No worries, though. Obama and Putin are tight. Smart diplomacy, you see. Reset buttons. And it’s not like there’s anything about communism or Marxist/Leninism that Obama gravitates towards. So why would we worry? Right?
Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon:
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.
The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.
The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.
The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.
The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.
The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.
A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.
One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.
“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.
“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.
The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.
“Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.
“Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces,” Polmar said in an email.
Looks like Putin believes, deep down, Obama is the little needy bitch he’s always pegged him as. And he’s willing to test the hypothesis.
Meanwhile, between our intentionally open borders, our now uncontrolled waters, and all the cuts to the military, it’s almost as if Obama wants us vulnerable. To something.
Or am I just connecting dots that aren’t related?
(thanks to LYBD)
Oh, brother. We get to live a real life version of the old movie “The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!”
Maybe I have misunderstood, but perhaps you should reconsider lobbing accusations of treason so casually.
I’m merely pointing to nodal points. How they get connected — or if they even need to be connected — is up to others to decide.
Re: treason. Discounting the Constitution in order to bring about “fundamental transformation” count?
Cleaving to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort…
The “aid and comfort” part is pretty easy to run afoul of, but “cleaving to” takes a deliberate and, one might say, infamous effort. Then it comes down to having the requisite number of eyewitnesses, and parsing what the meaning of “enemy” is.
In today’s D.C. it’ll always be that last part that trips up the prosecution.
For the smart geeks around here.
A fairly recent article on the status of our SOSUS network which has apparently been put on partial standby (budget cuts), while they deploy the new IUSS (Integrated Undersea Surveillance System).
SOSUS works but IUSS is demonstrably better. BUT, with Defense cuts, they don’t have the funds to fully monitor SOSUS while deploying IUSS.
So we’re blind in one eye.
FUCK.
fuckity fuck fuck.
We’re fucked.
Someone hold me.
The End of History didn’t listen.
I wouldn’t say it’s treason. I think he’s just so fucking stupid.
You just need to talk to your enemies, and show them you’re friends. He’s gonna extend that arm until they unclench their fist.
It’s very dangerous to have a country run by idiots, and those who most likely had a “You can’t hug your children with nuclear arms” bumper sticker on the door of his college dorm room.
But, he’s also not rooting for Team USA.
The End of History didn’t listen.
Oh…I don’t know. Mel Brooks got us out of History of the World Part I with the “Ethiopian Shim Sham” and a giant joint riding shotgun on a Roman chariot.
Surely we can do better than that.
Maybe.
Sorry, rather OT but this has been bothering me.
Consider the following which has been lurking around in the back of my mind.
Having seen all the internecine battles between keyboard warriors and the pundit class over who should be the nominee, and how conservative one can be to win office, many of those demanding unity behind candidate X from supporters of candidate Y have done so in the name of victory a step at a time. Let’s not argue for the arch-conservative, too scary. We reverse the collectivist march in steps. One election at a time, slow and steady.
However those same people simultaneously howl “We must win this election or game over, man! It will be too late for Teh U S of A!” This effectively stands their prior position on its head; weren’t we told no single defeat ends the long, incremental game?
Which raises the question: If the voices bellowing that “We gotta win this one!” speak with sincerity, will they please tell us what they intend to do differently if we lose? Because Obama can certainly be reelected. There is a very good chance he will be. If so, will the day finally dawn when the pragmatic crowd admits their version of pragmatism failed? When it is no longer good enough to fret like gypsy fortune tellers over tea leaves about the fickle choices of the swing voter? When actually doing (not so) radical things like shutting down the government may be our only recourse? Will they advocate states defy even a few of the federal government’s dictates, rules and regulations? When the law has become utterly corrupt, will they finally decide it must not be followed?
Or, if Obama wins, will the pragmatic crowd return to form, telling us we can do nothing with one third of one half of one seventeenth of the government, and that we must adjust to political realities? That our defeat is a product of impractical conservative impulses?
Most of our ruling class would run in horror from the revolutionaries of 1776, and that includes most of the GOP. Today, some of the ‘wingers in the blogosphere insist this election is a “game-changer” that will permanently alter the republic. If so, then what to they plan to do differently if they lose?
Prediction: If Obama wins again, George Will hosts another dinner party for the tyrant, and no one will be permitted to hope he fails. Pundits like Hewitt, Rick Moran and Medved will preach the same slow incremental slide to the left. Those people have media careers to protect. Phrases like “respect for the rule of law” will be tossed about as collars for mischievous neanderthals and other conservatives, demanding in Orwellian fashion respect for the nearly arbitrary lawlessness of government.
At any rate, I look forward to what the wizards of political smart in GOP circles will do differently should Obama win. Not much, I suspect. In fact 90% of the rhetoric about the significance of this election to conservatives is nothing but the same dog food in a different can. Will a John Boehner radically readjust his approach to governing under Obama 2.0? McConnell? Jeb Bush? Rove? No, if Obama wins, don’t count on seeing a GOP that finally understands it cannot win playing by the Left’s rules. Most will seek to accomodate to the ruling powers with less spine than a Captain Renault. And they still won’t realize they have become prisoners to the language they conceded to the Left years ago.
I cannot think of anything to add, Mr. Orwell. I think you are spot on.
I don’t really give a crap what the ‘wizards of political smart’ in either party would do. I know what they want to do, and that’s keep me in line and keep themselves in power. And I do not hold to that. I aim to misbehave.
Good comment there, George. Although it might be over, if Obama wins. It all depends on the court, IMHO. If any one of Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas go during next term, all bets are off. Every liberal law ever dreamed of will go through. And nothing will stop it.
All true, Jay. What I want to know is when some of the more local and state authorities will finally say “we will not obey.”
How did they confirm it after the sub left the area?
In other words, they couldn’t detect it within our waters but after it left our territorial waters, they are certain it was in our waters? I’m interested in understanding this more.
They’ll blame Ryan, just as they’ve blamed Palin. Of course, if Obama loses, they’ll say “See! We know what we’re doing here!”
All that said, I like Reince Priebus. It would be deeply ironic if it turns out to be a trio of Wisconsin Republicans that pull America’s nuts out of the fire.
“How did they confirm it after the sub left the area?”
It’s a good question.
Among the many possible hypothetical answers, I find the notion that the Russians made it known quite attractive, if only because the implicit consequence would be a shifting of scarce resources in response.
To be fair, I wouldn’t discount the possibility that we knew where it was the whole time but prefer to let them think they went undetected.
So why would we worry? Right?
Go ask whatshisname…
Leon.
No, Hilllary ?
That’s possible, charles. In which case, Obama will leak that he did in fact know.
I had considered SDFerr’s point: it makes sense, since Gertz is the designated point man for strategic Pentagon leaks.
JG and Charles Austin get points.
We do this stuff all the time. I work out a former submariner who said that was 90% of what they did in the 80s. It just doesn’t feel good when they are punking us.
To be fair, I wouldn’t discount the possibility that we knew where it was the whole time but prefer to let them think they went undetected.
Tie that to the idea that the Navy really, really wants to exempt itself from proposed Defense cuts, and the motivations for such a leak get even clearer.
Maybe I have misunderstood, but perhaps you should reconsider lobbing accusations of treason so casually.
The would-be ruling elite always throw open the gates to the barbarians. See, the barbarians tear down the old infrastructure and subdue the population, and then the would-be ruling elite sweep in and save the day and seize their prize—total control of what’s left.
Gods of the Copybook Headings and stuff…
See, the barbarians tear down the old infrastructure and subdue the population, and then the would-be ruling elite sweep in and save the day and seize their prize—
total control of what’s leftkeeping Squid cool by waving a big palm frond in his direction.On behalf of the Barbarian Horde (as designated by the Beltway Establishment), I’ve taken the liberty of redefining the prize to suit my side a little better. OUTLAW!
Is it budget time again?
I think maybe it is continuing resolution time. Congress hasn’t passed a budget since anyone outside of Obama’s inner crcle had heard of Solyndra.
Jeff, I’m leaning more toward Putin orchestrating the information leak about the sub patrol. Putin wanted to bend Obama over, spank him and whisper quietly in his ear, “Who’s your daddy now, bitch?” in front of the entire world.
Meanwhile, the cadre of fools around the president are too stupid to get what just happened.
I live in Gulf Breeze, FL and I could see the Russian sub from my house.
But I thought it was a whale.
Or am I just connecting dots that aren’t related?
– You might be surprised. The Russki’s have a public face, much like the Progressives, which revises any reality to fit the narrative.
– The truth is they very easoly may have simply gotten lost after a rendevous in Cuban waters which they’ve done continueosly since the Bay of Pigs fiasco. They typically challenge the Adiz line, an imaginary boundry that runs along the coast of America in waters offshore, basically to test our defenses and they’re counter measure hardware and tactics. They do the same around Japan and Alaska.
– We know about it, and generally track their movements and positions fairly closely. Sometimes they manage to slip through briefly, and then beat a hasty retreat back to international waters.
– Barring a Red October situation, the only thing troubling about it might be them thinking they can be much more adventurous and strident with America under the heel of a Marxist president. They tend to think like the Left in other words.
This is F’d up. I spent the first 4 years of my Navy time tracking these guys.
We should know where they are 24/7. If we lose track of one of them an immediate active effort to reaquire it has to be executed.
The trouble with our knucklehead leadership (military and political) is that we are always planning to fight the last war.
It doesn’t matter if you sincerely believe that the Russians aren’t a threat. Strategy experts will tell you that you always have plans for two scenarios:
1. The enemy’s most likely course of action
and.
2. The enemy’s most dangerous course of action.
What the Russians did is #1 and we should have been prepared for it. Of course, the difference between #1 and #2 aint much.
To answer George’s question: If Obama wins we all buy more guns and ammo and then rondezvous at Lamont’s house. And Abe, you better drag Bob Reed of the island with ya cus we’re gonna need help upgrading the Texas Navy.
Then why was it cruising around the Gulf of Mexico armed with “long range cruise missiles”?
This story doesn’t make much sense.
– Think of our 18+6 Boomers on station or in retro, as the modern version of Noah’s ark, and you won;t be far off the mark.