No, they just theoretically could if Cuba didn't mind.
The articles are full of a number of ifs buts and maybes. Not to mention:
The Defense Ministry in Moscow issued a statement saying the Izvestia story was palpably false and that it was even written under a pseudonym and quoted a non-existent organization among its sources.
This looks way more like a lot of political posturing and maneuvering to me than any kind of serious threat. Certainly at no point in either article does it say that Russia is going to send it's bombers to Cuba - they just say that they could possibly and might do.
You should read what you link to more carefully next time.
Why couldn't they just fly over the Arctic Circle and hit the northeast and northwest coasts?
Because the Russians are tired of being cold, SX, did you ever think of that?
Anyways, I'll start worrying when they start sending the nukes around and threatening to use them. >_>
Because sx a direct nuclear strike does not make a very good deterrent against nuclear strikes.
But being able to do that would be a good deterrent, no?
Either way, the Cold War ended two decades ago. The Russians are just blowing smoke.
Basing high-maintenance units like strategic bombers overseas and supporting them to be ready at a moment's notice is enormously expensive. Russia can barely afford to keep their own people fed.
If russia actually ever put effort into trying to keep it's people fed it would never of became a super power in the first place.
Mod hat: Why did you double-post >=/
On topic.
The plan has not received official confirmation in Moscow and it was unclear whether Russia would base nuclear bombers permanently in Cuba or use the communist island and former Soviet ally solely as a refuelling centre.
Also, this is the exact same news source as the other articles.
Yes but this time they have actually scouted the location. Plus the article says the cited from the defense minstry instead of some magazine.
