Was there any way the US would not have found the weapons in Cuba? Could ICBMs located underground covered with plants on their top silos do the thing?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: LOL! No.
The Americans will definitely notice the Russians building ballistic missile silos in Cuba.
One wonders exactly what the hell the Soviets were thinking at the time.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: LOL! No.
The Americans will definitely notice the Russians building ballistic missile silos in Cuba.
It was the most logical and natural course of actions.
Lesson: The Cuban Missile Crisis taught the United States what containment feels like.
The lesson from the crisis is the extent to which containment is terrifying for the country being contained. Because the U.S. had been a global military superpower since the end of World War II, it had never faced an existential threat close to its borders. At the time, U.S. nuclear missiles were stationed in range of Soviet cities as a means of containment — but, for U.S. policymakers, it was unthinkable that the U.S. could end up in a similar position. So, when the USSR decided to raise the stakes by placing its own nuclear missiles in range of American cities, U.S. policymakers were inclined to compromise with the Russians on containment policy — trading nuclear warheads in Turkey for those in Cuba – to lessen the direct military threat posed to each nation by one another.
This is a lesson to keep in mind when deliberating the best means of dealing with rising powers. When making policy concerning the rise of China, for example, one would do well to remember that military containment and antagonism makes the contained country feel threatened, which in turn makes aggression more likely in response to U.S. provocations. It took trust, diplomacy, and compromise to resolve a crisis that was precipitated by military buildup, as dictated by standard realist power calculus. While it is unlikely that China will be able to challenge U.S. power as the USSR did during the Cold War, one should remain cognizant of the fact that surrounding another state with military threats is less likely to spur long-term trust and cooperation – which, in an era of cooperative globalization, is more important than ever.
It was the most logical and natural course of actions.
The US was putting nukes right on their borders using allied territory for missile launchpads (Turkey), so the Soviets returned the favor. Luckily, they had a commie nation right on America's doorstep to use.
The US promised to remove nukes from Turkey, so the Soviets agreed to back down on the crisis. History textbooks in America generally refuse to mention the whole Turkey part of the issue to make it look like it was the Commies fault all along AND that they were too cowardly to face Kennedy's awesomenessBut of course who would take that narrative at face value?
![]()
The US promised to remove nukes from Turkey, so the Soviets agreed to back down on the crisis. History textbooks in America generally refuse to mention the whole Turkey part of the issue to make it look like it was the Commies fault all along AND that they were too cowardly to face Kennedy's awesomenessBut of course who would take that narrative at face value?
![]()
Now had the Soviets put those SS-2 (and the SS-4) near existing military bases, it's possible the DIA and CIA wouldn't have got so curious about those odd sized shipping containers out in BFE by those SAM sites