"Russia has roughly 27 larger refineries and 40 small capacity facilities (less than 3,700 bpy). Russia still operates twelve 1st generation refineries of WWII vintage and nine 2nd generation refineries (built from 1946-1960) refine 40% of the total 2.31 bbpy (Larsson 37)."  RUSSIA: Survey of Russian Energy Infrastructure" by John Margeson, January 25, 2008.
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1634

Do the math, 6 refineries built since 1960 process nearly 60% of Russian oil (the 40 smaller facilites would not total more than 148,000 barrels per year out of 2.31 billion barrels per year; of the 27 major refineries, 21 produce only 40% of output)   A conventional arms strike against just six targets thus would cripple the Russian economy and warmaking capability.

The B-52H can carry 20 AGM-84C Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missles, a high-subsonic missle with range of over 500 miles and a 3,000-lb high explosive warhead.  Assuming an unprecedented 50% failure/interception rate, 10 3,000-lb warheads exploding within an oil refinery are gonna wreck that bitch.

I believe the destruction of at least 33% of Russian oil production in a sneak attack would be almost a certainty, should it be attempted.   A tantalizing prospect...

[sorry I was snarky, i ate some bad shrimp salad]

I want to hear what Mrs. Nolio thinks he should do with himself

since that decides it...

I doubt we saw anything.  Russia didn't send more than two divisions into Georgia anyhow.

The missile shield represents a threat to Russia, Russian defence, and Russian Offence (Or is America the only one allowed to make pre-emptive defensive attacks now?).

Yes. Yes we are.  We defensively attacked Russia by proposing a system outside Russian soil that will operate outside Russian soil.  What bastards we are.

bye cloud, knock em dead at nursing school

er

good luck

"> >>Actually, the US is being a bully by extending its political presence at the expense of Russia. <<
<<Russia has no rights beyond its borders. None.>>

That is irrelevant. What matters in international politics is not rights, but power."

Yeah.  And we have the power.

"<< So what?>>
<<I keep saying, don't take anything. Bomb it! Blow it up! Render all Siberia one gawdawful forest fire!>>
<<I'll take them.>>
Wow Yell, you show your true colors. You aren't committed to power principles. You outright are committed to morals and ideology, so much that you are willing cause catastrophe.
Okay whatever Mr. Ideologue. I don't like the costs. I'm committed to power principles and pragmatism."

Then do it my way.  Or else.

"<<That depends.  You know what they define as cooperation is going to cost us more and more and more.>>
Since when is free trade costly?"

When it means Georgia has free trade in energy = doesn't have to join Russia's power stranglehold on Europe = encroachment on Russian power.

"<<What is stupid is seeking a balance of power.  It inevitably leads to somebody shoving too hard.  Always.>>
And the alternative in your mind is... overt aggression... Spartan post-Peloponnesian style?"

The overt aggression here is by Russia.   Just as Bismarck was a peaceable guy, IF he got the Kiel Canal area from Denmark and IF he broke France and IF Russia didn't formally side with France.   Your "sphere of influence/balance of power" system means Russia can start all the wars it wants and we look the other way. But if you looked at history, NO power that adopted that plan did not at some point renounce war with the other Great Powers.  All such aggressors are aware the democracies might quit if a war goes badly wrong.  It is just a matter of a war going right.  And that gets too tempting.  It is simple PRAGMATISM that you don't pretend an inferior warmonger is your equal.

No way!

if we could do that with 3 warheads...I'd try it!

>>Actually, the US is being a bully by extending its political presence at the expense of Russia. <<

Russia has no rights beyond its borders. None.

<<Yes we can destroy their military rather easily, but a war with Russia would come at a nuclear gamble and cause oil prices to rise.>>

So what?

>> If we took their oil wells, well then that would extend our forces even more and be a political disaster.<<

I keep saying, don't take anything. Bomb it! Blow it up! Render all Siberia one gawdawful forest fire!

>>Yell: Not a gamble like actually invading Russia. Back them against the wall, and they may retaliate knowing they're screwed anyway.<<

OK. That's been the scenario since 1949 fella.

>>The US can't afford to alienate the entire world without severe economic consequences.<<

I'll take them.

>>A far cheaper solution is to stop being aggressive with Russia, let them keep their political influence in Eastern Europe, and cooperate with the emerging economic powers in the world.<<

That depends.  You know what they define as cooperation is going to cost us more and more and more.

>>Disrupting the balance of power Wilhelm II style lacks any strategic intelligence whatsoever. It's STUPID.<<

What is stupid is seeking a balance of power.  It inevitably leads to somebody shoving too hard.  Always.

Please, they can't reach us with their army and we don't need a million men to put Russia back in the poorhouse.

As for the nukes, let them use them.  We launch ours as soon as we see them coming.  So nothing to worry about.

say what?  How does he have more options/