backtop

Blog: Science Russia May Build Space Center in Cuba
Michael Barkoviak - September 18, 2008 8:00 AM
Print 51 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Sep 24 at 6:24 PM
Strengthening ties between Russia and Cuba is a cause for concern among the U.S. government

As political tensions between the United States and Russia remain at a high level, Russia Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly Perminov confirmed that the Russian space agency is in talks to help Cuba build a space center.

"We have held preliminary discussions about the possibility of creating a space center in Cuba with our help," Perminov told Itar-Tass.  "With our Cuban colleagues, we discussed the possibilities of joint use of space equipment ... and the joint use of space communications systems."

Cuban specialists are scheduled to visit Russia and tour several facilities where they'll be shown Russian space technologies.  Cuba also has shown interest in using the Glonass satellite navigation system, but neither side said how discussions are going.

Even though politics have become a bit more acceptable with Raul Castro now in power, it seems like building a space center in Cuba is designed solely to annoy NASA and the U.S. government -- and possibly create a next-generation Cuban missile crisis, many people fear.

Russian government officials said their aim is to help "renew" ties with Cuba that came undone when the Soviet Union collapsed.  Stronger ties between Russia and Cuba have concerned U.S. intelligence officials, who are worried about the two nations recreating a strong military and intelligence cooperation.

Both the United States and NASA are treading water carefully when it comes to Russia, as NASA will likely rely on Russian space craft to take astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) and transport supplies into space.  Unless NASA delays the retirement of its current shuttle fleet, there will be four or five years where NASA will be unable to send astronauts into orbit without assistance.

Before the conflict with Georgia, the U.S. planned on giving Russia millions as a transportation fee, but political tensions have caused politicians to think twice about the proposed deal.

It remains unclear if the United States is going to officially retire the shuttle in 2010 and rely on Russia, delay the shuttle retirement a couple of years, or try and go the entire duration until Orion without sending astronauts or supplies into space.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By BernardP on 9/18/2008 10:01:50 AM , Rating: 3
Since US astronauts are going to be dependent on russian launchers to access earth orbit after the Space Shuttle is retired, Cuba is a good location, being only a short hop from Florida... And as a bonus, this will reduce the space program's "carbon footprint". James Hansen must be behind this.




RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By othercents on 9/18/2008 10:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah that's the up side, but the downside is history. Do you remember the "Cuban Missile Crisis"?

Other


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By BernardP on 9/18/2008 10:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I am old enough to remember... JFK... What would Obama do?


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By kattanna on 9/18/2008 11:24:45 AM , Rating: 5
yes.. because the trade embargo, that only we enforced but the rest of the world ignores.. worked so well in getting rid of castro

LOL

or was it that finally.. some 40 years later, he got sick and his brother took over..

the embargo should have been lifted decades ago and the influx of american ideas and goods would have done far more to undermine castro. Actually all the embargo did do was to help castro stay in power.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By odessit740 on 9/18/2008 2:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
So the U.S. should just trade with dictators who vehemently despise and publicly humiliate it? Cuba has no economic hold over the U.S. such as say Venezuela, and even Venezuela is highly reliant on the U.S. because our Oil dollars keep their economy going.

If the world wants to trade with Cuba, fine, but Cuba offers nothing for the United States.

The embargo wasn't there to get rid of Castro, it was there to isolate Cuba. I agree that using free trade, Castro may have been replaced earlier, but I doubt it. It is hard to get rid of a real dictator, one who does not want to relinquish power, without bloodshed.

For all intents and purposes concerning the U.S., Cuba is an isolated island which houses Guantanamo and was involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

If the Cuban people are okay living in the early to middle 20th century while other parts of the world are already in the 21st, that is fine by my standards. The U.S. does not need to nor should it trade with countries, unless absolutely necessary, which show us animosity.


By JasonMick (blog) on 9/18/2008 3:21:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So the U.S. should just trade with dictators who vehemently despise and publicly humiliate it?


Obviously they didn't hate us too much, or they would have banned trade with the U.S. ...

If you can't recognize Cuba/Iran/etc.'s political leadership's anti-U.S. ravings as silly political rhetoric, you're being equally silly. It's like how we say North Korea, Iran, etc. are the "axis of evil". It really doesn't mean much.

Embargos in a modern global economy are simply a dumb idea. Unless you can somehow get everyone to stop trading with said country, it will backfire.

To give a perfect non-U.S. example, Iran has issued an embargo on trading with the U.S. This means it can no longer sell its acacia gum to the U.S. It's really making us suffer -- except it forgot we're the world's largest supplier of acacia gum . So basically its just losing money for no reason.

Regardless if you're Iran, the U.S., or anyone else, embargos are anti-capitalist, fascist, and downright stupid as they don't work.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By Ringold on 9/18/2008 4:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't count the sanctions on Iran out yet. I'd agree they tend not to work as far as regime change goes with dictatorships, but Iran's people actually get a say in their government. They've felt a bit of a squeeze from the sanctions that have been levied against them and may well decide that their government's rhetoric and strong stance on nuclear weapons (you're the silly one if you think they need all those centrifuges spinning for civilian nuclear research) may not be worth the cost of much of the developed world shunning their country and their finance markets being isolated.

I'd also not be so quick to call concern over some of these places rhetoric as silly. Iran's military is accountable to no one but themselves (or the religious authorities). And what about Syria. Funny they had a secret nuclear facility that Israel managed to destroy last year. Wonder what was going on there. Who is al-Assad accountable to? It's been under 'emergency' rule since 1963. Guess not the people. When military's are the masters of their own destinies, they can make dangerous choices. Not sure trade sanctions work against those types of situations, but they definitely can't be ignored as something that doesn't "mean much."

I still think if the world isn't careful, Israel will take care of Iran on their own. They don't think it doesn't "mean much," I think they're entirely capable of deciding to carry out a massive air strike against as many Iranian nuclear facilities as they can manage to get bombs on, even if they'd take decent losses in the process. What is silly to you is an existential issue for them, and unlike the US, they understand they're already at war with Iran via Iran's proxy terrorist forces. Forget about Iran's support by way of Syria of Hezbollah in Lebanon?


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By eldardude on 9/19/2008 8:01:11 AM , Rating: 3
If Iran continues like this, we Israelis might have no choice but to bomb it. When we will do that, the entire world will denounce us; just like in the Second Lebanon War. Who can blame them when the world media is biased against us? It 'forgets' to report about the little Muslim boy who acted as if starving and shot a soldier who tried to give him a chocolate bar. Instead, the headline will read "Israeli forces kill young boy." The Horror! Monsters!

Apparently, we can't defend ourselves against terrorism. That's a right reserved to US alone. Even when the situation is so dangerous I'm scared to take a bus, or go to a shopping mall because suicide bombings happen on a daily basis and lest we forget the missiles shot across the Lebanon border.

More on the subject at hand though, we bombed Iran before when we felt threatened and we will probably do so again if a similar crisis will rise.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By Penti on 9/19/2008 8:58:12 AM , Rating: 1
What the hell are you talking about? You have never attacked Iran. More to the point, it's stupid to think that the Iranians wouldn't retaliate against a Israeli attack by shooting all there Shahab-3's at you, in which case your Arrow ABMs would probably not protect you. You bombed Iraq (Israel really didn't have the range to bomb Iran before their nuclear ICBMs or at least MRBMs where completed) in 81 and killed a french researcher plus ten Iraqi soldiers. The difference is that Iran won't wait 10 years to retaliate like Saddam did with his scuds as a answer to the US attacks on Iraq in 91. And btw [b]nobody[/b] has the right to conduct preventive warfare.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/19/2008 9:09:04 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree. If the Israeli's want to go bomb Iran's nuclear reactor into dust, let them. It's their neck of the woods and their butts on the line if Iran decides to lob a nuke over the border. Retaliation is the least of their problem since Iran runs a WW2 era military, their air force is non-existant, and their ground forces are no better than the Soviet's.


By Penti on 9/22/2008 10:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well that there air force is weak doesn't play a huge role as it's not like Israel can easily fly in their jets there anyway, it's pretty far of for anything except there Jericho III ICBMs (or MRBMs Jericho II if they still have any of those around).

The Iranians has plenty of Shahab-3s and a few other missiles with the range to hit all of Israel, they have pretty good accuracy too. The Arrow ABMs wouldn't have much of a chance. The Iranians would retaliate and as a people who proudly fought a war where they where attacked by chemical weapons and endured hardships it would be hard to kill their will to fight. I have no illusions that they would try to take Israel by the means of conventional ground forces. And other Muslim countries wouldn't like the conflict either especially countries like Iraq, it would create a lot of problems for Israel.


By TerranMagistrate on 9/20/2008 8:38:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And btw [b]nobody[/b] has the right to conduct preventive warfare.


Now that's a joke.

You obviously haven't a clue as to who Israel's enemies are. I know I wouldn't be sitting idly by if an Islamic regime would threaten to wipe my country off the map while simultaneously developing nuclear weapons covertly to inevitably carry out that objective.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By Penti on 9/22/2008 9:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
No it isn't a joke as nobody has the legal right to do so.

quote:
More on the subject at hand though, we bombed Iran before when we felt threatened and we will probably do so again if a similar crisis will rise.


There's the joke, can't you admit you where totally of base as you haven't attacked Iran before.


By Penti on 9/22/2008 10:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, sorry you weren't eldardude.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By wordsworm on 9/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By eldardude on 9/20/2008 11:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a great believer in human rights and etc. But since you don't live here, you can't appreciate the situation and your point of view is solely based on your biased media.

Answer me this, the Indians and African Americans suffered a lot more than the Palestinians, what do you think the Us government will do to them if they start systematically murdering white civilians?

Beside the point, ever since we got our country, legally, we suffered nothing but wars from the Palestinians who, in fact, attacked us. Even so, we were willing to give up a lot of territory we conquered for the sake of peace and yet, we are then ones who are called aggressive and threatening to the peace.


By SnakeBlitzken on 9/22/2008 9:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
Israel is in a no win position. Damned if they do, dead if they don't. No other country would be expected to take that crap from a neighbor who's sworn goal was your destruction.


By Penti on 9/22/2008 10:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
You know they had riots, terrorist attacks and murders from both these groups as well as against them. It happens when you oppress people, create racial and religious tensions etc. Works both ways always.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/20/2008 1:46:11 PM , Rating: 3
Iran attacks Americans and Israeli's daily by funneling munitions, small arms, materiel, and personnel into terrorist and jihadist groups. We catch them often enough that it is no secret. To call Iran peaceful is ignorance of the highest magnitude.


By Penti on 9/19/2008 6:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
Most latin american countries have a huge dependence on US foods including Cuba. Same goes for Venezuela the petroeconomy among other things ruined their agriculture many years ago. And US trade fine with countries such as Saudi Arabia, the nuclear Pakistan, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Vietnam, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and most other african dictatorship or authoritarian states. They have actually put in place several dictators.

You know Georgia ranked lower then countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Venezuela on democracy index in 2007 (The Economist). Don't be so quick to judge look at yourselfs first and btw US needs Cuba too, they sell over 300 million dollars of food to them, officially! (and some more unoffically)


By gordo on 9/18/2008 4:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
actually, Castro's brother Raul was the one who talked the Russians into putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Fidel might have been the better one to deal with.


By codeThug on 9/23/2008 12:07:01 PM , Rating: 1
Your giving him way to much credit. It will be the offshore accounts/bribes that will entice "Chicago Barry" to do business.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By arazok on 9/18/2008 11:56:42 AM , Rating: 3
In 1960 the Soviet Union was producing 12.5 percent of the world's goods (from farm and factory), just under half that of the United States (25.9 percent) and the European Economic Community (26 percent). They were a force to fear.

Today, Russia has a GDP of 1.7 trillion dollars, 3% of world GDP. Canada has a GDP of 1.2 trillion dollars to give you a comparison.

Russia is a shell of it’s former self. You have nothing to fear from Russia’s posturing, and never will again. Their nuclear arsenal is obsolete, and poorly maintained. It’s unlikely most of their ICMB’s would even launch, let alone detonate – although they certainly have the potential to do some damage.

I’d like to see the US to start treating them like the bullies they are. Tell them to stay out of Cuba, expand NATO to the Ukraine, move a carrier fleet into the black sea and tell Russia to stop intimidating it’s neighbors (eg Georgia). The US would beat the snot out of Russia in any conflict, and they know it.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By bpurkapi on 9/18/2008 12:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Agree that Ukraine should be part of Nato. The idea of a carrier fleet in the Black Sea is obsolete because if Ukraine is part of Nato, as well as our already existing allies in the area: Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey; Then we have enough forces in the region to easily kick Russia's butt. If anything Russia is getting the squeeze put on it and is trying to keep its head up. US intelligence reported that Georgia started the war by firing on Russian troops... So not all is what it seems, but Russia has taken on a stern tone but its mostly a bluff.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By FITCamaro on 9/18/2008 1:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
With the wealth they've gained from the sale of oil, they've been able to modernize a lot of their equipment. But as was shone in Georgia, they're still poorly trained.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/18/2008 1:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
What the Media failed to report was that for every working tank or truck you saw on the news, there were 3 more on the sides of roads broken down. Their military equipment and training is pathetic. The two whole bombers they flew down to Venezuela for "military exercises" are laughable. Hell the whole Georgian conflict could have been solved by moving half a dozen F-22's up to Turkey and doing overflights of the area. Russia is just playing the media and inciting shit at home to push out the message that "Hey, Russia is back!". Those idiots simply can't compete with any modern military power. Most of Europe could crush the Russians in a stand up fight.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By FITCamaro on 9/18/2008 2:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I'm sure there's still a lot of old crap in Russia. I'm just saying. With some of their new oil revenue, they're spending it on modernizing their equipment. Doesn't mean they're still any more of a threat with the new than they were the old.

Probably wouldn't take more than a few squadrons of F22s to take out the majority of their Air Force. And part of that is because the F22s would start to run out of missiles since they can only hold 4.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By jtesoro on 9/20/2008 9:08:32 AM , Rating: 2
So much machismo on display here. Burn them, crush them, kick their butt! Whatever. Will the US go to war with Russia? No. Money makes the world go round, and bombing Russia would achieve the same result as bombing Wall St.

Flex your muscles all you want, but Russia is rich and getting richer. They will grow in influence just as China is growing in influence. G.I. Joe and Rambo will have to live with it.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/20/2008 1:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
I never said to bomb russia, I said to shoot down any planes we catch flying outside their airspace. The conflict in Georgia would have been a perfect chance to show Russia that NATO forces (Specifically US) are on site and will stand in their way.


By jtesoro on 9/21/2008 2:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
Same thing. It just won't happen.


By codeThug on 9/23/2008 12:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
Where have you been?

War makes the money go around.


By Regs on 9/18/2008 3:56:46 PM , Rating: 1
Wasn't it back in the Cold War that the Soviets would move working equipment to one shell of a worship to another shell just to make it appear that they had a large and formable navy? They got busted from spy missions and RCON air craft.

We found out a long time ago they pack more bark than bite.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By odessit740 on 9/18/2008 2:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
It started when Russia gave out Russian passports to the citizens of Abhazia and South Ossetia, both Georgian regions. It started when Russia brought in and armed the South Ossetian militias. It started when Russia decided to unofficially annex Abhazia and South Ossetia. It started when Mikhail Sakhashvili turned towards the West and ignored Moscow's commands.

This is when it started, when the Russian government decided to bully unsubordinate former republics, not just when the trigger was pulled.


RE: Would reduce travel time for US astronauts
By mattsqz on 9/19/2008 10:09:13 AM , Rating: 1
im confused by your statement.

abhazia and s. ossetia have been de facto independent since the early 90's. georgia, 15+ years later, decides to take back the areas by force. russia comes to the aid of their neighbors, suddenly they are invading georgia?

if today were 1991, they would be invading georgia. but it isnt, and abhazia/s. ossetia are -not- georgia and havent been for some time.

russia did not invade georgia, and certainly not on a whim. georgia was trying to re-take regions that have not been a part of the country for a decade and a half.

western political and media (read: not actual) interests are painting russia as the 'bad guy', when in fact our 'friendly' georgia is pulling a saddam.

remember when he invaded kuwait? the united states spared no time 'liberating' that tiny nation. when russia does essentially the same thing, protecting a tiny, indefensible nation from its mid-size neighbor, how is that any different?

so you see, russia is not 'bullying insubordinate former republics' but defending two small independent nations (russia did not annex these, but officially acknowledged their independence - maybe you should look up the defenition of 'annex')

and now the EU is sending 200 people to georgia via the european security and defense policy (esdp) to 'observe' the situation and declare georgia in the right. what happens when these people cross the northern border and are shot in s. ossetia by s. ossetians?

the ignorance of people that get their news and history solely from local television astounds me...


By Strunf on 9/19/2008 12:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
"abhazia/s. ossetia are -not- georgia"
Says who ?...

What you don't say is that the Georgians that had lived on that region even before the independence of Georgia were kicked out by the separatists with the help of the Russians, it's logical that once you kick Georgian out you can say there's no Georgian there. And the free Russian passports is just a joke...

The Georgians didn't try to claim the lands back cause the Russians were there, but with their possible NATO membership they thought Russia would not interfere again ... guess what they were wrong.

And BTW why didn't we see the Russians helping the Chechen separatists getting their independence, maybe cause mother Russia is the sword of justice when it's on someone else turf and not so much when it's on their own.


By Ringold on 9/18/2008 4:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's a shame we just can't get along with Russia. If you think about it, combined, we could be a far more effective political force together going forward in the century as China and India rise in influence.

I think all the talk about our conventional military dominance is a little misguided though. Absolutely, we could wipe the floor with 'em. But such superiority wouldn't save us from an effective intelligence group or proxy terrorist forces; terrorism against information networks, civilian targets, or whatever else they can cook up. A brawl with Russia isn't something we should look forward to.

Not suggesting to be spineless with them; I think the way they've dismissed Europe's Obama-like waffling and hollow words has proven that they respect only strength and cunning. If they want to be this way, one has to respond in kind to contain them. Just saying, I think the discussion has underestimated their ability.


Geosynchronous orbit
By nafhan on 9/18/2008 12:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Cuba is a much better spot for Geosynchronous launches than anywhere in Russia due to proximity of the equator. That being said, Russia has historically close ties with Cuba and the Russian's have seemingly been looking for excuses upset the US lately.




RE: Geosynchronous orbit
By rudy on 9/18/2008 2:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
It is also right in the path of many hurricanes which makes me think it is a stupid place to build such things. Never was a fan of the Kennedy space center location. Putting another that close seems silly.


RE: Geosynchronous orbit
By FITCamaro on 9/18/2008 2:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
Kennedy was built because in the early days we were recovering astronauts at sea. Kennedy has far more problems with tornadoes and water spouts than hurricanes. When I worked out there every few hours you would hear reports of possible tornado or water spout sightings. My boss there actually had a water spout go over the bridge with her car on it.

But you're right about Cuba. They're utterly destroyed by every hurricane that goes through the Gulf. I don't see how the Russians would have a usual launch platform year round.


RE: Geosynchronous orbit
By FITCamaro on 9/18/2008 2:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'll also point out that, at the time, Kennedy was a largely isolated area. It wasn't until the space program that the Cocoa area really started to build up.


Doubletalk
By Segerstein on 9/18/2008 6:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
Does Cuba have the right to enter a military alliance with whomever it wants?

If you allow Georgia & Ukraine to enter NATO, then why not Cubans & Russians???

But ontopic: the talk is of a space center. The current "Russian" one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur , is in Kazakhstan ;-) The nearer the equator, the better? Texas, Florida, Kourou (French Guiana)




RE: Doubletalk
By bobny1 on 9/18/2008 8:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
Not when you are 90 miles away from the US. If the US allows the Castros and imperialistic Putin to mount a "space center". which involves missiles, nuclear and who knows what else. It will be the beginning of the end. When I Think about Chavez and most of the south and central American government taking the left turn and getting close tides to Russia. It brings chills to my skin. I get flashes on my mind and I can only think of the Chuck Norris movie "Invasion USA".


RE: Doubletalk
By Penti on 9/22/2008 10:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
US have always had the right to place nukes and weapons on the border of the soviet union (and now Russian federation). That was how the Cuban missile crisis materialized but the Russian aren't allowed to do the same with the US without risking nuclear war (but US secretly agreed to remove the Jupiter MRBMs from Turkey). It's a response to your imperialismen not the other way around.

As said above ESA are already building a Soyuz launch site at Guiana space centre.

You know which countries who has close (commercial) ties with Russia? You and most of Europe. Most European countries has had military exercises with Russians for years and that holds true for US too. Stop demonizing the majority of the worlds population which lives in those poorer countries. It won't help you a bit.


Good for development
By Basekid on 9/19/2008 7:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
I think the more countries in space the better. That way competition will stimulate developments regarding space.

Btw, I'm just getting so annoyed with this "us" and "them" attitude. When do we realise we are all humans and live on the same planet?




RE: Good for development
By Fnoob on 9/19/2008 2:25:41 PM , Rating: 3
"When do we realise we are all humans and live on the same planet?"

Not until the Vulcans arrive...


Right..
By an0dize on 9/18/2008 3:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
If you could think of one installation that would provide legitimate cover for a ballistic missile launch site which type of installation would that be?

We put interceptors in Poland - they put missiles in Cuba. They've been trying for decades... Makes sense to me.




RE: Right..
By Penti on 9/19/2008 8:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
You put MBRMs in Turkey they put MRBMs in Cuba, was what the Cuban missile crisis was about. But in the age with nuclear capable subs with MIRVed SLBMs which can destroy a small country by it's own and can be moved to where ever, it makes no sense moving ICBM installations there and it's not like they can do it secretly. The US couldn't do it in Turkey in the late 50s/early 60s and the USSR couldn't do it on Cuba in 62. ICBMs are housed in silos or on mobile launchers. Nothing resembling a Soyuz launch site.

And btw they - ESA are already building a Soyuz launch site at Guiana Space Center in French Guiana. The Ukrainians even has a sea launch platform (Zenit rockets) and they are among one of the poorest countries in Europe, they have a lower GDP per capita then Angola or Iran. They only own a part of the sea launch corporation but they provide the launch vehicle. The russians have poor trained and equipped general forces but they do have the capability to build good well functioning ICBMs.


1960s Rebadged
By marsbound2024 on 9/21/2008 9:03:55 PM , Rating: 3
The Russian Government: "We have plans to build massive missile lau... er space center in Cuba."




Simple Solution
By mindless1 on 9/24/2008 6:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
Russia invades Georgia, we invade Cuba. Who says there has to be only 50 states?




"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference













botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki