lose situation. About the only conceivable benefit it could have would be to reduce population pressure rather quickly.
Will the world ever learn?
"Even if the USA can't respond with similar flights"
The US never stopped. We have continuously kept Strategic Bombers in the air. That is what Putin was refering to in the article.
"The president said that although the country stopped strategic flights to remote regions in 1992, "Unfortunately, not everyone followed our example." Other states' long-distance strategic patrol flights have created certain problems for national security, he said."
[We have continuously kept Strategic Bombers in the air.]
What is your basis for that statement? Kept strategic bombers in the air in what capacity? How do you define 'strategic bombers"? I pulled alert in SAC in the 70's and at that time we had stopped airborne alert. Did we restart at some point and for what purpose? We certainly still have training flights, but that is not the same as continuously keeping strategic bombers in the air (which implies with other than training weapons) as we did in the 50s and the early part of the 60s.
You misunderstood. Perhaps an unfortunate use of words on my part. I did not say we have had bombers loaded with nukes circling Russia 24/7. We have continued to fly long range strategic bomber missions since the end of the Cold War, many of them with Russia as the focus.
On Sept. 27, 1991, President George H. Bush ordered the termination of Strategic Air Command's alert which began in October 1957 following the Soviet launching of the Sputnik satellite. The alert forces ceased operations the next day, beginning the successful conclusion of the Cold War. SAC alerts had been 24-hour, with precise requirements for ever-faster takeoffs dependent on the type of scenario in test.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008783
Bomber command was transfered to the Air Combat Command of the US Strategic Command the same day. Since then we have flown "Global Power Missions" to demonstrate to the world our capabilities. Out of inertia or lack of another major target out there, Russia has been the focus of many of these Global Power Missions. I would imagine they have found that unnerving to say the least.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-power.htm
The B-2's ability to reach deep into enemy defense networks and disable command and control, infrastructure, integrated air defense, and other high value targets makes this aircraft a valuable force enabler. The B-1, the backbone of our conventional bomber fleet, will employ its high speed, maneuverability, and improved defensive systems to attack the next level of medium and low threat targets with large payloads of highly accurate point and area munitions. In so doing, it will strike the bulk of the targets attacked by bombers. The B-52's contribution early in a conflict will be limited to a standoff role, but will follow up with direct attacks on lower threat targets when enemy defenses are weakened. This combination of aircraft meets the mission requirements of geographic commanders while providing our nation the maximum return on its investment in land based airpower.
http://www.fas.org/man/congress/1997/h970611acc.htm
Since B-52's will act in a standoff role as a platform for cruise missiles, they would not actually have to enter Russian airspace to strike. Any approach of B-52's towards Russian airspace COULD be a prelude to war.
I'm sure we would not be happy if Russian bombers made habit of coming up to the edge of our airspace. Oh, that's right, I guess that's what's going to be happening from now on.
P.S. The Tu-95MS is also a cruise missile platform
(I'ld love to ride in the the tail-gun position in the Tu-95. The droning of the engines is hypnotic, like riding home fron the Drive-in in the back of the stationwagon as a kid. And it's cold with altitude. All bundled up, with that droning vibration running through the plane, they'ld have to wake me up if we ran into any action.)
I did misunderstand. The terms 'strategic' and 'continuously in the air' have particular connotations to me from having flown in SAC, so thank you for the clarification as well as the additional information.
It seems weird to think of a tailgun on these aircraft in an age of air intercept missiles. But I think the pilot's yanking and banking to avoid the first wave of missiles would probably wake you up pretty thoroughly were you in the tail gunner position.
Just to think they are turboprop in the age of air intercept missiles is strange.(and yes it would wake me up just in time to bail out.) ;)
This is true insanity (not that insanity is limited to the Russian side by any means).
More like a shrewd calculation on Putin's part. Remember, the US is going full-speed ahead with building a missile shield based in Eastern Europe and Alaska and designed to neutralize Russia's ICBMs and give the US the capability to launch a nuclear attack without the fear of having a subsequent nuclear gift exchange.
Having nuclear weapons based on strategic bombers and submarines is part of Russia's 'asymmetrical response' that would overwhelm the missile shield at a fraction of the cost, as described so eloquently at Putin's press conference in June.
IMHO, anything that the world community can do to contain the threat of US imperialism and reduce the risk of a nuclear war is a good thing. Note that the US is currently the only country whose military doctrine endorses the concept of a preemptive nuclear attack.
So let's see...
1) USA has been performing patrolling flights like these for decades now
2) USA is building an anti-missile shield obviously directed against Russia's nuclear deterrence
Given these 2 facts you think Putin's move is insanity? Why nobody bothered to call facts 1) and 2) the "insanity" they really are before that?