RSS
The Cuban Bomber Crisis?
The Russkies have reportedly been in contact with the communists is Cuba concerning nuclear bombers. Sources inside fascist Russia have indicated that the two long time allies may agree to place strategic nuclear bombers on the Caribbean island as a way to “counter” the proposed missile shield Washington plans for eastern Europe.
Power-hungry and wanting to appear dangerous, the Russian government sees the threat of nuclear war as a reasonable response to defensive installations in Europe. Even isolationist paleo-conservatives will have to agree that a nuclear Cuba is unacceptable. But how to prevent it? A naval blockade will not work this time. An air blockade would work only if the U.S. is prepared to destroy Russian aircraft, a clear act of war. The hope is that the Russians, once again, are bluffing.
However, an effective way to counter act this threat would be to blockade Cuba itself. This means no foreigin tourism, no foreign investments and no trade would be allowed with Cuba. This, of course would be a declaration which would have to be enforced by the United States. A longer-range, more productive plan would be the creation of an economic Monroe doctrine I have advocated for in the past, though this would not fix the immediate problem, it would help to turn away most of central and south America’s, as well as the Caribbean’s, pink tide (an old article).
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
When we invade Cuba a month or so before GWB leaves office, we should start by bombing the airfield where the Russian bombers will be parked. That way, it is an act of war against Cuba, not Russia. And, at the same time, Russian bomber problem solved.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I feel the same way about nuclear proliferation as I do about handguns: require that everyone have the weapon. Armed society is civil society.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
The equivocation here is hilarious. Russia may not meddle with countries close to the U.S., but the U.S. may meddle with countries close to Russia. Further, the U.S. has been involved in places like the Ukraine for a long time. But it is not okay for Russia to come into this hemisphere to do anything.
A trade blockade itself is basically an act of war.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
What would be truly hilarious, if not for the seriousness of your blunder, is your lack of understanding, gramsci. The U.S. wants to build DEFENSIVE missile installations in eastern Europe while Russia/Cuba want to place WMD’s for OFFENSIVE purposes in the Caribbean.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Whatever happened to U.S. exceptionalism? Cuba is a socialist dictatorship with previous threatening ties to the Russians. The Soviet..oops, Russia, is essentially a facist state controlled by Putin and Russian Mafia who frequently allies itself with the less savory leaders of the world. Both countries are essentially controlled by thugs looking only to further their own wallet and power. I feel like I keep harping on this but again the United States holds the high ground here. Anything these two nations do should be questioned. Especially when it involved bombers off the coast of the United States. Buying into the “sovereign rights of nations” regardless of who the nations are and what their history is, is the same as buying into cultural relativism. Doing so is just walking down a road that leads to no right or wrong.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Some people just hate America and all it stands for, awb, and want to see it humbled at every turn.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:54 am
That’s right, Karl.
Some of them hang around posting comments on this blog.
wac
July 26th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Some of us just enjoy pointing out the worship of the false idol of the state.
Bill you can holler defensive all day long. But one Ohio class sub carries 24 Tridents, each one capable of deploying 12 nukes. And we have 18 Ohio class. Let’s see, that’s over 5000 nukes that are definitely not defensive, capable of being launched against Russia from pretty much anywhere in the world. Of course that is only a part of the nuclear arsenal capable of being delivered against Russia. But since we’re the good guys in the white hats they don’t need to worry.
I’m curious to know how the only country to ever deploy nukes against civilian population centers could hold the moral high ground? This same country spends more on military hardware than the rest of the world combined. But it’s all good since we are benevolent and beneficent. Must be that America is right by definition thing again.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Dean, you would have an excellent point if the U.S. was placing nuclear subs in the Czech Republic and Poland, But we aren’t.
We are discussing a non-nuclear missile defense shield. The only talkin’ nuclear is, well, you and the Russians. Interesting.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Bill, for starters, read up on BALTOPS 2008. Those nuclear subs you were talking about? Check. Guided missile destroyers? Check. Cruisers? Frigates? Check. In the Baltic Sea.
What do you think the insane rush to create new NATO countries will mean if one of them has a “color” revolution Moscow doesn’t like or that we don’t like? Why should it matter to us? What, specifically, is our national interest in keeping the Sudetenland free from non-existent agression? Or writing checks to Poland and Hungary with our mouths that our ass can’t cash?
July 29th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“Some of us just enjoy pointing out the worship of the false idol of the state. ”
You keep on setting up that strawman, Dean.
That strawman is tired and weak.
Give it a rest. None of us are idolaters. We just (generally, not religiously) support and love our country, which is natural, good, and eminently human.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
If I commit an immoral act at one point, I do not cede moral authority to commit a good or neutral act in the future.
The neo-donatists are among us . . .
Why do we get to tell other countries where to put their nukes?
Call it America’s “personal space issue” with Russia and Cuba.
wac
July 29th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Mr. Cubbedge has an interesting ontology and and interesting take on mortal sin and its effects upon the person commiting one. Aquinas would beg to differ. This is not to suggest that you won’t ever receive grace in the future, but to suggest you retain moral authority after committing idolatry (mortal, last I heard) sort of begs the question.
Brush up on your definition of idolatry. St. Paul was inspired to link infidelity quite closely with idolatry. If the Church calls us to be faithful to Her teaching on war, and we take exception and invent novel justifications for preferring the secular state instead, are we not committing idolatry? There isn’t a reasonable case for the Iraq debacle as a just war. There have been Weigelian and Novakian attempts but they fail under scrutiny. So. It seems to me that Mr. May has raised a legitimate concern.
You, I’m sure, will differ. Try to do so with some substance, if that’d be alright. Accusations of neo-donatism seem… oh, ad hominem.
Personal space? What about Russia’s? What about China’s? What about North Korea’s and Iran’s and Saddam Hussein’s? Is that the peg you’re hanging your coat on? Really?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am
Some people like Karl hate the Russians and want to bomb them until they submit.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:18 am
Inom,
I think I suggested bombing the Cubans. I distrust the Russians – hate might be too strong a term. I find their act of placing strategic bombers 90 miles off our coast in retaliation for the installation of a defensive missile battery to be somewhat provocative.
Perhaps you should inquire of your comrades as to why they have adopted such an agressive stance over a defensive measure that, quite frankly, would also benefit Russia.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
It’s nice of Americans to tell Russians what will benefit them.
You fling the word hate around quite freely, so touche. If Dean May hates Americans, then you hate Russians. You did propose conflict with them over missiles in the Czech Republic!
August 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I didn’t say Dean May hates Americans. In fact, I didn’t say anyone in particular hates America. Indeed, Dean May had not commented on this post when I wrote that. However, even if I had intended to inmplicate Dean May, the wording was that soem people hate America, not Americans. There is a significant difference.
In fact, I was replying to awb’s comment in which he points out the obvious moral superiority of the United States to countries like Cuba.
There seems to be an instinctual urge to the very opposite among those on the paleo-right. Not only do they place every crackpot dictator on a equal moral plane with the United States, but generally, they’ll place them higher. It befuddles the mind really.
If some of you took offense at the comment, I suggest you examine your own consciences. It may be that you have indicted yourself.
As for your sarcastic intro, I am simply pointing out that the missile defense which is to be installed in the Czech Republic is intended to protect Europe from missile attack, ostensibly from the Middle East. Last time I checked, Russia was a part of Europe. Stating the obvious, I suppose, is a sign of American arrogance.