![]() | Peak Oil Booklet - Chapter 4: What Should We Do Now? | The Oil Drum | The Status of Canadian Oil Production | ![]() |
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for
some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
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?