NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I was in my History exam today doing some Sourcework on one of Kennedy's speeches compared to Khrushchev's journal and a thought came into my head.

What if the Soviet ships didn't stop, and the American ones broke first and let the Soviets through, effectively allowing the Soviets to put Missiles in Cuba?

Would the USSR still have lost? Would JFK have been impeached over Cuba? Would the World have blown up in Nuclear War (highly unlikely...)?

I think it could have resulted in a Soviet Victory, but not to the extent that the USA disbanded, I just think that she would have become a Greatpower rather than keep on being a Superpower.

I also figure that the USSR would have gotten alot more confident, and "tamed" China in the Sino-Soviet Split, resulting in a pretty massive Communist block then spreads to lots of LEDCs, meaning by the 00s all of the Middle East is Commie (except Israel and Turkey) and major inroads being made in Africa. Europe and America and ALOT less divided, and the EU is seriously contemplating becoming a Federation which will put Western Europe on equal footing with the USA powerwise.

So, what do YOU think?

Well, it's a good question. Khrushchev would likely have stayed in power, and that would've probably meant less spending on the military and more investments in the economy; it would've likely been combined with the implementation of the Kosygin reforms, which would've further boosted their economy. I personally feel the USSR would've likely followed a Chinese-style introduction of market reforms over time, gradually shifting from the Stalinist, centrally-planned system to a more mixed-market one.

Soviet nuclear weapons on Cuba would've reduced their need for conventional military forces, saving them money, resources and labor that could be reinvested in to the economy or infrastructure.

However, if they still had morons like Brezhnev ruling the country, I don't think it would've mattered.

What would happen?

This: Freedom Fighters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fighters_%28video_game%29)

Ok, I was in my History exam today doing some Sourcework on one of Kennedy's speeches compared to Khrushchev's journal and a thought came into my head.

What if the Soviet ships didn't stop, and the American ones broke first and let the Soviets through, effectively allowing the Soviets to put Missiles in Cuba?

The Soviets already had missiles on Cuba, as well as nuclear warheads - they just didn't use them.

Not much I imagine. The US would have lost a lot of face, but I doubt it would have lost superpower status. The millitary and economic potential was still there.

Probably the US would have placed more medium range missiles in turkey, and tried to place them in west germany or other allies.

In any event, where missiles were actually placed became a bit of an irrelevancy within a few years after Cuba, so I doubt it would have really altered the strategiv balance that much.

Kennedy was an idiot. If given the opportunity he would have allowed the Soviets to have missiles in Cuba, and he would have probably been impeached. Unfortunately in his eyes, he found out about them before they were totally operational and thus had to act. He took the most passive route and for this he is considered a hero. The guy was a putz and if he wasn't President that situation would never had occurred.

Et la.

Several former decision-makers met October 12 during the conference in Havana to discuss the role of nuclear weapons in the crisis and the extent of nuclear danger on October 27, the day before Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to a deal whereby the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles in Cuba; the United States pledged publicly not to invade Cuba; and, in a secret agreement, the United States pledged to remove NATO missiles from Turkey. The conversation was remarkable for its candor regarding how poorly the Americans and Soviets had thought through their actions that led to the crisis.

Participants in the following excerpts from the Havana conversation are Robert McNamara, President Kennedy’s secretary of defense; Georgy M. Kornienko, former first deputy foreign minister of the U.S.S.R.; and Nikolai S. Leonov, who was chief of the KGB’s Department of Cuban Affairs for 30 years. McNamara and Kornienko had met once, in 1991; Leonov and McNamara had never met.

.....
Tactical Nuclear Weapons

McNamara: Why did the Soviet Union deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba? Here at the Havana conference, General [Anatoly] Gribkov said yesterday that the tactical weapons were only for deterrence. But how could they have been for deterrence when we didn’t even know they were on the island?

Kornienko: This is exactly the problem. They were planning on announcing about the placement of nuclear weapons in November. Then of course, it would not be secret. Then, and only then, could the tactical nuclear weapons deter the U.S. from taking military action against Cuba. In other words, if the Americans discovered the missiles before they became operational and before Khrushchev could make his big announcement, he would be in trouble.

McNamara: I understand that General [Issa] Pliyev initially had the authority to use the tactical nuclear weapons, but that authority was withdrawn on October 27. Tell me, do you believe Pliyev would have used tactical nuclear weapons in the event of an American invasion, even though Moscow had rescinded permission to do so?

Kornienko: It is of course impossible to say with any degree of certainty. But under very difficult circumstances—via your massive planned invasion of Cuba—it is not out of the question that he would have felt it was his duty to give his troops all the weapons he had at his disposal, including the tactical nuclear weapons.

Leonov: I had an opportunity to talk with the commander of coastal defense, which also had tactical nuclear weapons. He said, if he didn’t have orders from Moscow, but if he was in danger of being destroyed by American paratroopers, then of course he would not let his weapons be destroyed. He said of course we all would have died, but that is the way any commander would have responded.

McNamara: Exactly!

Link (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_11/cubanmissile.asp)

End of debate.

Et la.


Link (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_11/cubanmissile.asp)

End of debate.
Thank God you brought that up.

I've been called a liar and a cheat for making this claim in a debate, and only being able to cite a textbook, and not give people a link.

Thank God you brought that up.

I've been called a liar and a cheat for making this claim in a debate, and only being able to cite a textbook, and not give people a link.

Not a problem. :D I'd post up my thesis, but I'd rather not crash the server :p

On a side note: I love how the Internet has replaced the textbook or any book for that matter, as a viable fact checker. Probably has to do with laziness.

On a side note: I love how the Internet has replaced the textbook or any book for that matter, as a viable fact checker. Probably has to do with laziness.

On a side note: I love the way people make snide remarks without backing up their assertions.

If you would like a comprehensive bibliography (both hard copy and internet) all you need do is ask.

Do not disparage the use of the internet. Have you read Kremlin documents from Khrushchev's era? I have. Have you listened to the Oval Office tapes? I have.

I would not have been able to without the use of the internet.