On “A Canticle for Leibowitz”

However, economic growth is currently tied to exploiting finite resources with ever increasing speed. Consequently, all measures that look at natural resources give rise to increasing existential angst: The oceans are empty, biodiversity is crashing; the climate is messed up, likely beyond the point where we can prevent catastrophic warming; topsoil is eroding at an amazing rate, aquifers are depleting; plastics, and other "forever chemicals" keep accumulating with as of yet mostly unknown effects.

So while the economy keeps growing, it looks like we're just increasing the speed at which we'll hit the wall.

1) "The United States flew nuclear armed bombers to the borders of the USSR 24 hours a day."

That is true. One of the linked-to examples is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Giant_Lance "These bombers were to patrol the Northern polar ice caps to survey the frozen terrain, whilst armed with nuclear weaponry.[4][6][2] The patrols consisted of eighteen-hour long vigils, which were executed with the intention of appearing as suspicious movements from the US."

2) Do Russian planes military fly close to the US on a more than yearly occurrence?

Yes. That is without a doubt, as you have show.

3) Do US planes do the same?

Yes. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2014/09... mentions "China denied any reckless flying and said it would continue responding to U.S. surveillance flights off its coast, which Beijing believes are a threat to its security." and famously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

For Russia, https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-says-fighter-intercepted-u-s-... "Russia says a fighter jet intercepted two U.S. military surveillance planes in the Black Sea" and of course there are currently a lot of NATO surveillance flights watching the Russian border now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_EP-3#Other_incidents lists two close passes of a US EP-3 by a Russian Su-27, and one by a Venezuelan Su-30.

4) Are any of these to preserve "normative freedom of movement rights"?

No.

5) Do any of them "usually breach airspace generally considered sovereign"?

No.

Great tip, I'm going to order these now.

> 1) the Russians run bombers to the airspace of Alaska all the time. 2) US jets intercept and turn them around. 3) It's the expensive version of the border crossings between India & Pakistan

If we're charitable, then in isolation #1 is reasonable. But not so much in the context of #2 and #3. Note that actual cross-border incursions are very common between India & Pakistan. As well as between India and China, for that matter, and a host of other country pairings. Moreover, the phrasing "turn them around" reflects connotations similar to phrasing like "escort", commonly used in popular news reports. But nobody is actually escorting here; that's propaganda. U.S. fighters aren't "escorting" Russian bombers any more than the Chinese "escort" U.S. SIGINT flights or naval water transits; the planes and ships continue on their same, planned courses--excepting occasional aggressive maneuvers were the Chinese behave like their going to ram a plane or ship.

AFAICT, no territorial violations are happening here, which IMO is what was implied. Moreover, especially during the Cold War, the U.S. had a long and sorted history of actual incursions into Russian and Soviet airspace; incursions far more numerous and serious than what the U.S. experienced.

I took umbrage with the claims because, while I believe as a general matter Russia is a far more prolific violator of international norms, including territorial incursions, when it comes to their dealings with the U.S. in this regard they've actually been sticklers for obeying boundaries, notwithstanding characterizations to the contrary. And at least since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has likewise been rather good about that as well. And these characterizations matter because they're at the center of Russian accusations regarding how the U.S. and NATO has treated Russian security interests.

Regarding this specific point:

> > 4) Are any of these to preserve "normative freedom of movement rights"?

> No.

I disagree. When Russia sends bombers toward the U.S., they're generally going to deliberately penetrate the "buffer zone", just like U.S. ships and planes will deliberately penetrate China's self-defined buffer zones. To do otherwise would be to risk legitimizing claims about the nature of those buffer zones. In other words, part of the exercise is to maintain the normalcy of the internationally recognized, more circumscribed sovereign claims.

I do concede that these flights by Russia happen far more often than once a year. I've been following foreign affairs for over 20 years and have known about these practices, but clearly judging their frequency by the frequency of reporting is especially error prone.

They would be flying around in their spaceships using slide rulers to calculate everything, wearing their fur-lined space suits etc.