Cuban missile crisis, Soviets don't withdraw nukes

[Jbenuniv]

Proportionality loses all meaning during time of war. If US forces, US civilians, or US allies civilians or militaries had been nuked, and they lacked the ability to respond on their own, you can bet there would've been radioactive snow falling in russia.
The idea that if you lose a city to a nuke, you nuke one enemy city in return is laughable. Common sense and strategy dictate that you must destroy the enemies ability to resist and rebuild, plus public outrage and demands for revenge would be enormous and irresistable for the surviving politicians. Inevitably, using one nuke leads to a 'disproportional' response. I have never seen or heard of any strategy that called for using only one nuke on an enemy with nukes and expecting them to either not respond or respond proportionally.
Finally, the Russians and Cubans would, almost certainly, have used tactical nukes on invading US forces. They're already doomed, and I think they were under instructions to do so.

 

[Faeelin]

It's ironic that one of the most popular and charismatic Presidents ended up avoiding a war which would have killed hundreds of million.

Fixed your typo.

 

[Derek Jackson]

By the way it is now fashionable to 'debunk' the Kennedy myth. I am not saying that John Kennedy was no flawed.

However he was able to delay anything catastrophic for long enough to let the Soviet Union back down with some grace and avoid WW3.

I do not think I would be alive if either Nixon or Johnson had been President in October 1962.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Given that Kennedy knew for a fact that the USSR would not fight over this matter(from Oleg Penkovsky) and had been given reports by the US military giving efforts made to neutralize the nukes confused with efforts for total air control(ie, many times what was needed), it was unlikely he would have felt under that much pressure.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Given that Kennedy knew for a fact that the USSR would not fight over this matter(from Oleg Penkovsky) and had been given reports by the US military giving efforts made to neutralize the nukes confused with efforts for total air control(ie, many times what was needed), it was unlikely he would have felt under that much pressure.

Reports by spies are not FACTS. Neither, to be honest could Kruchev's intentions have been a known FACT. Plus things in Cuba could have gone wrong because of tactical nukes which Kennedy did NOT know about.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Reports confirmed that the Soviets are not preparing for war, leaving their ICBMs and IRBMs as sitting ducks are pretty damned convincing. Not to mention useful for easing the situation.

 

[Peter Cowan]

Faelin- a typo is a mistake in spelling, grammar or punctuation. Your opinion as to what Kennedy did may be different to mine and I accept that opinions may difffer - from what I have read, it would seem that the US would have "won" a war in 1963, and yes, millions may have been killed. On the other hand, the Cold War, as fought, also resulted in many deaths in Aftica and Asia. Maybe a "short, sharp, shock" might have resulted in a lower overall death rate over the long term. Who knows?

 

[Susano]

Faelin- a typo is a mistake in spelling, grammar or punctuation. Your opinion as to what Kennedy did may be different to mine and I accept that opinions may difffer - from what I have read, it would seem that the US would have "won" a war in 1963, and yes, millions may have been killed. On the other hand, the Cold War, as fought, also resulted in many deaths in Aftica and Asia. Maybe a "short, sharp, shock" might have resulted in a lower overall death rate over the long term. Who knows?

Peter, sarcasm is rhethorical tool, in which you say something obviously different from (mostly contrary to) what you mean

And, yes - we DO know. I would be surpised if the Cold War, in all ist conflicts, killed more then, say, 20m people, and even that would be wildly exagerated. OTOH, at that time, there were several hundred million people in Europe alone, of which the vast majority would have died. So, frankly, you can stick your "opinion" where the sun doesnt shine, because it sure as hell isnt valid!

 

[Gladi]

Peter, sarcasm is rhethorical tool, in which you say something obviously different from (mostly contrary to) what you mean

And, yes - we DO know. I would be surpised if the Cold War, in all ist conflicts, killed more then, say, 20m people, and even that would be wildly exagerated. OTOH, at that time, there were several hundred million people in Europe alone, of which the vast majority would have died. So, frankly, you can stick your "opinion" where the sun doesnt shine, because it sure as hell isnt valid!

Bright day
I think that it is byproduct of not being in immideate danger of being cremated by a expensive but simple process.

And if you think of it, USA had missiles in Turkey, so if you take MAD, USSR had right to pplace those missiles there. Thank God for Khruschev who saved world from nuclear showdown.

 

[Jbenuniv]

And if you think of it, USA had missiles in Turkey, so if you take MAD, USSR had right to pplace those missiles there. Thank God for Khruschev who saved world from nuclear showdown.

I have two words why we shouldn't have, and didn't tolerate it: Monroe Doctrine.

 

[fhaessig]

I'm not sure at all that US would have been ostracised if it went nuclear.

At that time, Western Europe trusted USA to have the weelbeing of the free world at heart. If USA had thought it necessary to go for nukes, it likely would have been followed.

Exemple : Kennedy sent a high level aide to Paris with photos of the Cuba missiles to convince De Gaulle He was forced to act. De Gaulle wasn't remotedly interested in seeing those pictures and set them aside before stating 'France trust the american people. Now tell me how we can help you.'

Compare this attitude with recent events and you have an allustration of what has been squandered.

 

[Gladi]

Exemple : Kennedy sent a high level aide to Paris with photos of the Cuba missiles to convince De Gaulle He was forced to act.

Your frenchiness is showing , better check yourself.

 

[Gladi]

I have two words why we shouldn't have, and didn't tolerate it: Monroe Doctrine.

*stands at speaker's stand*
*coughes*

hmpfh

*leaves*

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Gladi, the US had already decided to remove the obsolete missles in Turkey back when Eisenhower was president, primarily due to their rather pathetic range(they were all of 90 miles from Soviet territory).

By the time of the Cuban Missle crisis only twelve remained and three were non-functional, which the Soviets knew quite well.

Thus there is no valid comparison between almost 90 medium range nuclear missles being sent to Turkey and a mere 9 short-range nuclear missles which were being removed already.

Alternately you could say the Soviets accepted international humiliation and risked all of Cuba, then sacrificed (I believe) 84 superior missles of longer range to get rid of 9 American short-range missles which were being removed anyway. What a disaster!

 

[fhaessig]

Your frenchiness is showing , better check yourself.

I'm not sure I understand your point; COuld you be more clear?

The He in question is Kennedy, as was obvious from the part of my post you snipped. Othe than this, I don't understand what you try to say.

 

[Gladi]

I'm not sure I understand your point; COuld you be more clear?

The He in question is Kennedy, as was obvious from the part of my post you snipped. Othe than this, I don't understand what you try to say.

ah I thought He was De Gaulle... that Kennedy tried to convince De Gaulle to back him up on the issue.

BTW I know man with wooden leg named Jim...

 

[Last Confederate]

I was a kid in Homestead FLA in 1962. Living at Ground Zero with nowhere to go. I lived 15 minutes from the former SAC base. My personal opinion on what would have happened is far different than most of yours.

The Navy would have moved to sink any Russian ship trying break the blockade. The SAC force at Homestead would have been up as soon as it was obvious the Soviets were not going to back down (if they were not in the air already).

Kennedy would probably moved inside Russia with the CIA to assassinate Khrushchev and bring a more moderate member of the Politburo to power while at the same time being as conventional as possible in response.

Ii is also possible that someone inside the USSR would have killed off Krushchev to prevent a nuclear exchange. Neither country wanted nuclear war; the whole crisis was a game of nuclear chicken.

 

[Gladi]

Ii is also possible that someone inside the USSR would have killed off Krushchev to prevent a nuclear exchange. Neither country wanted nuclear war; the whole Cold War was a game of nuclear chicken.

Couldn't it be said this way?

 

[Faeelin]

Kennedy would probably moved inside Russia with the CIA to assassinate Khrushchev and bring a more moderate member of the Politburo to power while at the same time being as conventional as possible in response.

Given the CIA's lack of success against Stalin, what makes you think that they could assassinate the leader of the USSR? And do so without touching off nuclear war?

 

[Last Confederate]

Two words: indigenous assets.

An AMERICAN operative couldn't get close enough, but a Russian could. Given the nature of Communism, anyone at the top wants to be all the way at the top. Give such a person the wherewithal to carry out his ambitions, and he would gladly do so.