&host=rt.com&uri=/usa/news/us-congress-arms-russia/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
“Do not sell arms to Russia!” – US congresswoman
Published: 18 December, 2009, 10:11
Edited: 30 June, 2010, 07:30
TAGS: Arms, Military, NATO, EU, Russia, USA
A US congresswoman is urging NATO and the European Union not to sell weapons to Russia.
Itar-Tass news agency says that the resolution has been introduced in Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a republican representative for Florida, who is on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
She was spurred to action by a potential deal that would see Russia buying a French "Mistral" warship.
The agreement was negotiated during Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Paris last month.
18.12.2009, 03:00
Councilman wanted out for atheismCecil Bothwell, a newly elected councilman in the US city of Asheville, North Carolina has entered the limelight because of his religious beliefs, or rather lack of them. |
18.12.2009, 10:21
7 comments
US drone strike kills 20 in PakistanTwenty people, mostly suspected militants, have been killed in a strike by unmanned US aircraft in the northwest of Pakistan. |
@ Arthur, Yes, I know the US wasn't prepared to offer the Soviets the B-29. The Soviets asked for B-17s and B-29s and got twin engine bombers very much like the ones they were making themselves like the Pe-2 and Tu-2. The point is that they copied the B-29, though they used Russian engines and replaced the 50 cal defensive guns with more effective 20mm cannon so even the Tu-4 it wasn't a direct copy. The Soviet bombers of the time were designed in 1933 like the Pe-8. The real irony is that it was a Soviet aircraft that saved the B-17 from being developed in the first place... it was a long range single engine Soviet aircraft that landed unexpectedly in the US that caused a mild panic and saved funding for the the strategic bomber. The Soviet plane was called the ANT-25. Regarding the B-29 being the worlds only nuclear bomber is a bit of a stretch as at the time only the specially modified B-29s used over Japan actually could make that claim, and considering an offer to sell the Soviets a B-29 would never have included a similar offer of a nuclear bomb it becomes a non issue. There had been no requirement for big heavy long range bombers for the Soviets during WWII so all their heavy 4 engine bomber projects were halted. At the end of WWII there was a sudden need and no time to develop so buying the B-29 design would have made more sense than trying to reverse engineer it if that had been an option then. It wasn't. Right now with the Mistral it seems it is an option so they are logically going to take it if it meets their needs.
February 22, 2010, 01:36, GarryB wrote > the Soviets would no doubt have happily bought a production licence to make B-29s Um, the Soviet B-29 is called the Tu-4. At the time the B-29 was the only nuclear-capable aircraft in the whole world, so the US was in no mood to export any to anywhere. As the story goes, Stalin ordered construction of an exact copy and there must have been nervous breakdowns working with metric equivalents of the foot & inch dimensions of every part from bolts to wing sections. See: http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm or Bing "Russian B-29".
What????
Mind your own business plzzz.
We live close to Russia and why trade many things both ways.Time to stop hating those ppl.I know you in the USA never hear from something like peace and trust, but we in europ like it. And when you dont like it, than Bye bye. You deal with everybody that pays you and than telling us that we may not do that.lol. Go home and get your own country first in order.Feed your own school children firs plz.