NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/29/samerican.pact.ap/index.html

Suprisingly you arent the first to pick up on this story you know. Personally i think it will be hard for them to do, but if they do it could be great or awful.

The only thing I can see here is a group of countries that want to forge their own existence without US help or interference, and they are trying to help each other to do it.

If anything, the States are getting too paranoid.

Yeah for ALBA ! Yeah for South American people freeing themselves from US imperialism ! Yeah for a trade agrement which is about sending to the other countries what you have in order to help them, and not about competing against each other like "free" trade agrements !

Yeah for Chavez and Morales, leaders actually trying to make the life of their people better, something so rare in our world.

And yeah for Castro on that, even I don't agree with everything he does, his foreign policies are wonderful - he saves so many lifes with his well-trained doctors.

Yeah for ALBA ! Yeah for South American people freeing themselves from US imperialism ! Yeah for a trade agrement which is about sending to the other countries what you have in order to help them, and not about competing against each other like "free" trade agrements !

Yeah for Chavez and Morales, leaders actually trying to make the life of their people better, something so rare in our world.

And yeah for Castro on that, even I don't agree with everything he does, his foreign policies are wonderful - he saves so many lifes with his well-trained doctors.

I'd agree with you about Morales and to a lesser degree about Chavez. But Castro is a dictator who ruthlessly stiffles dissent and whose autocratic rule has done little but inhibit the growth and development of Cuban society, so that today in many ways it is still mired in the past.

I'd agree with you about Morales and to a lesser degree about Chavez.

Why to a lesser degree ? Until now, Chavez did much more for his people than Morales (which is not Morales' fault, being in power since only a few months, I didn't have the time to). I've a lot of hopes in Morales, but for now it's just hope, while Chavez already acted.

But Castro is a dictator who ruthlessly stiffles dissent

There already were many threads on Castro; and while I don't agree with him on everything, I don't like the diabolisation he is victim of. He is not a democrat, but he isn't ruthless either. He doesn't use torture, he doesn't kill opponents, ... something many officially labelled democracies do (look at Guantamo Bay, for example).

and whose autocratic rule has done little but inhibit the growth and development of Cuban society, so that today in many ways it is still mired in the past.

Cuba has the highest lifespan, litteracy rate and lowest childdeath rate of South America. It's the only "poor" country which is able to compare itself with rich countries on those fundamental data, and to win in many against USA. Definitely, Castro did a lot for Cuban. I don't like his "father knows best" (to use NS wording ;) ) attitude, but he does love his help and do a lot for them.

Suprisingly you arent the first to pick up on this story you know. Personally i think it will be hard for them to do, but if they do it could be great or awful.
Seconded. I am not much of a socialist, but there is nothing wrong per se with their attempt on economic integration. ALBA can fail utterly, it can end with the change at the top in any of those countries -- but they are trying to do integration as they think fit.

...
There already were many threads on Castro; and while I don't agree with him on everything, I don't like the diabolisation he is victim of. He is not a democrat, but he isn't ruthless either. He doesn't use torture, he doesn't kill opponents, ... something many officially labelled democracies do (look at Guantamo Bay, for example).

...
Erm... Castro did kill a lot of opponents when he came to power. I myself detest him for his request to attack the US with nuclear weapons, which he submitted to the Kremin during the October crisis.

Erm... Castro did kill a lot of opponents when he came to power.

If you are refering to the revolution against the dictator Batista, well, yes, he killed opponent like all revolutions against dictator did. But then, the USA "founding fathers" did too, and the french revolutionaries too, and so on. That's what we were referring to.

I myself detest him for his request to attack the US with nuclear weapons, which he submitted to the Kremin during the October crisis.

He never requested to attack US with nuclear weapons, he wanted those weapons to be able to defend himself against a US invasion - remember the Bay of Pigs ? As long as USA invades (or try to invade) countries as they please, don't be surprised that leaders will want nuclear weapons to defend themselves. And if I disagree with nuclear weapons (and as a french citizen, asks my governement to disband his own) I do understand leaders threatened by USA who want them.

If you are refering to the revolution against the dictator Batista, well, yes, he killed opponent like all revolutions against dictator did. But then, the USA "founding fathers" did too, and the french revolutionaries too, and so on. That's what we were referring to.
No. I am talking about killing 'enemies of the revolution' after 1959.



He never requested to attack US with nuclear weapons, he wanted those weapons to be able to defend himself against a US invasion - remember the Bay of Pigs ?
On 27 October 1962 Castro visited the Soviet embassy and dictated a letter to Khrushchev requesting the Soviet government to act and to launch the first nuclear strike in response to any hostile act against Cuba. It was documented by Khrushchev, Soviet ambassador Alekseev and deputy of the foreign minister Troyanovsky. They were horrified. I am sorry.

.....
On 27 October 1962 Castro visited the Soviet embassy and dictated a letter to Khrushchev requesting the Soviet government to act and to launch the first nuclear strike in response to any hostile act against Cuba. It was documented by Khrushchev, Soviet ambassador Alekseev and deputy of the foreign minister Troyanovsky. They were horrified. I am sorry.
Which is not the same as requesting an attack. It is more like NATO; attack on one is supposedly seen as an attack on all, calling for retaliation. Isn't the Warsaw pact similar?

What would have happened back then in case of a usian invasion in...Romania?

Which is not the same as requesting an attack. It is more like NATO; attack on one is supposedly seen as an attack on all, calling for retaliation. Isn't the Warsaw pact similar?

What would have happened back then in case of a usian invasion in...Romania?
No. Castro requested a nuclear first strike in case of any attack by conventional means. With different incidents (overflights etc.) happening daily it was a recipe for disaster. Khrushchev knew that.

No. Castro requested a nuclear first strike in case of any attack by conventional means. With different incidents (overflights etc.) happening daily it was a recipe for disaster. Khrushchev knew that.
Sounds like big bargaining chips. "OK, you're not protecting us. Maybe we should cave in to the capitalists then. Unless we get more [insert what Cuba was getting from USSR at the time]."

Surely he knew that they'd be horrified. And also that they preferred Cuba to maintain its thorny position.

Sounds like big bargaining chips. "OK, you're not protecting us. Maybe we should cave in to the capitalists then. Unless we get more [insert what Cuba was getting from USSR at the time]."

Surely he knew that they'd be horrified. And also that they preferred Cuba to maintain its thorny position.
No, it just wasn't the case. He wasn't bargaining, he wasn't wanting anything -- just asking Khrushchev to destroy world imperialism for all time in his letter. Castro was not unlike General Ripper from 'Dr Strangelove' at that moment, if we are to believe Alekseev.

No, it just wasn't the case. He wasn't bargaining, he wasn't wanting anything -- just asking Khrushchev to destroy world imperialism for all time in his letter. Castro was not unlike General Ripper from 'Dr Strangelove' at that moment, if we are to believe Alekseev.

Would you say this (http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/student/frauke.grosshennig/Perspectives.html) is an accurate description?

At the height of the missile crisis,
on Oct. 27, when the world seemed
poised on the edge of nuclear holocaust,
Castro had appeared to urge Moscow to
launch a first-strike nuclear attack on
America.

"If the imperialists invade Cuba,''
Castro wrote in a letter to Khrushchev,
``the danger that that aggressive
policy poses for humanity is so great
that following that event, the Soviet
Union must never allow the
circumstances in which the imperialists
could launch the first nuclear strike.

``If they actually carry out the brutal
act of invading Cuba . . . that would
be the moment to eliminate such
danger forever through an act of
legitimate self-defense, however
harsh and terrible the solution would be.''

When the stunned Soviet ambassador
in Havana, Aleksander Alekseev,
asked Castro if he was really
advocating that Moscow be the first
to launch its nukes, Castro demurred.
``No,'' he answered, according to
Alekseev's report to Moscow. ``I don't
want to say that directly, but under
certain circumstances we must not wait
to experience the perfidy of the
imperialists, letting them initiate the
first strike.''

Yes. It's not the whole story, as it lets out the Troyanovsky part (he had received something to that effect from Cuba a bit earlier than that) and the reaction of Khrushchev.

On 27 October 1962 Castro visited the Soviet embassy and dictated a letter to Khrushchev requesting the Soviet government to act and to launch the first nuclear strike in response to any hostile act against Cuba.

Which has nothing to do with wanting to "attack" USA with nuclear weapons. I do not agree with possession, and even less with usage of nuclear weapons, but IN RESPONSE TO is definitely not "attack" . Cuba wanted to protect itself, and if USA stayed away from Cuba, nothing would have happened. Castro never wanted to attack USA, he only wanted to defend himself - with methods I do not agree with, but it's not a reason to difform the truth.

Which has nothing to do with wanting to "attack" USA with nuclear weapons. I do not agree with possession, and even less with usage of nuclear weapons, but IN RESPONSE TO is definitely not "attack" . Cuba wanted to protect itself, and if USA stayed away from Cuba, nothing would have happened. Castro never wanted to attack USA, he only wanted to defend himself - with methods I do not agree with, but it's not a reason to difform the truth.
To defend Cuba, against any conventional attack, with Soviet nuclear weapons? It is called a first nuclear strike.

It's not OK with me, it wasn't OK with Khrushchev. He was not prepared to burn America and to see Russia burning. Castro was.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/04/29/samerican.pact.ap/index.html
K-P, you do realize I already posted this, right? Let me get the link.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480112

Understand?

No, it just wasn't the case. He wasn't bargaining, he wasn't wanting anything -- just asking Khrushchev to destroy world imperialism for all time in his letter. Castro was not unlike General Ripper from 'Dr Strangelove' at that moment, if we are to believe Alekseev.

Somehow, I doubt that was the case. Looking at the wording of the letter, I would say it's more along the lines of in case the Americans invaded, they'd be able to retaliate or ask Moscow to retaliate, with nuclear weapons.

At the height of the Cold War, after the failure of the Bay of Pigs when it seemed that US marines might actually go about invading Cuba, it seemed that Castro did get what he asked. Local Russian commanders on the ground in Cuba at the time had complete control over their short range tactical nuclear weapons and could fire them without specific authorization from Moscow. Strategic weapons required authorization yes, but not their tacticals. In the event of an invasion at that point of time, US forces would have gone up in smoke.

So yes, Castro asked, and got, what he wanted. A nuclear tipped shield.

Three cheers for Bolivia! Hip hip hooray Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray!
It's nice to see countries getting along for purposes other than a capitalist-style free trade agreement or for a military pact.

Somehow, I doubt that was the case. Looking at the wording of the letter, I would say it's more along the lines of in case the Americans invaded, they'd be able to retaliate or ask Moscow to retaliate, with nuclear weapons.
Nuclear retaliation in case of a non-nuclear attack is... well, in 1962 it meant mass slaughter and, possibly, death of humanity. Khrushchev knew that and, immediately after receiving the letter, he admitted the need of urgent withdrawal and penned a leeter to Kennedy to this effect. Castro was left out of the loop, and he was furious.

At the height of the Cold War, after the failure of the Bay of Pigs when it seemed that US marines might actually go about invading Cuba, it seemed that Castro did get what he asked. Local Russian commanders on the ground in Cuba at the time had complete control over their short range tactical nuclear weapons and could fire them without specific authorization from Moscow. Strategic weapons required authorization yes, but not their tacticals. In the event of an invasion at that point of time, US forces would have gone up in smoke.
Yes. And then Russia and the US.

So yes, Castro asked, and got, what he wanted. A nuclear tipped shield.
First he willingly agreed to host our missiles upon his soil, then he threw a tantrum when we decided to withdraw our nukes, shouting about Soviet betrayal.

Is anyone paying attention to the fact that I posted this article ten hours before K-P?

Calling it "mini" makes it sound so cute! Who's a liddel Cold War, then? A booja booja boo!

I wonder what America has to lose when Latin America forge more economic ties within its region? North America does the same thing, Europe does the same thing, and Asia does the same thing. I've noticed that America thinks everything can't happen without its government giving the green-light. I've also noticed that more and more people are resisting America's heavy-handed demands around the world. America must find an alternative way, I mean, if Cuba has more popularity than America in the Latin Americas (or even throughout the world) than something should be noted from this. Cheap Cuba has more popularity than rich America, so that means, it's not about money, I really think it’s about how you treat people. If you treat someone like shit, then how can you expect respect out of him? America has the potential to be the most respected nation (the wealth, the science, and the will) but it does not flex that power, I wonder why, does it lack the humanity?

I wonder what America has to lose when Latin America forge more economic ties within its region? North America does the same thing, Europe does the same thing, and Asia does the same thing. I've noticed that America thinks everything can't happen without its government giving the green-light. I've also noticed that more and more people are resisting America's heavy-handed demands around the world. America must find an alternative way, I mean, if Cuba has more popularity than America in the Latin Americas (or even throughout the world) than something should be noted from this. Cheap Cuba has more popularity than rich America, so that means, it's not about money, I really think it’s about how you treat people. If you treat someone like shit, then how can you expect respect out of him? America has the potential to be the most respected nation (the wealth, the science, and the will) but it does not flex that power, I wonder why, does it lack the humanity?
Unfortunately it cannot be said that Cuba is more popular when the US. The number of the Cuban refugees in America is AFAIK far greater than the number of American refugees in Cuba.

Is anyone paying attention to the fact that I posted this article ten hours before K-P?

Sorry, I didn't see your post, I was sleeping at that time ;)

To defend Cuba, against any conventional attack, with Soviet nuclear weapons? It is called a first nuclear strike.

Which is something I don't agree with, but something that was done by USA: they did use nuclear weapons, and twice, against Japan. And the threat to use nuclear weapons to defend yourself was part of the "equilibrium of terror" of the cold war. If USSR would have tried to invade Western Germany do you think USA wouldn't have used nuclear weapons on USSR ? They would have.

Threatening to use nuclear weapons if you are attacked is very dangerous, but it's NOT the same than wanting to attack. By saying that, you're completly twisting the truth, and I can't accept that.

Which is something I don't agree with, but something that was done by USA: they did use nuclear weapons, and twice, against Japan. And the threat to use nuclear weapons to defend yourself was part of the "equilibrium of terror" of the cold war. If USSR would have tried to invade Western Germany do you think USA wouldn't have used nuclear weapons on USSR ? They would have.

Threatening to use nuclear weapons if you are attacked is very dangerous, but it's NOT the same than wanting to attack. By saying that, you're completly twisting the truth, and I can't accept that.
Well, then I am a truth-twister. My only consolation is that Khrushchev was twisting the truth long before than I did. :D

Unfortunately it cannot be said that Cuba is more popular when the US.

Popular where ? Inside USA ? Definitely not. Inside South America ? That's another story.

The number of the Cuban refugees in America is AFAIK far greater than the number of American refugees in Cuba.

And the nuber of Mexian refugees in America is far greater than the number of American refugees in Mexico. While the Mexican president, Vincente Fox, is a close ally of Bush, and fervent supporter of neoliberalism.

How can you compare the first world power, controlling world trade currency, invading countries as it pleases, putting puppets governements everywhere, and a small island, isolated by a blocus, part of the third world ?

But if you look at the popularity of the governements in the world, you would be surprised. I remind to you that for most European, USA is the #1 threat to world peace and security. And in South America, in nearly all countries, elections and polls show that the population support leftist policies, opposed to USA. Which is not surprising, after 60 years of CIA-supported coups and far right guerilla, and 30 years of USA-supported neoliberal reforms which leaded to a massive raise in poverty.

My translation follows:

"Troyanovsky (T): Castro thinks that, in the face of inevitable armed conflict with the USA, the imperialists' launching a first strike.... (looks into his notebook) ... a first nuclear stike cannot be tolerated.

Khrushchev (K): What?!

T: That's what I've been told.

K: Does he suggest to us to start a nuclear war? To launch the missiles from Cuba?

T: It seems so. Soon the whole message is going to be brought here, it would be easier for us to find out what Castro means by that.

K: It's madness. We installed our missiles there in order to prevent attacking the island, to preserve Cuba, to defend socialism, and he does not only want to die himself, but also drags us along."

...

And the nuber of Mexian refugees in America is far greater than the number of American refugees in Mexico. While the Mexican president, Vincente Fox, is a close ally of Bush, and fervent supporter of neoliberalism.
Yes. Life in the US is better than in Mexico... as well as in Cuba.

How can you compare the first world power, controlling world trade currency, invading countries as it pleases, putting puppets governements everywhere, and a small island, isolated by a blocus, part of the third world ?
Easily. I am not into anti-American rants, although I am not a fan of the US. But well, the question is -- which of the countries is better to live in? And the answer is...

BTW, what blockade? The US is not the sole country in the world to trade with.

But if you look at the popularity of the governements in the world, you would be surprised. I remind to you that for most European, USA is the #1 threat to world peace and security. And in South America, in nearly all countries, elections and polls show that the population support leftist policies, opposed to USA. Which is not surprising, after 60 years of CIA-supported coups and far right guerilla, and 30 years of USA-supported neoliberal reforms which leaded to a massive raise in poverty.
The public opinion in Russia is anti-American and is not concerned with Cuba at all.

Yes. Life in the US is better than in Mexico... as well as in Cuba.

It's not that easy to say - life appears to be better in USA than in Cuba. But average lifespan is the same in both countries, for example.

Easily. I am not into anti-American rants, although I am not a fan of the US. But well, the question is -- which of the countries is better to live in? And the answer is...

The most social of European countries, probably.

BTW, what blockade? The US is not the sole country in the world to trade with.

The blockade is much more than just a blockade with the US. The US forbids ships/planes that coasted/landed in Cuba to coast/land in the US for years afterwards. So companies who trade with one can hardly trade with the other. So, many companies refused to trade with Cuba, and those who do usually ask for higher transporting prices...

It's not that easy to say - life appears to be better in USA than in Cuba. But average lifespan is the same in both countries, for example.
Yes.

The most social of European countries, probably.
The most immigrant-friendly of the Eurpoean countries in that case.

The blockade is much more than just a blockade with the US. The US forbids ships/planes that coasted/landed in Cuba to coast/land in the US for years afterwards. So companies who trade with one can hardly trade with the other. So, many companies refused to trade with Cuba, and those who do usually ask for higher transporting prices...
Well, the US certainly can impose any limits upon its own trade. And if Cuba is so popular, why not trade with it like the erstwhile Soviet Union did?

Well, the US certainly can impose any limits upon its own trade. And if Cuba is so popular, why not trade with it like the erstwhile Soviet Union did?

Because when you are a for-profit business, and have to chose between a tiny island of south america and a huge country being the most powerful of the planet, the choice is easy to do, whatever the "popularity" is ? That's the same reason for which corporations don't have a second though to trade with dictatorship like Saudi Arab, or with Chile at Pinochet's time, and so on. And the same reason for which many corporations (including Coca-Cola, Ibm, ...) traded with the nazi in the 1930s.

And well, what we can see now is that the south american presidents who have a strong popular support like Chavez or Morales are trading with Cuba :)

Because when you are a for-profit business, and have to chose between a tiny island of south america and a huge country being the most powerful of the planet, the choice is easy to do, whatever the "popularity" is ? That's the same reason for which corporations don't have a second though to trade with dictatorship like Saudi Arab, or with Chile at Pinochet's time, and so on. And the same reason for which many corporations (including Coca-Cola, Ibm, ...) traded with the nazi in the 1930s.
Yes -- and that means that the US is more popular with the traders. However, it did not stop the USSR from trading with Cuba... Politics!

And well, what we can see now is that the south american presidents who have a strong popular support like Chavez or Morales are trading with Cuba :)
I can only wish them well, and that's sincere. If the three countries are going to be better off than they were before, it will be fine with me. At present Cuba, according to our Russian tourists who visited the island, strikes them as a poor country with rampant prostitution.

Nuclear retaliation in case of a non-nuclear attack is... well, in 1962 it meant mass slaughter and, possibly, death of humanity.

Are you telling me that nuclear retaliation wouldn't have happened had it been the USSR that the US invaded or vice versa? Nuclear powers don't invade one another for a good reason. It's called kicking the table when the game's about lost. Cuba wanted that leverage too. It would have meant Kennedy wouldn't have been able to force an invasion of Cuba had it possessed a nuclear deterrant.


Khrushchev knew that and, immediately after receiving the letter, he admitted the need of urgent withdrawal and penned a leeter to Kennedy to this effect. Castro was left out of the loop, and he was furious.

Doesn't explain the fact that there were local commanders there with full authority over their tactical nukes. Khruschev might not have liked the idea of Castro initiating WWIII, but he probably didn't like it anymore than the idea that the US could invade their staging area and steal their missiles.


Yes. And then Russia and the US.


Big deal. All it would have meant would be that the US couldn't have invaded. Not after it became known that there was a nuclear strike option in Cuba, even if it was short ranged.


First he willingly agreed to host our missiles upon his soil, then he threw a tantrum when we decided to withdraw our nukes, shouting about Soviet betrayal.

It IS betrayal when you promise stuff then don't deliver. Khruschev pulled back from it eventually when he faced heavy flak from his own party which didn't like the threats coming out of the Pentagon regarding the missiles being delivered to Cuba. Remember, Khruschev initially backed the plan because he wanted an answer to US medium range missile bases situated along the Soviet border. The only problem was that they lacked an ally to take those missiles until Cuba turned to them for aid.

Are you telling me that nuclear retaliation wouldn't have happened had it been the USSR that the US invaded or vice versa? Nuclear powers don't invade one another for a good reason. It's called kicking the table when the game's about lost. Cuba wanted that leverage too. It would have meant Kennedy wouldn't have been able to force an invasion of Cuba had it possessed a nuclear deterrant.
It could have happened, but to have a small Caribbean island as a trigger... meh. Khrushchev was right. BTW, nuclear powers do invade one another -- Kargil, 1999. The missiles were Soviet, not Castro's, and it was our decision what to do with them.


Doesn't explain the fact that there were local commanders there with full authority over their tactical nukes. Khruschev might not have liked the idea of Castro initiating WWIII, but he probably didn't like it anymore than the idea that the US could invade their staging area and steal their missiles.
Pliev had no "full authority" to launch missiles. That's misinformation.



Big deal. All it would have meant would be that the US couldn't have invaded. Not after it became known that there was a nuclear strike option in Cuba, even if it was short ranged.
Death of humanity is "big deal" for you?


It IS betrayal when you promise stuff then don't deliver. Khruschev pulled back from it eventually when he faced heavy flak from his own party which didn't like the threats coming out of the Pentagon regarding the missiles being delivered to Cuba. Remember, Khruschev initially backed the plan because he wanted an answer to US medium range missile bases situated along the Soviet border. The only problem was that they lacked an ally to take those missiles until Cuba turned to them for aid.
The Party sacked him for putting missiles on Cuba, not for withdrawing them. :rolleyes: And Castro had no say over our nuclear strategy, no matter what he thought.

The only thing I can see here is a group of countries that want to forge their own existence without US help or interference, and they are trying to help each other to do it.

If anything, the States are getting too paranoid.

The problem is they are trying to do so as dictatorship nations.

Trying to change the Constitution, in a way that gives him and his government absolute power.

There is now talk of Evo Morales, trying to nationalise private property as well, Bolivians private propertys.

Upper Class, Working Class, Poor Class you name it, everybody's.

If you, I and others were Bolivian Citizens, including ours.

That is the problem, real dictatorship government like it or not.

Why do I not seem to care what Habana has to say?
Oh yes, because the probably is 10 to 1 that it is both uninformed and meaning to be inflammatory because it is uninformed.

Why do I not seem to care what Habana has to say?
Oh yes, because the probably is 10 to 1 that it is both uninformed and meaning to be inflammatory because it is uninformed.

Teh, I still wonder about you, not about you being Cuban or not, I take your word for it that you are not, but on your anti Fidel views, since you was in favor of not lifting the so-called embargo and now this.
:confused:

It could have happened, but to have a small Caribbean island as a trigger... meh. Khrushchev was right.

Pressure trigger more likely. It wouldn't have happened even if armed without an invasion to set it off.


BTW, nuclear powers do invade one another -- Kargil, 1999.

What a surprise. But then again, it seems that they didn't find out it was Pakistan until after the fact. Still, a first is a first.


The missiles were Soviet, not Castro's, and it was our decision what to do with them.

I will grant you this.


Pliev had no "full authority" to launch missiles. That's misinformation.


Not his strategics, but his tacticals. I seem to remember a documentary where they interviewed one of the surviving missile commandants who said something along the lines of "If the Americans invaded, all we would have to do is press the button. There wouldn't be any fighting after that"


Death of humanity is "big deal" for you?


It is precisely because it is such a big deal to the people in power that it is no big deal to me. MAD principles would have kept it from happening. And if it did happen, I wouldn't be around to complain about it.


The Party sacked him for putting missiles on Cuba, not for withdrawing them. :rolleyes: And Castro had no say over our nuclear strategy, no matter what he thought.

Well duh, of course Castro had no say over nuclear strategy. But he did get promised to be part of it as a component.

I think the reason why the Party sacked him was because he played a big game of chickens with missiles against the US and lost. If he had won, things might have turned out differently.

Pressure trigger more likely. It wouldn't have happened even if armed without an invasion to set it off.
Maybe, maybe not. It was a very tense time.



What a surprise. But then again, it seems that they didn't find out it was Pakistan until after the fact. Still, a first is a first.
Well, the Idians IIRC did. And it was a qualified first -- Russian and American pilots faced each over in combat during the Korean War, for example.


I will grant you this.
Thanks!



Not his strategics, but his tacticals. I seem to remember a documentary where they interviewed one of the surviving missile commandants who said something along the lines of "If the Americans invaded, all we would have to do is press the button. There wouldn't be any fighting after that"
Mmm... the chap was exagreggating, I think. I've checked a couple of Russian history books -- they could fire only ant-aircraft missiles at will. However, there was a very limited authorization -- the submariners could fire their nuclear-tipped torpedoes without consulting Moscow or Pliev, and the reasons for that are obvious.



It is precisely because it is such a big deal to the people in power that it is no big deal to me. MAD principles would have kept it from happening. And if it did happen, I wouldn't be around to complain about it.
My mother and father wouldn't have liked it -- they were seventeen then...



Well duh, of course Castro had no say over nuclear strategy. But he did get promised to be part of it as a component.
Yes. He was used as a component -- and then thrown out.


I think the reason why the Party sacked him was because he played a big game of chickens with missiles against the US and lost. If he had won, things might have turned out differently.
If Khrushchev had lost, we wouldn't have this discussion. He drew. But the risk of playing was unacceptable to the apparatchiks. Still, I like Khrushchev. He was the most human-like among our seven leaders.

Maybe, maybe not. It was a very tense time.

I think that short of an actual aggressive launch or invasion, no nuclear missiles would have been fired. This of course does not count accidental launches of which there were quite a few. You know, false alarms and stuff like that that nearly started WWIII.


Well, the Idians IIRC did. And it was a qualified first -- Russian and American pilots faced each over in combat during the Korean War, for example.

*shrug* Wasn't it more by proxy rather than direct war with Russia against America? I seem to remember that the Russian pilots were technically "not there"


Mmm... the chap was exagreggating, I think. I've checked a couple of Russian history books -- they could fire only ant-aircraft missiles at will. However, there was a very limited authorization -- the submariners could fire their nuclear-tipped torpedoes without consulting Moscow or Pliev, and the reasons for that are obvious.

Ant-aircraft? Is that some new kind of insectoid missile? :p

Anyways, I guess we'll never find out with 100% certainty whether they truly had the authorization or not. I'm pretty sure that they had tactical SRBMs that didn't have the reach to get to most of America and were primarily meant to be used on invading forces. Oh well.


My mother and father wouldn't have liked it -- they were seventeen then...

Who would? The thing is that it just doesn't seem likely that WWIII would have broken out deliberately. Accidently, maybe, but not deliberately. Never came across a politician with the clout to give the order and the utter lack of care about his own hide to do so.

Yes, even Iran's president. We don't see him wearing a flak jacket and wielding an AK do we?


Yes. He was used as a component -- and then thrown out.


Not disputing that, but I can see why he'd be angry about it.


If Khrushchev had lost, we wouldn't have this discussion. He drew. But the risk of playing was unacceptable to the apparatchiks. Still, I like Khrushchev. He was the most human-like among our seven leaders.

Krushchev did lose. He pulled out.

Suprisingly you arent the first to pick up on this story you know. Personally i think it will be hard for them to do, but if they do it could be great or awful.
You're covering all bases, but you knew that, didn't you? :p

I think that short of an actual aggressive launch or invasion, no nuclear missiles would have been fired. This of course does not count accidental launches of which there were quite a few. You know, false alarms and stuff like that that nearly started WWIII.
I don't think that keeping Cuba socialist was worth a nuclear war. Neither did Khrushchev.

*shrug* Wasn't it more by proxy rather than direct war with Russia against America? I seem to remember that the Russian pilots were technically "not there"
Cetrainly, but it was an open secret. More to the point, there was a couple of dogfights over the Soviet waters. In 1951 a MiG-15 was downed in one of them.



Ant-aircraft? Is that some new kind of insectoid missile? :p
Yeah, it seems I've just invented it. :cool:

Anyways, I guess we'll never find out with 100% certainty whether they truly had the authorization or not. I'm pretty sure that they had tactical SRBMs that didn't have the reach to get to most of America and were primarily meant to be used on invading forces. Oh well.
Yean, the 'Luna' ones. OK.



Who would? The thing is that it just doesn't seem likely that WWIII would have broken out deliberately. Accidently, maybe, but not deliberately. Never came across a politician with the clout to give the order and the utter lack of care about his own hide to do so.

Yes, even Iran's president. We don't see him wearing a flak jacket and wielding an AK do we?
And I hope I won't see him like that...


Krushchev did lose. He pulled out.
Erm... Kennedy withdrew the Jupiter missiles from Turkey, so it was a kind of draw on that.

Which is not the same as requesting an attack. It is more like NATO; attack on one is supposedly seen as an attack on all, calling for retaliation. Isn't the Warsaw pact similar?

What would have happened back then in case of a usian invasion in...Romania?
The Romanians would have welcomed the Americans with open arms. :p