Cuban missile crisis, Soviets don't withdraw nukes

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Back to the topic at hand: is there any way, given the facts we know, that an invasion of Cuba would not have gone nuclear, and if so, what would the knock-on effects be?

There were around a half-dozen FROG short-range missiles in Cuba at the time, and thanks to their portability, they could easily be nuclear-tipped and launched at short notice. The Soviet IRBMs, on the other hand, weren't all completely set up. I've heard estimates range from three to nearly two dozen active at the time of the Crisis. In any event, those would not come into play on a tactical level.

Do we have any sources for a realistic strategy for a 1962 invasion?

 

[Susano]

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

So USA should behave imperialistic due to an imperialistic policy? Can you say circular logic?

And LC, what you say is utter, utter bullcrap.

 

[fhaessig]

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

Nope. De Gaulle didn't need any convincing. He was ready to follow Kennedy's lead as far as it ( kennedy's lead ) would go without asking for any proof of even the presence of missiles in Cuba. WHich is precisely my point. If De Gaulle - who was not a blind US follower in all things - gave that kind of trust to the US during the Cuba crisis, USA wouldn't likely be considered a rogue state if it went nuclear as a result of the crisis; especially if the Soviet also launch, as will happen.

 

[blysas]

guys listen up, you have be ranting on like a bunch of chickens, let's get to the point here!

If the USSR had not backed down during the Cuban Missle Crisis, what is really going to happen. What I don't want to see is the stories of oh is going to be nuclear war immediatly. What is most likely to happen is the war will esculate into something much worse.

Both sides are going to push eachother to the brink, if they step over the line who knows what would happen.

What is the most likely seqence of events that would happen after the Soviets don't back down.

Please post something that is relevant, keep it on topic and please if you have an idea, make it relate to this question thankyou.

Blysas

 

[dmz23]

BAH!!,If their was a war over Cuba,it would be conventional[the whole "better Red than dead" argument].West Europe would fall under communist domination,the U.S airforce would destroy the Cubans missiles[which incidently would never be given permission to launch against the U.S mainland].Cuba would be liberated by a U.S invaision,some sort of naval battle would then be fought to weaken the soviet navy and then peace negotiations would open up between the U.S and Soviet Union[maybe a neutral state acts as an honest-broker].

 

[Tielhard]

"Cuba would be liberated by a U.S invaision"

You don't really mean liberate do you? Liberate means to free a US invasion would be the imposition of a government the people of Cuba did not want. How about 'occupation' or 'supression' or 'fall under the the iron-heel'?

 

[dmz23]

"Cuba would be liberated by a U.S invaision"

You don't really mean liberate do you? Liberate means to free a US invasion would be the imposition of a government the people of Cuba did not want. How about 'occupation' or 'supression' or 'fall under the the iron-heel'?

yeah,Liberate is definately the wrong word.

 

[xchen08]

"Cuba would be liberated by a U.S invaision"

You don't really mean liberate do you? Liberate means to free a US invasion would be the imposition of a government the people of Cuba did not want. How about 'occupation' or 'supression' or 'fall under the the iron-heel'?

Liberate: To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control

Notice the word "or." Castro and his government were oppressing the country, and crushing without mercy the middle class and Catholic Church. Whether or not the majority of the people of Cuba wanted the oppression is beside the point. Whether the U.S. would simply replace Castro with foreign control or foreign oppression is also beside the point. As the invasion would free Cuba from Castro's oppression, it can be accurately refered to as "liberate," no matter what happens afterward or what the people feel about it.

Note, occupation would also be accurate, suppression would only be accurate if there is revolt which is suppressed, and fall under the iron heel would only be accurate if an iron heel is actually applied, which is unlikely.

 

[Bmao]

I would envision a US occupation of Cuba similar to the situation of Vietnam in OT, or better yet something like Iraq. Think about it, the US doesn't know the Cubans very well, and would invade Cuba thinking they are simply getting rid of communism. The US failed during the Bay of Pigs invasion, and though they would easily take over the country, they wouldn't do to well winning hearts and minds.

 

[Fletch]

].Cuba would be liberated by a U.S invaision

I agree the US should liberate them, as long as their not led by that Liberal lefty Curtis LeMay, they need someone to show them anyone who disagrees with the US in any way should be strung up, why waste bullets on them?
Get Gen Thomas Power to lead the invasion!

In fact why risk US marines lives? Drop the bomb on these Commie fvckers!

That leftys profile
http://www.geocities.com/lemaycurtis/
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1693




I have to point out that was a joke, invading Cuba would be madness. It(russian refusal to withdraw the missiles) would probably have meant Kennedy loses face. The joke wasnt far off certain US generals viewpoints methinks though. How did we ever survive the Cold War?

'Restraint? Why are you so concerned about saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win.'
Gen. Thomas Power Commander of US Strategic Air Command in the 1960's