As per the title. If we replay the Cuban Missile Crisis from the day it started through a hundred parallel universes, how many of them would end up in nuclear armageddon?
Pretty damn high. There is a reason that it was the "closest moment to midnight".
As per the title. If we replay the Cuban Missile Crisis from the day it started through a hundred parallel universes, how many of them would end up in nuclear armageddon?
It largely depends on the amount of Amphetamines Kennedy is doing through the process.
If he's not doing that much, it'll be fine.
If we go past OTL levels without getting to a lethal overdose, we're talking WW3.
If Kennedy dies, or is sufficiently incapacitated enough that Johnson takes over, it'll be fine.
I would go with 1983 was closer with both Able Archer and a separate issue with some clouds over the USA and Russian sensors. Once the Soviets went to "launch on warning status", it only takes a minor mistake to cause a war. We are here today debating these issues because a Colonel ignored his order to launch when the sensor detected the USA launching 3 missiles at the Soviets. Many officers would have followed their orders.
Rather incorrect.
Nope. Everything I've ever read on the subject, including SAC's Official history, and what little there is about the Missile Crisis in the public domain, and not in the hands of the Kennedy family put the blame for the whole situation getting as heated as it was on a speedfreak cripple and his psychotic younger brother.
The whole of that statement indicates why I must reiterate, as kindly as I worded it, that you are rather incorrect.
How about instead of reiterating that he's incorrect, you bother to explain how and why he's incorrect?
No. You're right. Kennedy wasn't a stoner, he was being injected with amphetamines, which are a vastly different sort of drug leading to different behaviors, all of which are completely unsuited to someone who is in a high risk situation.Kennedy was not a character from Reefer Madness. And life is not a Motion Picture in any regard.
Atomic war was a very strong possibility because of the problems inherent to the situation. I outlined those previously. I will go on to further add that most of the people around Kennedy were pushing for some type of military action and Kennedy was responsible for the way it was resolved in terms of the United States.
You are aware that Johnson basically left DC in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis and went back to Texas to wash his hands of the whole disastrous affair after he was sidelined for being the voice of caution, right?Lyndon Johnson was not very strong in terms of foreign policy, and as his Vietnam policy showed later, he did listen to the hawks. And the "best and brightest" around Kennedy were largely pushing for a military action in terms of Cuba. I'll even let you argue that Kennedy may have reluctantly gone into Vietnam because someone will push us down that road in the topic. Regardless of that, Johnson's psychology was one that far more than Kennedy would have listened to the men around him pushing for action, and think that military action could resolve it. What would LBJ do if a U2 were shot down over Cuba when he were in office rather than Kennedy?
This soc.history.what-if post of mine from a few years ago explains why I believe it relatively unlikely:
It largely depends on the amount of Amphetamines Kennedy is doing through the process.
If he's not doing that much, it'll be fine.
If we go past OTL levels without getting to a lethal overdose, we're talking WW3.
If Kennedy dies, or is sufficiently incapacitated enough that Johnson takes over, it'll be fine.
Would things have gone hot if Nixon had won in 1960?
Why is every post I see from you a quote from a usenet group?
I don't believe it is likely, but do you have any recent thoughts on the matter?