My Father ,who is in the navy, said there are Nuclear Russian subs stationed off our East Coast.

russkij jazyk wrote:

Glub Glub wrote:

Дай Бог! Иногда я делал ошибки. Трудно писать на iPhone.

коне́чно!

Так. Иронически человек.

Я не знаю кто владеть морям, но Россия владеть Интернет. Трудно не согласиться с этом. Путин всегда знает все, кажется мне.

o.O wrote:

L L wrote:

The U.S. has tons of nuclear subs everywhere.

Worry about Trump having authority over them.

Why? He can't just magically circumvent congress and nuke people.

What kind of president would circumvent congress for personal agenda?

My grandfather was stationed in a US nuclear submarine back in the days of the Korean War. He had some crazy stories.

But ya... As everyone said, they've been there forever.

The US has air force bases in Germany, UK, Turkey and Italy. NATO now reaching Russia's western boarder with many of the former Warsaw pact countries joining the alliance. The US has placed anti ballistic missiles in Europe and wants to move them even closer Russia. These are first strike weapons in that they allow the US to defeat a Russian response to a US nuclear strike. Anti ballistic missiles only work in the boost phase and have to be close to the launch site to be effective.

In the Western Hemisphere, there are a couple of Russian subs wandering the US coastline.

Russia is a trouble maker in the region. Its intervention in Syria has sought to replicate the tactics used to defeat separatist rebels in Grozny, Chechnya (i.e. massive bombardment of civilian areas to wear down and flush out rebels). Russia has stirred up trouble in Georgia and the Ukraine. Russia has harassed the US military with aggressive encounters in the air and sea.

But as bad as Russia can be (which is not really that bad compared to the US use of force in Iraq and other regions), it is silly to think that Russia has no legitimate security concerns with the expansion of NATO and US military interests at its doorstep in Europe. If Russia had the same presence in the Western Hemisphere, it would have to have bases in Mexico City, Bermuda, Caracas, Managua, Edmonton and St. John's in Newfoundland, CA. It would have military alliances with most of Central American and Mexico. But every time Russia makes any military move it is seen as a huge threat to the US and Europe instead of a reasonable response to the massive military presence the US and NATO have at its doorstep.

Precious Roy wrote:

Russia has stirred up trouble in Georgia and the Ukraine.

I think you mean to say that Russia has annexed portions of Georgia and Ukraine (not "the" Ukraine).

Precious Roy wrote:

But as bad as Russia can be (which is not really that bad compared to the US use of force in Iraq and other regions), it is silly to think that Russia has no legitimate security concerns with the expansion of NATO and US military interests at its doorstep in Europe. If Russia had the same presence in the Western Hemisphere, it would have to have bases in Mexico City, Bermuda, Caracas, Managua, Edmonton and St. John's in Newfoundland, CA. It would have military alliances with most of Central American and Mexico. But every time Russia makes any military move it is seen as a huge threat to the US and Europe instead of a reasonable response to the massive military presence the US and NATO have at its doorstep.

For this analogy to work, the U.S. would have to be starting wars of conquest with its neighbors, crippling them with cyberattacks, and threatening them not to engage with the broader world. Then the neighbors of the U.S. would have to ask Russia for help. Then the U.S. would have to get upset that these countries formed alliances with Russia, thereby thwarting U.S. plans to build a Pan-American empire, destroy democracy and free speech, and massacre dissidents.

Do it this way wrote:

My grandfather was stationed in a US nuclear submarine back in the days of the Korean War. He had some crazy stories.

But ya... As everyone said, they've been there forever.

Anyone know how long it would take for a nuclear missile from a Russian sub on our east coast to hit New York?

I just want to be able to evacuate in time!!!

This has been the case since the Brezhnev Era, but their subs are quieter now. Time for U.S. to give up on these Pipeline-a-stans, perhaps?

nothing to worry about. Sean Connery is the captain and he wants to defect.

Lookup Franz Daniel Pastorious for a nice submarine off the coast story.

didn't you see Hunt for Red October?!

Jim Bobby wrote:

He said he has seen them. Should I be worried?

leroy jones wrote:

Do it this way wrote:

My grandfather was stationed in a US nuclear submarine back in the days of the Korean War. He had some crazy stories.

But ya... As everyone said, they've been there forever.

Anyone know how long it would take for a nuclear missile from a Russian sub on our east coast to hit New York?

Well the range could be 0 miles since NY is on the East Coast.

But it would be 5 minutes or less for an ICMB.

Nnnnnnnnnmmnnm wrote:

leroy jones wrote:

Anyone know how long it would take for a nuclear missile from a Russian sub on our east coast to hit New York?

Well the range could be 0 miles since NY is on the East Coast.

But it would be 5 minutes or less for an ICMB.

About 30 minutes for an ICBM to the continental US. Potentially just a few minutes for a SLBM (sub missile), depending on what the target is.

Do it this way wrote:

My grandfather was stationed in a US nuclear submarine back in the days of the Korean War. He had some crazy stories.

But ya... As everyone said, they've been there forever.

Since the Korean War ended in 1953 and our first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus (SSN-571), was commissioned in 1954, I find your comment, or your grandfather's stories, improbable.

Don't you realize that you have just exposed your father to great potential harm? The FBI and the CIA now obviously know that your father has revealed important state secrets to you. Your father should turn himself in tomorrow morning. Just pray that the authorities deal with him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice - and not through extrajudicial measures.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Lena Dur-dumb wrote:

This is great... both posts. I find it fascinating that Trump has repeatedly called for peace and partnership with Russia, while HRC is adamant about war with Russia, and the political lefties continue to propagandize Trump as a war monger.

For about the 10 millionth time, liberals are not leftists. We despise liberals, they are nothing but lying, pandering pigs. How is it so many Americans can figure out everything but this one simple fact?

The Democrats are no longer Liberals, they are Fabian Socialists. David Ricardo, William Gladstone, Lord Acton, Wendell Wilkie, and Al Smith were all Liberals. They are the opposite of the modern Democratic party.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

For about the 10 millionth time, liberals are not leftists. We despise liberals, they are nothing but lying, pandering pigs. How is it so many Americans can figure out everything but this one simple fact?

The Democrats are no longer Liberals, they are Fabian Socialists. David Ricardo, William Gladstone, Lord Acton, Wendell Wilkie, and Al Smith were all Liberals. They are the opposite of the modern Democratic party.

You just took the biggest crack hit ever if you think any Democrat is a socialist, let alone one that supports a Clinton. They are the worst pigs in history. No difference in what GOP or dems do, they just tell different lies to different people.

They are going to be taken down, one way or another. Most of you don't reallize this, but the US is about to undergo the same sort of political collapse the Warsaw Pact countries did in late 80's/early 90's. Shit is about to go down big time.

That's beacuse the CIA overthrew the Ukranian and Egyptian governments and installed Obama Puppets.