Article

2008-09-02 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Russia 'could destroy NATO ships in Black Sea within 20 minutes'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pappy 2008-09-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [9 views ] Top

#1 And then Russia will be at war with 800 million people. Fucking idiots.

Posted by ed 2008-09-02 00:42|| 2008-09-02 00:42|| Front Page Top

#2 Yeah, you could do that, Ivan. And I could dunk my head in whiskey and set my hair on fire. But the question you have to ask is would we respect ourselves in the morning?

Nice pix at the links, btw. They may be Godless commies, but they do build some pretty ships.

Posted by SteveS 2008-09-02 01:13|| 2008-09-02 01:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Ivan is assuming that NONE of the CIWS, Sea Sparrows, RAMs, Standards, or other defensive weapons work; also, that the NATO fleet would NOT notice the targeting radar nor be able to launch a counter strike before the Russian missiles hit. Within 24 hours of a Russian strike on the NATO Black Sea fleet, all of Russia's fleets in the Atlantic, the Med, Black Sea, and the Pacific would be at the bottom of the ocean. Also, the oil and gas pipelines out of Russia would be cut in multiple locations.
Vladivostok and Serbastopol would be rubble with 72 hours of such an attack.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-09-02 01:31|| 2008-09-02 01:31|| Front Page Top

#4 Ivan seems to forget that the US has 11 super carrier battle groups, and that Russia has none. Pretty easy to sink fleets that do NOT have intrinsic air cover/support.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-09-02 01:33|| 2008-09-02 01:33|| Front Page Top

#5 20 minutes eh?

I suppose he forgot thta in that 20 minutes several hundred tomahawks would be on the way to the bucket Moiskva, and would demolish their port facilties and airfields within a 500 mile reach of the fleet.

Their admiral is apparently stupid or unaware of "overhead" coverage and that its not just us, but the Turks as well, who are operating there, including the Turks flying combat aircraft over the region.

Idiot. The "suicidal tendencies" are his.

We need to put Russia back inits place - third rate country with 40 million people in it. Time to hand C4 to the peopel who want to go play with the russian pipelines.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-09-02 01:54|| 2008-09-02 01:54|| Front Page Top

#6 The Black Sea can also be a Russian Lake, with no outlet. Like a big Russian bathtub. Just sayin...

Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-09-02 01:58|| 2008-09-02 01:58|| Front Page Top

#7 Time to hand C4 to the peopel who want to go play with the russian pipelines.

It's only a matter of time before some Georgians go freelance.

Posted by ed 2008-09-02 02:03|| 2008-09-02 02:03|| Front Page Top

#8 It is better to hand the playful some Semtex : plausible deniability. Lots of it floating around in the hands of bad guys, and if oops some comes back to bite Mother Russian, c'est la vie.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-09-02 02:14|| 2008-09-02 02:14|| Front Page Top

#9 Also, I would bet money that there is at least 1 if not 2 US attack subs in the Black Sea right now, making like holes in the ocean. Ivan would not like running into the anti-shipping missiles and torps of said attack subs.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-09-02 02:32|| 2008-09-02 02:32|| Front Page Top

#10 "a former fleet commander said"

A very former commander.
Hero of the Soviet Union

Enough said

Posted by European Conservative 2008-09-02 02:44|| 2008-09-02 02:44|| Front Page Top

#11 Of course thay can. The NATO has only a puny detachment in teh Black Sea. Just as say Turkey could have destroyed a couple 20 guns ships from Nelson. Problem is what happens after. Also, this guy has drunk too much vodaka in his life.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-09-02 03:13|| 2008-09-02 03:13|| Front Page Top

#12 An LA class did pass teh dardanelles a whiel back.

Just saying maybe we should send some torpedo targeting plots and a submarine periscope photo of the Moskva to that admiral.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-09-02 03:44|| 2008-09-02 03:44|| Front Page Top

#13 It seems to me that this rhetoric, although somewhat empty, should be viewed as a sign that Russia may be back into stoking nationalism. That is basically only done for one reason, and that reason is not good.

Posted by gorb 2008-09-02 04:27|| 2008-09-02 04:27|| Front Page Top

#14 I agree with Gorb. The presence of NATO ships in the Black Sea is a political move, not a military one. As is the Russian General's statement.

Time for some direct action regarding the Russian oil and gas industry.

Posted by Excalibur 2008-09-02 05:29|| 2008-09-02 05:29|| Front Page Top

#15 "Within 20 minutes the waters would be clear," he said, stressing that despite major reductions, the Black Sea Fleet (Image gallery) still has a formidable missile arsenal.

More Ivonic bovine scatology. Make our day Admiral Baltin. We'll be pissing on Lenin's tomb in short order.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-09-02 08:52|| 2008-09-02 08:52|| Front Page Top

#16 Lower primate display of territorial behavior.

A 1 for difficulty of execution.
A 2 for style.

Really need to spend more time with the Nkors to get the style marks up.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-09-02 09:15|| 2008-09-02 09:15|| Front Page Top

#17 I concur, P2K. Must consult with in-house language advisor to determine the correct Russian phrasing for "juche". This passage could definitely use more of it.

Posted by Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields 2008-09-02 10:22|| 2008-09-02 10:22|| Front Page Top

#18 Baltin knows he wont get called on his boast and I'm sure he knows very well how silly it is. But this plays well at home.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2008-09-02 10:26|| 2008-09-02 10:26|| Front Page Top

#19 20 Minutes? Those are slow missiles they're using.

Posted by Halliburton - Idiot Suppression Division 2008-09-02 10:54|| 2008-09-02 10:54|| Front Page Top

#20 And in 21 minuies the Black Sea Fleet no longer exists.

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2008-09-02 11:30|| 2008-09-02 11:30|| Front Page Top

#21 We should say simply that we took Russia seriously for a long time but their unwillingness or inability to control their client in North Korea seemed to indicate they were mostly talk. If they were to shut down sales to Iran and end the regime of the North Korean leader we would naturally consider them the Great Power we once had all assumed.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-09-02 12:13|| 2008-09-02 12:13|| Front Page Top

#22 I hope y'all are right about this just being an idle boast. The on-going stream of threats and comments seems to be escalating and while we all want to see Russia settle down, they just might not, seeing it as a loss of face. And even if the targeting radar gets picked up and a retaliatory strike launched, all the boats 9both sides) out there will be resting on the bottom. and things could go downhill from there.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-09-02 14:19|| 2008-09-02 14:19|| Front Page Top

#23 Really no, if the Sovs didn't shoot at us in 50 years of Cold War they aren't going to sink a fleet in peace time. This is all for domestic consumption.

The last oil crash took the Soviet Union with it. Oil is now at $106 and headed south. If we got our act together and imposed a variable import fee that maintained a price floor of $100 on imports, it would go below $60. That would put the hurt to Putin big time. He needs an external bogey man to distract the natives when they run out of vodka. We are the all purpose bogey man. Nothing more. Putin remembers what the Marines and 3ID did to all that great Russian equipment the Iraqis bought.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-02 14:56|| 2008-09-02 14:56|| Front Page Top

#24 Everybody with any brains is pulling their investments out of Russia as we speak. They'll manage to steal some when Putie's sock-puppet announces the inevitable nationalization of industries, but not anywhere near as much as last time.

But their economy is going into the dumper, big time.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2008-09-02 15:13|| 2008-09-02 15:13|| Front Page Top

#25 I don't remember the Ruskies being that reckless with their rhetoric in the bad old days of the USSR. I think most likely there would have been a party boss standing next to the admiral to keep him from making such an ass of himself.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-09-02 15:25|| 2008-09-02 15:25|| Front Page Top

#26 It's their idea of a media strategy.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-09-02 15:36|| 2008-09-02 15:36|| Front Page Top

#27 The old Russia didn't have to generate even a little bit of Popular Support. The interior directorate and the gulags made sure of that.

The new one needs to play up nationalism.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-09-02 16:15|| 2008-09-02 16:15|| Front Page Top

#28 "It's their idea of a media strategy."

Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

The alleged invincibility of Russian missiles has been a minor, but consistent, theme of western leftist media for over 50 years. Few of you will remember how the SA-2 SAM was alleged to have closed vast areas of airspace to NATO planes back in the 60s, only to be proven a waste of resources in Vietnam and the Middle East.
The fear and trembling over the S-300 SAM is similar today, recycled horse manure from an earlier age.

The Russkies know that media conformists in the west are completely ignorant of even the most basic tactical anti-missile defenses, having been brainwashed for decades to believe that any such defense is impossible.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-09-02 18:00|| 2008-09-02 18:00|| Front Page Top

#29 Youthful posters wouldn't know that after President Reagan announced an intent to place multi-head missiles in Europe, the Warsaw Pact announced that they would "launch on warning," should existing protocol be dated by the unilateral move by Reagan. When friendly Euro dominos started to fall, both sides commenced the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START). Being a Neocon means: never having to remember anything. If you don't like the current Russian regime, DON'T support the ABM project.

Posted by Regional Peace 2008-09-02 19:09|| 2008-09-02 19:09|| Front Page Top

#30 You people amaze me. Simply amaze me. You're inability to let go of old news is unbelievable. Nukes??? People have foamed at the mouth over nukes in 20 friggin years. Is a dead issue and here are talking about START.

At least you've finally moved beyond Vietnam. Still so last century though.

Posted by Mike N. 2008-09-02 19:22|| 2008-09-02 19:22|| Front Page Top

#31 Just a reminder Mike.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-09-02 19:29|| 2008-09-02 19:29|| Front Page Top

#32 RP, you dipshit, the SDI was one of the BIG reasons the Russians crumbled.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-09-02 20:16|| 2008-09-02 20:16|| Front Page Top

#33 IIRC, the US was spending 5% of GDP on national defense. The USSR was spending 25% of GDP. USSR could not keep up and went broke.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-09-02 21:14|| 2008-09-02 21:14|| Front Page Top

#34 Since Neocon guru, Francis Fukuyama, pronounced the end of both competing ideologies and nations, the flock of war simulation geeks forgot the Cold War rule: no direct confrontation between the 2 Superpowers. Someone above doesn't know that Sevastopol is in the Ukraine. The rest don't know that the 2 sides have sub locators planted everywhere that detect the identity and direction of every nuclear and other submarine, by use of sonar detection of the "signature" of each. Detection in the Black Sea would be a piece of cake. Further, the Russian Navy would know when a US sub was preparing to launch.

Did the USSR crumble because of the SDI? Hardly, the Soviets devised end-runs that would negate any possible laser targeting system. An ABM system is no match for a smart multi-warhead counter. As for the USSR, the Apparatchuk class was universally discredited after the Chernobyl catastrophe. The Soviet leader, Gorbachev, was forced to renovate the management model and came up with "Perestroika" (restructuring), which would be democraticized with "Glasnost" (openness). The latter led to delegitimation of the Soviet system in general, and it crumbled. SDI was long in the wastebasket when that happened.

Neocon fanaticism should give cause to concerns that adherents have little commitment to liberty and democracy. Neocons are afraid to have their beliefs tested.

Posted by Regional Peace 2008-09-02 22:36|| 2008-09-02 22:36|| Front Page Top

#35 Lying sack. I stand by that

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-09-02 23:07|| 2008-09-02 23:07|| Front Page Top

#36 Good grief - the ~~Dims~~ Dems sure have a dearth of decent trolls.

Crawl back into your mommy's basement, rp, and tell your masters we demand better trolls.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-02 23:08|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-09-02 23:08|| Front Page Top

#37 "the Cold War rule: no direct confrontation between the 2 Superpowers"

I served in the German Army when the Cold War was really cold. We patrolled the border between NATO and the Warsaw Treat. We stared at each other with binoculars, armed, ready to shoot.

One shot could have started WW3

Yes, I demand better trolls as well

Posted by European Conservative 2008-09-02 23:24|| 2008-09-02 23:24|| Front Page Top

#38 EC - I'm starting to like you, but not in a Chris Matthews or Barney Frank way, k?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-09-02 23:36|| 2008-09-02 23:36|| Front Page Top

23:56 Todd Palin
23:53 Todd Palin
23:45 mojo
23:36 Frank G
23:35 European Conservative
23:24 European Conservative
23:09 Barbara Skolaut
23:08 Barbara Skolaut
23:07 Frank G
23:04 Barbara Skolaut
23:02 49 Pan
22:59 Besoeker
22:43 Eric Jablow
22:36 Regional Peace
22:16 Frank G
22:13 trailing wife
22:13 Barbara Skolaut
22:11 Frank G
22:09 Frank G
22:09 Barbara Skolaut
22:07 Hank
22:06 Maggie Jomotle2926
22:00 Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division
21:56 JosephMendiola