Vladimir Putin urges Barack Obama to drop missile shield [Archive]

Miami Shores

24-11-2008, 18:50

Vladimir Putin urges Barack Obama to drop missile shield
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...-23109,00.html

Quote:
RUSSIAN Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has urged US President-elect Barack Obama to drop the planned US missile shield in Eastern Europe, warning of an "adequate response" from Moscow.

"This project is aimed against the strategic potential of Russia. And we can only give it an adequate response,'' Mr Putin said on Monday at a conference on human rights law in Saint Petersburg.

"If there are not missile defence sites in Poland and the Czech Republic - there will be no retaliatory measures either.''

Mr Obama, who takes office on January 20, has yet to give firm details over whether he intends to continue the plan which was created by the outgoing administration of Republican President George W Bush.

Mr Putin said that if the new Obama administration was prepared to drop the plan, then "by itself, the question of our retaliatory measures would be dropped.''

"Then we can break the dangerous, negative trend on the European continent,'' he said.

Earlier this month Moscow raised alarm in Western capitals by warning it could place missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, close to Poland, in response to the plan.

Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield.

Please drop the shield. It makes sense to me.[/QUOTE]

Putin would put missiles in Cuba. But dont worry Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wont let President Obama drop the shield. Oh I forgot you want Obama to drop the Shield at any cost. Apeasements never work.

SaintB

24-11-2008, 18:52

Half my post got eaten...

Gauthier

24-11-2008, 18:57

Putin would put missiles in Cuba. But dont worry Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wont let President Obama drop the shield. Oh I forgot you want Obama to drop the Shield at any cost. Apeasements never work.

Do you have proof Putin wants to put missiles in Cuba or is this just your emo whine about Elian being sent back while Casto retired undefeated again?

Dododecapod

24-11-2008, 23:31

I've got a better idea: lets continue to improve the shield until it actually works, then keep improving it so that we can't be threatened by any dick with nukes.

And let's NOT listen to Vladimir Putin about anything.

Also, for everyone who doesn't understand this: the only thing going into Poland is a radar installation. The actual Launchers are all on US soil.

Dumb Ideologies

25-11-2008, 00:01

If the idea isn't dropped, of course Russia will retaliate with similar moves.

Why not then just agree, and save both sides a lot of money? Once more its all about status and presentation of power on the global stage, a dickwaving contest to be quite blunt. People need to get wise to this nonsense and not get sucked in by the presentation and constructed nationalistic fervour and fear. Leaders only act this way because the public is stupid enough to be fooled into supporting such policies, making it in politicians' interests to play these games.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 00:06

If the idea isn't dropped, of course Russia will retaliate with similar moves.

Being that they'll put ten semi-functional missiles somewhere random?

Dumb Ideologies

25-11-2008, 00:09

Being that they'll put ten semi-functional missiles somewhere random?

Some symbolic show of strength. I don't have sources in the Kremlin, unfortunately, so I can't tell you precisely what they'll do:p. There'd be a proportionate response to irk the US, though, of that I'm pretty sure.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 00:13

Some symbolic show of strength. I don't have sources in the Kremlin, unfortunately, so I can't tell you precisely what they'll do. There'd be a proportionate response to irk the US, though, of that I'm pretty sure.

Put promised to deploy some Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad *snickers* and the entirety of the West griped for a few days and forgot about it, because they weren't really a true strategic threat. Just like the mid-course defense interceptors. They don't alter the strategic balance in the slightest.

Putin, though, needs to create an external bogeyman because his government is founded on imperfect footing, and the MCD interceptors create a convenient, albeit harmless and easily countered bogeyman. His griping is for domestic consumption--and to a degree Polish and Czech consumption.

Kirchensittenbach

25-11-2008, 02:16

Well, there is the paranoid ideal that if USa doesnt remove its misslie shield from poland, there could be the chance of 'accidents' happening in the facilities in poland, similar to how USA organised the 'accident' in chernobyl

'accidents' happen, and it would be about time Russia caused one as payback

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 02:19

I'm okay with that. The Ultra Nationalist Party is becoming more and more expansionalist, and I think that the US and NATO should do everything in their power to oppose them. If it means antagonizing the Russians then FINE. Then again, I was okay with committing US troops to Georgia to fight the Russians, and take Abkhazia and Ossetia by force. If the Russians retaliated, FINE we'd push into southern Russia as well and then NATO could attack from the east.

At the LEAST we should've secured the port City of Poti with the Marines, that place is a critical oil production center and we let the Russians just mosey on in there and ransack the place. *sigh*

Yes, because attacking Russians on Russian soil works so damn well. Can't seem to recall a war, since the Mongols, that the Russians didn't do at least decently in. WWI - major battle was Tannenberg, that's not Russian Soil. If Nicolas the II had brains (ok that's silly assumption to make, but still) if he had brains, he would have waited for Germany to invade Russia, not go all Gung-Ho. History shows that, General Winter or not, Russians know how to defend their own soil. In the Crimean War - umm what were Russia's territorrial losses again? Also, the Russians had Abkhazian and South Ossetian support, so you'd be fighting a hostile people and an army more then capable of defending itself, where most divisions actually fought in the Chechen War, and thus are battle-trained. In addition, the Russians would give millions of AK-47s and even some Antharax to Iran, to use on American troops in Iraq. Europe, minus Poland, the Baltic States and the UK, wasn't going to escalate. Russia would have simply pounded the Baltic States, the Polish Army, what were their victories again, not counting rag-tag divisions? And UK - really? Also, Serbs would unleash an attack on Kosovo. And China would've annexed Taiwan.

You may see this as a simple war limited to the Caucasian Region. But if the US went in, Russia would see this as escalation, and their response would have been even more escalation. Seeing how badly the US Army is over-stretched, how popular the South Ossetian War was in Russia, and how uneager the Americans are for war, there will be no escalation in the US, no one here wants a war with Russia, excepts people who still believe in the USSR, and those are a dying out minority, incapable of fighting. This wouldn't be Russia v. US in the Caucasian Region; this would be Russia v. a part of the US Armed Forces not in Afghanistan or Iraq, with Serbia, China, probably the Stans, Belarus, etc. Not a winnable war. US v. Russia - place your bets. US v. Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Serbia, Belarus, CHINA, the Stans, not so good.

Plus, Georgians attacked a Russian Base. Why should US prevent the Russians from defending their own base, when the US Ambassador to Russia said it was the right thing to do.

Also, what NATO do you speak of? The only NATO countries that could actually hurt Russia military are France and Germany, and Putin is maintaining really damn good relations with that duo. Oh, and to tip it off, if anyone uses bombers in Russia, the Russians may use nukes. You're talking about Southern Russia, right? Don't you think the Pentagon conducted War Games on this?

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 02:21

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24703092-23109,00.html

Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield.

Please drop the shield. It makes sense to me.

Why would we? Poland wants us to keep em up, and its clear Putin is intent on building up Russian military forces.

Just because you want to suck Putin's sack doesnt mean it "makes sense" to ignore an ally's request in favor of humoring Putin.

Intestinal fluids

25-11-2008, 02:22

Russia isn't complaining about its missiles being intercepted by the bases so much as the possibility that the bases can be converted to offensive ballistic missiles that would then have a comparatively short route to Russian airspace.

So can Trident Submarines. Whats the real problem here?

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 02:24

Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield. Drop the shield.

Please drop the shield. It makes sense to me.

Putin would put missiles in Cuba. But dont worry Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wont let President Obama drop the shield. Oh I forgot you want Obama to drop the Shield at any cost. Apeasements never work.[/QUOTE]

*cough* Cuban Missile Crisis Khruschev appeasing JFK *cough*

Yeah that one certainly didn't prevent a nuclear war, oh wait, it did.

And not to MS specifically, but to the CN Community in general, you guys are forgetting one thing: Russian Rocket Forces, best in the World, nukes or no nukes. And Russia does have nukes, which rules out any attack on Russian soil by anyone with a brain.

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 02:26

Being that they'll put ten semi-functional missiles somewhere random?

If those missiles are semi-functional, why all the fuss about Russia's Retaliation?

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 02:27

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 02:28

So can Trident Submarines. Whats the real problem here?

Trident Submarines cannot cancel out an actual Russian Nuclear strike. The Missile Shield might be able to if it works. Of course Russia has Anthrax as a back-up weapon. But still, you don't want to be placed on your heels. Ladiers and Gents, MAD works, let's leave it alone.

greed and death

25-11-2008, 02:29

Its a bluff. his economy just shrank 15% when oil prices dropped. never mind the banking crisis also screwed them over. He wants to scare us out of there because now deploying the counter measures have become too expensive.
just looka t the events up to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Gauthier

25-11-2008, 02:32

This makes no sense.

It does if you see it not as a geo-political analysis, but Miami Shores throwing another crybaby whinefest about Elian being deported back to Cuba and looking for the slightest flimsy pretense to declare Obama's presidency a failure.

And the man's still not even inaugurated into office.

I get this feeling that Miami Shores and Potato Boy will start up their own pundit show called "Obamanation" or something to that effect.

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 02:33

Its a bluff. his economy just shrank 15% when oil prices dropped. never mind the banking crisis also screwed them over.

Source? I know that the Russian Banking Sector currently blows, but banks in Russia aren't as predominant as they are in the US in controlling the economy. Russia's economy shrinking 15%, now that I don't believe. Ergo Source please.

Intestinal fluids

25-11-2008, 02:33

Trident Submarines cannot cancel out an actual Russian Nuclear strike. The Missile Shield might be able to if it works. Of course Russia has Anthrax as a back-up weapon. But still, you don't want to be placed on your heels. Ladiers and Gents, MAD works, let's leave it alone.

Nothing on the earth can cancel a Russian nuclear strike, Poland missile defense or otherwise. Both the US and Russia already have the technology to launch nukes within 50 miles of each others shores regardless. So why get a hard on about ineffective missile defense in Poland that can be easy circumvented or overwhelmed?

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 02:43

Nothing on the earth can cancel a Russian nuclear strike, Poland missile defense or otherwise. Both the US and Russia already have the technology to launch nukes within 50 miles of each others shores regardless. So why get a hard on about ineffective missile defense in Poland that can be easy circumvented or overwhelmed?

Because you don't want to be forced to overwhelm a defense. That's very expensive, risky and tricky. And if it could be easily circumvented, I doubt Putin would have a problem with it. The thing is, it's turning out that this Missile Shield in Poland might actually be able to knock out some of the earlier Soviet-Built nukes, which has Russians concerned. Currently, MAD is in effect; if the Missile Shield actually works, MAD will still be in effect, but Russia will be on thinner ice, and Putin likes thick ice.

Also, there's a myth about Russia using numbers to overwhelm. The Georgians used 40,000 troops in the South Ossetian War, the Russians a mere 15,000 aided by South Ossetian and Abkhazian militias, most likely totalling 25,000. So it was roughly 1 to 1 army bets. Also, Putin doesn't want to use WWI mass invasion tactics. He likes his popularity, and using overwhelming force in manpower, takes it away.

greed and death

25-11-2008, 02:49

Source? I know that the Russian Banking Sector currently blows, but banks in Russia aren't as predominant as they are in the US in controlling the economy. Russia's economy shrinking 15%, now that I don't believe. Ergo Source please.

Cia world fact book. look at petroleum exports in relation to gdp.
comes to about 30%. therefor a 50% drop in oil prices is about a 15% drop in GDP. just a rough estimate. likely not posted yet as companies wont lay people off for another year as they hope for a rebound in price.

Intestinal fluids

25-11-2008, 02:50

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 02:52

Cia world fact book. look at petroleum exports in relation to gdp.
comes to about 30%. therefor a 50% drop in oil prices is about a 15% drop in GDP. just a rough estimate. likely not posted yet as companies wont lay people off for another year as they hope for a rebound in price.

That data is 2007 estimate. Got a linky for a 2008 one?

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 02:56

If those missiles are semi-functional, why all the fuss about Russia's Retaliation?

What on Earth are you talking about? Have you even paid attention to the mishaps and foolishness associated with the MCD? How half of the time the missiles don't even launch because of faulty wiring?

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 02:57

That data is 2007 estimate. Got a linky for a 2008 one?

Economies really don't change all that much in the space of a year.

Wilgrove

25-11-2008, 03:07

If Putin launches any nukes, Russia would be one smoldering crater within the hour, at least Moscow would be.

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 03:08

It does if you see it not as a geo-political analysis, but Miami Shores throwing another crybaby whinefest about Elian being deported back to Cuba and looking for the slightest flimsy pretense to declare Obama's presidency a failure.

I think we should bring Elian back just so Obama can ship him backto Cuba.

Non Aligned States

25-11-2008, 03:12

I think we should bring Elian back just so Obama can ship him backto Cuba.

Just to watch Miami Shore's head explode?

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 03:13

Just to watch Miami Shore's head explode?

Am I this predictable?

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 03:16

Because you don't want to be forced to overwhelm a defense. That's very expensive, risky and tricky. And if it could be easily circumvented, I doubt Putin would have a problem with it. The thing is, it's turning out that this Missile Shield in Poland might actually be able to knock out some of the earlier Soviet-Built nukes, which has Russians concerned. Currently, MAD is in effect; if the Missile Shield actually works, MAD will still be in effect, but Russia will be on thinner ice, and Putin likes thick ice.

Except for the fact that the MCD Interceptors based in Poland are of a very limited number, and in a location where they would be entirely ineffective against a Russian strike on the European continent.

Also, there's a myth about Russia using numbers to overwhelm. The Georgians used 40,000 troops in the South Ossetian War, the Russians a mere 15,000 aided by South Ossetian and Abkhazian militias, most likely totalling 25,000. So it was roughly 1 to 1 army bets. Also, Putin doesn't want to use WWI mass invasion tactics. He likes his popularity, and using overwhelming force in manpower, takes it away.

Russia used airpower and a precise set of objectives to succeed in Georgia. Not that numbers had nothing to do with it--Russia wasn't fighting a defensive war in which the survival of their regime was at stake. Under no circumstances could Saakashvili have threatened Moscow. That is because Russia has a massive strategic reserve to draw on.

That permitted the Russian military to carry out riskier offensive maneuvers, while the Georgians believed that their national survival was at stake, and had committed all of their force to a defensive stance in the South.

There's nothing astonishing or overly brilliant about the Russian campaign. The Russian force merely made use of the rule that a concentrated armored force can almost always easily overwhelm even a significantly greater defensive force--especially if the defensive force has their armor spread out. The German penetration into France, Korea, the Arab-Israeli Wars, Desert Storm and now Georgia are evidence of what organized, offensive mobile armor can do to an equal or greater defensive force.

That, and the fact that the Russian military had total air dominance doesn't hurt their odds either. In effect, the equivalency of numbers does not result in an equivalency of force.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 03:21

Putin would put missiles in Cuba. But dont worry Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wont let President Obama drop the shield. Oh I forgot you want Obama to drop the Shield at any cost. Apeasements never work.

*cough* Cuban Missile Crisis Khruschev appeasing JFK *cough*

Yeah that one certainly didn't prevent a nuclear war, oh wait, it did. [/QUOTE]

No, no it didn't. Kennedy was not willing to go to war over Cuba, or the missiles in Cuba. He merely played his hand better than Khrushchev, and was able to do so because Khrushchev was equally unwilling to go to war over missiles in Cuba. Both sides gave up a lot, the US just managed to keep it secret.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 03:24

Trident Submarines cannot cancel out an actual Russian Nuclear strike. The Missile Shield might be able to if it works. Of course Russia has Anthrax as a back-up weapon. But still, you don't want to be placed on your heels. Ladiers and Gents, MAD works, let's leave it alone.

The thing is, the Cold War is over. No one has any military designs on Russia. MAD is not what's maintaining the peace.

Also, if MAD were what's maintaining the peace, the MCD would not interfere with MAD. It's not properly positioned to intercept Russian ICBM's that are bound anywhere, and it's numbers are too limited to have any impact on the hundreds of ICBM's, SLBM's and strategic bomber force Russia maintains.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 03:25

No, no it didn't. Kennedy was not willing to go to war over Cuba, or the missiles in Cuba. He merely played his hand better than Khrushchev, and was able to do so because Khrushchev was equally unwilling to go to war over missiles in Cuba. Both sides gave up a lot, the US just managed to keep it secret.

It worked because there WERE no missiles in Cuba. Kennedy brought us to the brink of war over pretend weapons.

Wilgrove

25-11-2008, 03:28

It worked because there WERE no missiles in Cuba. Kennedy brought us to the brink of war over pretend weapons.

What about the CIA photos showing missiles compounds in Cuba?

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 03:28

It worked because there WERE no missiles in Cuba. Kennedy brought us to the brink of war over pretend weapons.

What makes you say that?

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 03:29

It worked because there WERE no missiles in Cuba. Kennedy brought us to the brink of war over pretend weapons.

You have a source for this Im sure?

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 03:29

What about the CIA photos showing missiles compounds in Cuba?

Powell showed us that CIA photos mean jack shit.

Wilgrove

25-11-2008, 03:31

Powell showed us that CIA photos mean jack shit.

......Umm read what I wrote, and read what you posted....

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 03:31

What about the CIA photos showing missiles compounds in Cuba?

A missile is only a weapon if it can do something when it lands. Lacking that, it's just a lump of heavy metal, and no more of a threat than an equal weight of concrete.

Kennedy lead the world to the Eve of War over cannonballs.

Myedvedeya

25-11-2008, 03:32

If Putin launches any nukes, Russia would be one smoldering crater within the hour, at least Moscow would be.

So would America. MAD.

Plus, we have 5,400 nukes, the Russians have 14,000. So, even if either number wasn't enough to kill every person on the planet, it still wouldnt be a smart idea on anyone's parts to start a nuclear holocaust. again, MAD.

The issue here is not whether Putin will launch nukes. That is completely and utterly irrational, and, regardless of our personal views on Putin, we can probably agree that he's not mental-institution level insane. The main problem with this issue is that the souring of US-Russia relations is never good, regardless of the context.

I'm going to agree with Andaluciae's point from earlier. The intended audience of Putin's theatrics is his own people. If he wants to create a country full of nationalists, and keep the Russian people happy with him, the easiest way to do that is by creating an enemy for them to be afraid of. The USA, both due to prior history, and due to our soon-to-be-outgoing administration's foreign policy, is an easy target. Putin complains about the USA, Russians are scared of the USA, Russians think Putin can defend them from the USA, Russians keep Putin in power for the forseeable future.

Secondly, the theatrics are for the benefit of the world at large. By complaining so openly, and in a way that suggests not "please help us" but "we will f*** you up if you do that", Putin is telling the world that he wants to be considered a world power again, only in a much subtler way that he did through, let's say... the South Ossetian war...

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 03:33

......Umm read what I wrote, and read what you posted....

I did. And I dont see the disconnect.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 03:36

A missile is only a weapon if it can do something when it lands. Lacking that, it's just a lump of heavy metal, and no more of a threat than an equal weight of concrete.

Kennedy lead the world to the Eve of War over cannonballs.

I'd assume that it's your assertion that the warheads were either not delivered, or that they wouldn't be used. Correct?

Wilgrove

25-11-2008, 03:37

I did. And I dont see the disconnect.

I think was the Powell's reference that threw me off.

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 03:37

I think was the Powell's reference that threw me off.

Im taking a shot at the "photos" Powell showed the UN as justification for an invasion of Iraq.

Wilgrove

25-11-2008, 03:40

Im taking a shot at the "photos" Powell showed the UN as justification for an invasion of Iraq.

Yea, I figured that out.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 03:44

I'd assume that it's your assertion that the warheads were either not delivered, or that they wouldn't be used. Correct?

Some warheads were delivered, although there is no evidence that any of the 'weapons' were in a state to go live. Also, as you point out, the use of those weapons wasn't sanctioned.

Kennedy knew that the 'weapons' weren't active, and that Russia wasn't likely to use them.

Knights of Liberty

25-11-2008, 03:44

Some warheads were delivered, although there is no evidence that any of the 'weapons' were in a state to go live. Also, as you point out, the use of those weapons wasn't sanctioned.

Kennedy knew that the 'weapons' weren't active, and that Russia wasn't likely to use them.

Yeah, but thats not a risk you take with nukes.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 03:51

Some warheads were delivered, although there is no evidence that any of the 'weapons' were in a state to go live. Also, as you point out, the use of those weapons wasn't sanctioned.

That is the point at which the US had the maximum strategic leverage to get the Russian missiles withdrawn. It was a very short window. I don't see your objection. Kennedy had strong incentives to act then to obtain the best possible strategic balance--essentially giving Khrushchev what he wanted, but making him keep it a secret.

There's a very good reason Khrushchev was trying to get those missiles in their in secret: So he could get the non-invasion pledge, the Jupiter removal and the prestige associated therewith. He is the one who precipitated the crisis, and he should have known better. In 1960 the American attitude was still being influenced by the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the missiles and warheads were being smuggled in under cover struck the US administration as if they had "caught the carriers on the way to Pearl".

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 03:54

Yeah, but thats not a risk you take with nukes.

Even in that 'conflict', bigger risks were taken with nukes.

While they were busy arguing about non-operational weapons that might be stationed in Cuba, the US military 'accidentally' fired on one of the USSR's actual LIVE nuclear submarines that WAS authorised to retaliate with full force.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 03:57

That is the point at which the US had the maximum strategic leverage to get the Russian missiles withdrawn. It was a very short window. I don't see your objection. Kennedy had strong incentives to act then to obtain the best possible strategic balance--essentially giving Khrushchev what he wanted, but making him keep it a secret.

You don't see my objection? What does that mean? What did I object to?

You agree with me that the weapons weren't live, and that they were not authorised to fire. What is it you think we're arguing about, then?

My point was that Kennedy could have (almost did) precipitated (nuclear) war - over non-operational weapons.

Khrushchev got what he wanted - the American arsenal out of Turkey.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 04:07

You have a source for this Im sure?

Here's the source I was looking for:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621000%20Notes%20Taken%20from%20Transcripts.pdf

(pdf)

Look specifically at Tuesday 16th October, and Sunday 28th.

Tuesday 16th: "3 SS-3 sites located... all-out effort could make them operational within 24 hours... Delaying action until the missiles are set up could touch off nuclear war... I said this morning that [u]after[/i] missiles are operational I was against attacking Cuba..."

Sunday 28th: "Monday will be the last day to attack the missiles before they become fully operational... if the warheads are with the missiles, they can be made ready to fire in 2 1/2 to 5 hours...".

American intelligence knew full well that the weapons were not (yet) a threat. Kennedy was so brave, because he knew there was no real threat, yet.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 04:14

You don't see my objection? What does that mean? What did I object to?

You agree with me that the weapons weren't live, and that they were not authorised to fire. What is it you think we're arguing about, then?

My point was that Kennedy could have (almost did) precipitated (nuclear) war - over non-operational weapons.

My concern is not so much that they were non-operational, rather, that they could become operational in a relatively short time.

Kennedy, though, is not the one who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Khrushchev is, as the terminal responsibility for the event lies clearly on his lap.

Khrushchev got what he wanted - the American arsenal out of Turkey.

The problem is that Khrushchev would have "gotten" the missiles out of Turkey regardless of his little gamble with Cuba. Kennedy had ordered the removal of the Jupiter missiles shortly after taking office in 1961. But, Khrushchev was an impulsive, erratic leader. He wanted to be able to claim that he had something to do with the removal. The truth is, by that point in time, the US didn't care about the Jupiters. Khrushchev brought the brink of war over missiles that were being withdrawn. That the Jupiters were removed should not be an indicator of Khrushchev having had success with his Cuba gamble.

As far as the consequences for Khrushchev, those were dire. His prestige and control within the Soviet Union, and the greater "International Communist Movement" suffered a significant blow. His reign would last almost exactly two more years, when he was ousted by a cabal of more traditional party leaders.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 04:18

Here's the source I was looking for:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621000%20Notes%20Taken%20from%20Transcripts.pdf

(pdf)

Look specifically at Tuesday 16th October, and Sunday 28th.

Tuesday 16th: "3 SS-3 sites located... all-out effort could make them operational within 24 hours... Delaying action until the missiles are set up could touch off nuclear war... I said this morning that [u]after[/i] missiles are operational I was against attacking Cuba..."

Sunday 28th: "Monday will be the last day to attack the missiles before they become fully operational... if the warheads are with the missiles, they can be made ready to fire in 2 1/2 to 5 hours...".

American intelligence knew full well that the weapons were not (yet) a threat. Kennedy was so brave, because he knew there was no real threat, yet.

Of course, US intelligence estimates also projected the SS-3's as being a threat within the next 30 hours. I'd say that that classifies as an imminent threat.

Kennedy was shrewd. He got what he wanted--the missiles out of Cuba.

Non Aligned States

25-11-2008, 04:20

Am I this predictable?

Pieces on a chessboard KoL, pieces on a chessboard. :p

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 04:23

But, on another note, we're officially off topic. Not comically so, but this thread has lost its original purpose.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 04:24

My concern is not so much that they were non-operational, rather, that they could become operational in a relatively short time.

Which is irrelevent.

Kennedy, though, is not the one who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Khrushchev is, as the terminal responsibility for the event lies clearly on his lap.

Horseshit.

There were a number of reasons that support the Cuba action, not least being the fact that the US already had nuclear armament 'off the coast' (so to speak) of Russia, already live, AND targetted on Russian cities.

The Carribean Crisis served several purposes (not least, it basically secured Cuba from potential for invasion).... but the main one was removing the threat posed by nuclear weapons already live and aimed long before the Soviet action in Cuba.

'Terminal responsibility', as you call it, lies with the US, on that one.

The problem is that Khrushchev would have "gotten" the missiles out of Turkey regardless of his little gamble with Cuba. Kennedy had ordered the removal of the Jupiter missiles shortly after taking office in 1961. But, Khrushchev was an impulsive, erratic leader. He wanted to be able to claim that he had something to do with the removal. The truth is, by that point in time, the US didn't care about the Jupiters. Khrushchev brought the brink of war over missiles that were being withdrawn. That the Jupiters were removed should not be an indicator of Khrushchev having had success with his Cuba gamble.

As far as the consequences for Khrushchev, those were dire. His prestige and control within the Soviet Union, and the greater "International Communist Movement" suffered a significant blow. His reign would last almost exactly two more years, when he was ousted by a cabal of more traditional party leaders.

Deliberately disingenuous? Phasing out the Jupiter missiles doesn't equate to an end to the threat. The military were looking at alternatives to replace the project... so phrasing it in such a way as to suggest that Kennedy had promised to remove the threat... or even remove Turkey as a staging post... looks dishonest.

I'm curious as to why you see objecting to a weapon system that is allegedly going to be removed in a few years - but is currently LIVE and aimed at you - as a 'bad thing'... but objecting to a weapon system that isn't live, is a 'good thing.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 04:25

Kennedy was shrewd. He got what he wanted--the missiles out of Cuba.

By running up to the brink of war, over weapons that weren't even active.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 04:40

Which is irrelevent.

Hardly. It's entirely relevant. It means that if Kennedy wanted to get the best possible outcome for the United States and for himself, he had to call Khrushchev's bluff, but that meant putting all the chips in the pot.

Horseshit.

I'll just let that immature little outburst stand on its own.

There were a number of reasons that support the Cuba action, not least being the fact that the US already had nuclear armament 'off the coast' (so to speak) of Russia, already live, AND targetted on Russian cities.

The Carribean Crisis served several purposes (not least, it basically secured Cuba from potential for invasion).... but the main one was removing the threat posed by nuclear weapons already live and aimed long before the Soviet action in Cuba.

'Terminal responsibility', as you call it, lies with the US, on that one.

The Jupiter missiles were irrelevant, and would have been removed and not replaced, regardless the placement of the missiles in Cuba.

Further, the Jupiter missiles would not have been placed in Turkey had the Soviet military not built such a massive conventional striking force in Europe, that if war ever erupted, NATO didn't have even the most remote hope of winning without nuclear weapons. Remember, it was the US who withdrew from Europe after the war, and only returned to high levels of force in response to the continued Soviet presence.

Deliberately disingenuous? Phasing out the Jupiter missiles doesn't equate to an end to the threat. The military were looking at alternatives to replace the project... so phrasing it in such a way as to suggest that Kennedy had promised to remove the threat... or even remove Turkey as a staging post... looks dishonest.

The reason why the Jupiter's were to be removed was because they were obsolete. ICBM's and SLBM's were far more effective weapons delivery systems. The Cuban gamble had no effect on these weapons systems.

I'm curious as to why you see objecting to a weapon system that is allegedly going to be removed in a few years - but is currently LIVE and aimed at you - as a 'bad thing'... but objecting to a weapon system that isn't live, is a 'good thing.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. When did I ever cast a normative judgment on whether any of the actions that occurred were good or bad? Khrushchev's actions were stupid and costly to him and to the Soviet Union.

What I'm saying is that Khrushchev could have achieved a far better outcome by not deploying the missiles.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 04:41

By running up to the brink of war, over weapons that weren't even active.

In response to Khrushchev's deployment of the weapons in the first place. There was no war, he got the missiles out of Cuba and he saved face for himself and for the United States.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 06:50

In response to Khrushchev's deployment of the weapons in the first place. There was no war, he got the missiles out of Cuba and he saved face for himself and for the United States.

In response to US deployment of the weapons in the first place.

That's the thing about the word 'first' in 'first place' - you don't get to decide that a latter event was 'first'.

I appreciate that you were probably raised in a reds-under-the-bed-commies-are-evil atmosphere, but it doesn't excuse quite how... blinkered... you act about world history.

Miami Shores

25-11-2008, 07:06

lol, Gauthier, knights of Liberty, Non Aligned states, I enjoyed reading your posts, lol.

Vetalia

25-11-2008, 08:41

In response to US deployment of the weapons in the first place.

The weapons deployed were pretty much entirely obsolete, making the trade of modern Soviet missiles in Cuba for our no longer needed sites in Turkey a very good deal for the United States. Ultimately, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a complete fiasco that played a major role in getting Khrushchev removed from office, even if his actions averted a devastating war in the end.

Risottia

25-11-2008, 09:53

Agreed. What's the US even doing in Europe any more? Cold War's over, get out.

This is what more or less what Giulio Andreotti said. Back in 1992 iirc. He said that NATO had no more sense, with the end of Cold War.
I don't think that Giulio Andreotti, aka Il Divo Giulio (also, see the movie "il Divo"), can be suspected of not being pro-West enough.

Velka Morava

25-11-2008, 09:56

Why would we? Poland wants us to keep em up, and its clear Putin is intent on building up Russian military forces.

Just because you want to suck Putin's sack doesnt mean it "makes sense" to ignore an ally's request in favor of humoring Putin.

I don't know about Poland, but Czech Republic doesn't want the shield and never did...
Could he drop it?
Oh and Poland didn't want either up to the georgian war.
Mhhh... makes you wonder how comes Shaakasvily was so sure of US intervention...

BTW Do you realize that the shield is not to protect you but to give the time for a counterstrike in case of a Russian first strike?

Risottia

25-11-2008, 09:59

Kennedy was shrewd. He got what he wanted--the missiles out of Cuba.

At the cost of withdrawing US missiles out of Turkey. Which is what CCCP wanted. A case of do ut des, if you ask me.

Laerod

25-11-2008, 10:13

At the cost of withdrawing US missiles out of Turkey. Which is what CCCP wanted. A case of do ut des, if you ask me.Which was going to happen anyway...

Risottia

25-11-2008, 11:53

Which was going to happen anyway...

Dunno. Really. Could you give me some sources? I'm interested.

Laerod

25-11-2008, 13:27

Dunno. Really. Could you give me some sources? I'm interested.The Jupiter missiles were outdated, as referenced here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter), and were eventually going to be removed because of that. Part of the secret negotiations was that point, that they were going to be removed to placate Krushchew, but no one was to know about it at all. Ergo, it looked like the US managed to get the USSR to remove its missiles without receiving more than a promise not to invade Cuba in return.

Risottia

25-11-2008, 14:06

The Jupiter missiles...
Thanks for the linky.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 15:06

In response to US deployment of the weapons in the first place.

That's the thing about the word 'first' in 'first place' - you don't get to decide that a latter event was 'first'.

So what? What triggered the Cuban missile crisis was the secret deployment of missiles to Cuba. A deployment that didn't need to happen and shouldn't have happened, as Kennedy had already ordered their removal from Turkey, because they were obsolete. Kennedy had ordered the removal in 1961, and the only reason they hadn't been pulled out was because the Air Force was trying spending the money directed for their removal on fresh cigars for Curt LeMay. Khrushchev did it to gain prestige, and in the end he got the opposite.

I appreciate that you were probably raised in a reds-under-the-bed-commies-are-evil atmosphere, but it doesn't excuse quite how... blinkered... you act about world history.

Ad hominem, you're really getting classy.

But, no, I wasn't. I was three when the wall fell. The "Reds" have never been a threat, and there's never been any need to villify them. Why you insist on supporting the USSR in this case, though, is a mystery to me.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 16:34

The Jupiter missiles were outdated, as referenced here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter), and were eventually going to be removed because of that. Part of the secret negotiations was that point, that they were going to be removed to placate Krushchew, but no one was to know about it at all. Ergo, it looked like the US managed to get the USSR to remove its missiles without receiving more than a promise not to invade Cuba in return.

The Jupiter missiles were supposed to be removed because they were obsolete, this is true. The fact that the US refused to actually remove them only antagonised the USSR. Regardless, even if all Jupiters were retired, that doesn't equate to an assurance that something else wouldn't be replacing them.

The Cuba Crisis made it certain that Jupiters were withdrawn (which they hadn't been, despite claims they would be), and not replaced with something else.

Laerod

25-11-2008, 16:39

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 17:10

So what? What triggered the Cuban missile crisis was the secret deployment of missiles to Cuba.

No - what TRIGGERED the Cuban missile crisis was Castro's well-founded worries about invasion from the US, and the USSR's well-founded fears about nuclear threats from the US.

Khrushchev did it to gain prestige, and in the end he got the opposite.

You keep making these kinds of claims. I think they say more about how YOU want to see history, than about /how it happened'.

Ad hominem, you're really getting classy.

That's not an ad hominem.

But, no, I wasn't. I was three when the wall fell. The "Reds" have never been a threat, and there's never been any need to villify them. Why you insist on supporting the USSR in this case, though, is a mystery to me.

America still has a red-under-the-bed mentality now. Look at the last election.

I am not 'insisting on supporting the USSR', although I find that quite amusing.

When we have talked about how the US is perceived by Venezuela - you claim I'm imagining things, that the US is some kind of power for peace, and that I'm supporting Venezuela.

When we have talked about US interactions with Iran - you claim I'm making things up, that the US is some kind of power for peace, and that I'm supporting Iran.

When we talk about the Cuba Crisis... well.

What is constant, is that you take patriotism to an almost insanely blind extreme, and dwell in a reality of your own where there are clear 'goodies' and 'baddies', and where you've been lucky enough to land among these saints.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 17:11

Except you wouldn't have known that back then.

Who wouldn't have known what?

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 17:44

No - what TRIGGERED the Cuban missile crisis was Castro's well-founded worries about invasion from the US, and the USSR's well-founded fears about nuclear threats from the US.

Castro was resistant to the deployment of the nuclear missiles to Cuba. He felt that it was an excessive and ill conceived provocation. He accepted their deployment, though, much in the same way that Poland is accepting the deployment of US MCD systems.

You keep making these kinds of claims. I think they say more about how YOU want to see history, than about /how it happened'.

You clearly know very little about Khrushchev.

That's not an ad hominem.

Yes, it is. The basic premise is that you're trying to discredit me by calling me a red baiter. I, quite simply, am not.

America still has a red-under-the-bed mentality now. Look at the last election.

Look at how well it worked. Look at the polling data. Americans rejected the "red-under-the-bed" hypothesis. I, for one, voted for Obama because he was the candidate most likely to be an effective administrator. Over half of McCain voters are optimistic about an Obama presidency. Socialism meant nothing during the election.

I am not 'insisting on supporting the USSR', although I find that quite amusing.

You were equivocating an action of the Soviet Union, and I'm merely using the exact same logic you were using to equivocate the US action. My point was that these second-order causes mean far less than you are trying to apply them to be.

When we have talked about how the US is perceived by Venezuela - you claim I'm imagining things, that the US is some kind of power for peace, and that I'm supporting Venezuela.

You've asserted that the US has designs on Venezuela. You've provided circumstantial evidence of, at best, tertiary relevance to the issue at hand. I argued that there were a series of real-world factors that made the argument that the US was planning to invade Venezuela, or something along those lines, was absurd.

When we have talked about US interactions with Iran - you claim I'm making things up, that the US is some kind of power for peace, and that I'm supporting Iran.

What on Earth are you talking about? The claim was made that the US was planning to invade Iran. I've argued for the past five years that because of strategic and logistical factors at play, the US is not planning to, nor does it desire to, invade Iran. That's all. Somehow to you, though, that means I'm dividing the world up into goodies and baddies. Your reasoning is so fundamentally flawed.

When we talk about the Cuba Crisis... well.

All I'm saying is that Khrushchev's decision to deploy missiles to Cuba was a very poor decision, and that it turned out poorly for Khrushchev and the USSR. What are you trying to say that I'm saying?

What is constant, is that you take patriotism to an almost insanely blind extreme, and dwell in a reality of your own where there are clear 'goodies' and 'baddies', and where you've been lucky enough to land among these saints.

So, because I believe something different from you, you are trying to fit me into a mold of everything that you view as villainous in the world. All this tells to me is that your argument is falling apart, and, as usual, you are trying to obfuscate by ducking into another issue.

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 17:54

The Jupiter missiles were supposed to be removed because they were obsolete, this is true. The fact that the US refused to actually remove them only antagonised the USSR. Regardless, even if all Jupiters were retired, that doesn't equate to an assurance that something else wouldn't be replacing them.

The Cuba Crisis made it certain that Jupiters were withdrawn (which they hadn't been, despite claims they would be), and not replaced with something else.

Kennedy had ordered the missiles withdrawn in 1961.

The Air Force resisted the removal of the Jupiter missiles as part of an inter-service funding feud. Their forward striking force was being replaced by the Navy's SLBM's, and Curtis LeMay was, if nothing else, a jealous prick. They viewed it as a loss of authority, just like any other bureaucratic entity. It was a public sparring match that kept bureaucratic politics that kept the missiles in place, nothing else.

Kennedy had ordered their removal because weapons based so close to the Soviet Union were by 1960 nothing more than a highly immobile practice target for the USSR if a war ever broke out. MRBM's like the Jupiters were useless and redundant to the US by the time they were deployed. ICBM's and SLBM's were being brought on line to fulfill their role. Not only that, they were prone to several very dangerous mechanical failures.

Dyakovo

25-11-2008, 18:01

Am I this predictable?

At times, yes

Andaluciae

25-11-2008, 18:20

In my opinion, Gravy, your opinion of what the US is physically capable of doing, is far greater than what reality tells us the US is capable of doing.

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 23:11

In my opinion, Gravy, your opinion of what the US is physically capable of doing, is far greater than what reality tells us the US is capable of doing.

In my opinion, your opinion of what that sentence was acutally supposed to mean, is vastly different from anything that made sense in or out of the context of any comments I've made.

In other words...

eh?

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 23:11

Kennedy had ordered the missiles withdrawn in 1961.

The Air Force resisted the removal of the Jupiter missiles as part of an inter-service funding feud. Their forward striking force was being replaced by the Navy's SLBM's, and Curtis LeMay was, if nothing else, a jealous prick. They viewed it as a loss of authority, just like any other bureaucratic entity. It was a public sparring match that kept bureaucratic politics that kept the missiles in place, nothing else.

Kennedy had ordered their removal because weapons based so close to the Soviet Union were by 1960 nothing more than a highly immobile practice target for the USSR if a war ever broke out. MRBM's like the Jupiters were useless and redundant to the US by the time they were deployed. ICBM's and SLBM's were being brought on line to fulfill their role. Not only that, they were prone to several very dangerous mechanical failures.

Awesome. Was there a point?

Grave_n_idle

25-11-2008, 23:32

Castro was resistant to the deployment of the nuclear missiles to Cuba. He felt that it was an excessive and ill conceived provocation. He accepted their deployment, though, much in the same way that Poland is accepting the deployment of US MCD systems.

All of which would be relevent.. if Castro had been the instigation, or if I'd suggested that he was.

You clearly know very little about Khrushchev.

You clearly know very little about Khrushchev.

Yes, it is. The basic premise is that you're trying to discredit me by calling me a red baiter. I, quite simply, am not.

Not at all. If I was saying your argument was weak because of your 'fear of the red menace', then you may have had some room to argue that.

On the other hand - I've said your argument is weak because... well, it's weak. The fact that you seem to buy so hard into the 'red scare' mentality is icing.

And that observation is based on your behaviour in this very thread. It doesn't matter that the Cuba gesture was directly in response to other perceived threats - threats you've mentioned yourself - you still somehow want it to be the USSR at fault.

They are 'striking back'... as instigation...

Look at how well it worked. Look at the polling data. Americans rejected the "red-under-the-bed" hypothesis. I, for one, voted for Obama because he was the candidate most likely to be an effective administrator. Over half of McCain voters are optimistic about an Obama presidency. Socialism meant nothing during the election.

Rubbish. Mainly off-topic, of course, but worth mention. The 'Obama is a socialist' angle fell down with Independents, was never going to impress many Democrats anyway, but did brisk trade with a lot of the people that ended up voting Republican.

You've asserted that the US has designs on Venezuela. You've provided circumstantial evidence of, at best, tertiary relevance to the issue at hand. I argued that there were a series of real-world factors that made the argument that the US was planning to invade Venezuela, or something along those lines, was absurd.

The discussion was about how Venezuela PERCEIVES the US. Apparently, you still don't get that. Our international profile makes us look like a threat. And your rose tinted Captain America take on it, just isn't helpful. In any way.

That doesn't mean I'm supporting Venezuela - but your response DOES illustrate your weird relationship with the US.

What on Earth are you talking about? The claim was made that the US was planning to invade Iran. I've argued for the past five years that because of strategic and logistical factors at play, the US is not planning to, nor does it desire to, invade Iran. That's all. Somehow to you, though, that means I'm dividing the world up into goodies and baddies. Your reasoning is so fundamentally flawed.

Again, the argument that time, was about PERCEPTION of threat. ABout Iran fearing US plans to invade. You've talked a whole load of stuff on the topic, which isn't even vaugely convincing, because - a) it is irrelevent to PERCEPTION and b) you often directly contradict all the evidence to make your claims

But, according to you, pointing out that optimism isn't evidence, emans I also support Iran.

So, because I believe something different from you, you are trying to fit me into a mold of everything that you view as villainous in the world. All this tells to me is that your argument is falling apart, and, as usual, you are trying to obfuscate by ducking into another issue.

Ironic?

You painted me as 'supporting the USSR' because I pointed out that your GI Joe version of reality was just goldpaint over pewter. You did the same thing when we discussed Venezuela, and the same thing when we discussed Iran.

And now you're complaining about ME talking about 'you're either with us or against us' mentality...

The line "...because I believe something different from you, you are trying to fit me into a mold of everything that you view as villainous in the world..." would be comical, if you hadn't been tying me to every regime you dislike, every time I dare to debate against you.

The only reason it's funny... is that this isn't about belief. We KNOW that the USSR wasn't ready to go live in Cuba. We KNOW that US Intelligence knew it. We KNOW that the President pushed the issue, knowing it - including firing on Russian vessels that WERE armed and live. It's not about belief - it's about the evidence - and the fact that it EXISTS, and that I presented it, is apparently cause for you to label me.

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 23:42

Except for the fact that the MCD Interceptors based in Poland are of a very limited number, and in a location where they would be entirely ineffective against a Russian strike on the European continent.

Russia used airpower and a precise set of objectives to succeed in Georgia. Not that numbers had nothing to do with it--Russia wasn't fighting a defensive war in which the survival of their regime was at stake. Under no circumstances could Saakashvili have threatened Moscow. That is because Russia has a massive strategic reserve to draw on.

That permitted the Russian military to carry out riskier offensive maneuvers, while the Georgians believed that their national survival was at stake, and had committed all of their force to a defensive stance in the South.

There's nothing astonishing or overly brilliant about the Russian campaign. The Russian force merely made use of the rule that a concentrated armored force can almost always easily overwhelm even a significantly greater defensive force--especially if the defensive force has their armor spread out. The German penetration into France, Korea, the Arab-Israeli Wars, Desert Storm and now Georgia are evidence of what organized, offensive mobile armor can do to an equal or greater defensive force.

That, and the fact that the Russian military had total air dominance doesn't hurt their odds either. In effect, the equivalency of numbers does not result in an equivalency of force.

The number of Interceptors can be easily increased. Obviously 10 is not a threat, not are 10 Iskanders, or however many Putin's moving a threat, but, can you guarantee that they won't increase? Also, who are they against? Iran - don't feed me that crap.

Also, Saakashvili cannot threaten Moscow - nor was that ever anyone's claim, but prior to this war, Saakshvili COULD threaten Vladikavkaz, the capital of North Ossetia. If Saakshvili succeeded in destabilizing the Caucasian Region, then an unstable Caucasian Region WOULD threaten Moscow. The Chechens, after getting peace, boldly attacked Dagestan. Where's the guarantee that tribes of a destabilized Caucasian region won't attack other parts of Russia?

Furthermore, the initial claim was that Russia used "overwhelming force", with nearly a quarter of the Russian Army, against poor, poor Georgia. In fact it was less then 2 percent of the Russian Armed forces that were involved. With Russian military budget at $50 billion, and Georgian at $1 billion, and less then 2 percent of $50 billion being less then $1 billion, one can even say that Georgia spend more money preparing for the war then Russia. Air Superiority helps, but it doesn't kill as you imply. In the French penetration, the French were caught off-guard, a factor that contributed much more the German success then Air Superiority. In the Korean Case, when the Chinese counter-attacked, despite US Air Superiority, the battle turned into a stalemate. And there was still American Armor against the Chinese, didn't work so well, did it?

In modern warfare, armor certainly matters, but not as much as the organization, experience and quality of the fighting men. What Western Media absolutely refuses to report on, are units like Batallion Vostok that have all of the above mentioned qualities and kick ass. No one wants to believe how much during Putin the Evil's Regime, the quality of the Russian Army actually improved, so people continue to b/s about how the air won the war, the armor won the war (were T-90s used en masse?) superior numbers won the war. You can pretend all you like, but in the end, it will bite the pretender in the ass. The Japanese pretended that the Russians sucked in 1939, and umm, they found out the hard that wasn't the case. You have to report war like it is, not how you pretend it is, otherwise you will be on the losing end, more often then not. Why do you think the Russians aren't releasing their ORBAT? To hide their true losses in the war?

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 23:44

Initial Quote: *cough* Cuban Missile Crisis Khruschev appeasing JFK *cough* Yeah that one certainly didn't prevent a nuclear war, oh wait, it did.

No, no it didn't. Kennedy was not willing to go to war over Cuba, or the missiles in Cuba. He merely played his hand better than Khrushchev, and was able to do so because Khrushchev was equally unwilling to go to war over missiles in Cuba. Both sides gave up a lot, the US just managed to keep it secret.

Wouldn't that appeasement on both sides? It worked didn't it?

Shofercia

25-11-2008, 23:51

The thing is, the Cold War is over. No one has any military designs on Russia. MAD is not what's maintaining the peace.

Also, if MAD were what's maintaining the peace, the MCD would not interfere with MAD. It's not properly positioned to intercept Russian ICBM's that are bound anywhere, and it's numbers are too limited to have any impact on the hundreds of ICBM's, SLBM's and strategic bomber force Russia maintains.

MAD is what's keeping other countries from invading Russia, ergo the Russians don't want to lose it. This missile "shield" can potentially chip away at Russia's MAD deterrent. Plus, the reason is totally B/S, Iran attacking Poland? Come on, that's absurd! And MCD was initially designed to counter MAD, remember Star Wars? Again, small numbers can easily be increased if the system works. Who can produce more, 300 people or 140 people? US has 300 million, Russia - 140 million.

Also, one of the Russian Popular Defense Figures said: "the only difference between Russia and Serbia is that Russia has nukes and Serbia doesn't, otherwise the Americans would be here to partition us as well". This guy fought in Chechnya twice, and his comments hold quite a lot of weight. By senselessly criticizing the South Ossetian War, American Media turned NATO into a bogey-monster much better then Putin could ever have.

Miami Shores

26-11-2008, 00:07

This post is for my friend Gauthier. Viva Elian Gonzalez just not in Cuba.

Russia military offers Cuba air defence aid
Mon 27 Oct 2008, 11:10 GMT
[-] Text [+]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia will offer to share its air defence expertise with Cuba when a military delegation visits the Caribbean island this week, Interfax news agency reported on Monday.

"The Russian and Cuban military will exchange experience in organising tactical air defence and in training officers," Interfax quoted Russian Land Forces spokesman Igor Konashenkov as saying.

The two sides will "discuss the prospect of training Cuban servicemen at the tactical air defence academies and training centres in Russia, using upgraded Russian-made military hardware," Interfax quoted him as saying.

The delegation, led by the chief of Russia's tactical air defence headquarters, Lieutenant General Alexander Maslov, will also look at "ways to strengthen relations between the Russian armed forces and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Cuba," Konashenkov was quoted as saying.

The delegation will be in Cuba from Monday until November 3, Konashenkov was quoted as saying. Reuters could not immediately reach Konashenkov for comment.

In 1962, Cuba became the focus of the deepest crisis of the Cold War after the Soviet Union installed missiles there, prompting a standoff with Washington. The island's government remains hostile to the United States.

In the past few months, Moscow has stepped up contacts with both Cuba and Venezuela, another South American critic of the United States.

(Reporting by Conor Sweeney; Editing by Caroline Drees)

© Reuters 2008.

Venezuela's Chavez welcomes Russian warships

By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER, Associated Press Writer Christopher Toothaker, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 10 mins ago
Venezuelan sailors stands next to a national flag during a welcoming ceremony AP – Venezuelan sailors stands next to a national flag during a welcoming ceremony for a Russian warship at …

LA GUAIRA, Venezuela – Russian warships sailed into port in Venezuela on Tuesday in a show of strength as Moscow seeks to counter U.S. influence in Latin America.

Russia's first such deployment in the Caribbean since the Cold War is timed to coincide with President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Venezuela, the first ever by a Russian president.

Russian sailors dressed in black-and-white uniforms lined up along the bow of the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko as it docked in La Guaira, near Caracas, and Venezuelan troops greeted them with cannons in a 21-gun salute. Two support vessels also docked, and the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great, Russia's largest navy ship, anchored offshore.

Chavez, basking in the support of a powerful ally and traditional U.S. rival, wants Russian help to build a nuclear reactor, invest in oil and natural gas projects and bolster his leftist opposition to U.S. influence in the region.

He also wants weapons — Venezuela has bought more than $4 billion in Russian arms, including Sukhoi fighter jets, helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles, and more deals for Russian tanks or other weaponry may be discussed after Medvedev arrives Wednesday.

Russia's ambitions in Latin America, however, may be checked by global events. Both Venezuela and Russia are feeling the pinch of slumping oil prices, and their ability to be major benefactors for like-minded leaders is in doubt given the pressures of the world's financial crisis.

The deployment of the naval squadron is widely seen as a demonstration of Kremlin anger over the U.S. decision to send warships to deliver aid to Georgia after its battles with Russia, and over U.S. plans for a European missile-defense system.

But U.S. officials mocked the show of force.

"Are they accompanied by tugboats this time?" U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack joked to reporters in Washington. He noted that Russia's navy is but a shadow of its Soviet-era fleet.

"I don't think there's any question about ... who the region looks to in terms of political, economic, diplomatic and as well as military power," McCormack said. "If the Venezuelans and the Russians want to have, you know, a military exercise, that's fine. But we'll obviously be watching it very closely."

When Russia sent two strategic bombers to Venezuela in September, some drew comparisons to the Soviet Union's deployments to Cuba during the Cold War.

But both countries have shown signs of trying to engage President-elect Barack Obama, and Chavez told reporters that it's ludicrous to invoke the Cold War to describe these naval exercises.

"It's not a provocation. It's an exchange between two free countries," Chavez said Monday night.

The ship maneuvers inside Venezuela's economic zone in the eastern Caribbean will begin Dec. 1, enabling sailors to practice reconnaissance, anti-drug patrols, anti-terrorism and search and rescue operations. Rear Adm. Luis Morales said the training, including anti-aircraft exercises with Venezuela's newly bought Sukhoi fighter jets, will not involve live ammunition.

The maneuvers "should be viewed largely as a propaganda exercise," said analyst Anna Gilmour at Jane's Intelligence Review.

"Pragmatic Russian policy suggests that it will content itself with a brief high-profile visit, rather than a longer-term deployment that could cause severe tensions with the U.S., at a time when Russia may be looking to re-engage with the new administration," she said.

Medvedev's tour to Peru, Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba was planned before the financial crisis, and Russia must now downsize its ambitions in Latin America because its pockets are no longer so deep, said Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor of Russia in Global Affairs Magazine.

"Russia will have to put off big projects like the construction of a gas pipeline across South America," Lukyanov said. The proposed natural gas pipeline is Chavez's brainchild, a controversial and ambitious plan for which he has explored Russian investment.

But Russia still has an economic interest in selling more weapons and boosting business in Latin America, and Venezuela can help "open the doors," noted Venezuelan political scientist Ricardo Sucre Heredia.

"It's a win-win relationship for the two countries," Sucre said. "Russia gains in terms of its international power and its presence, and Venezuela gains in terms of having an ally.

Associated Press writers Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow, Desmond Butler in Washington and Ian James in Caracas contributed to this report.

Grave_n_idle

26-11-2008, 00:13

Viva Elian Gonzalez just not in Cuba.

Weird propaganda moment...

Did it ever occur to you that Elian Gonzalez doesn't want to be your pawn?

Miami Shores

26-11-2008, 00:14

Weird propaganda moment...

Did it ever occur to you that Elian Gonzalez doesn't want to be your pawn?

Thanks to President Bill Clinton he is Fidel's Pawn. I guess you prefer that. My last post on this subject.

Knights of Liberty

26-11-2008, 00:17

Thanks to President Bill Clinton he is Fidel's Pawn. I guess you prefer that. My last post on this subject.

I am personally responsible for it, not Bill.

Grave_n_idle

26-11-2008, 00:20

Thanks to President Bill Clinton he is Fidel's Pawn. I guess you prefer that. My last post on this subject.

You raised the subject. If you don't want it discussed, don't preach.

Elian is now a member of the Communist Party. He considers Fidel to be - not only a friend, but family.

Why do you hate his freedom? Why would you tear him away from his family for your own political desires?

Non Aligned States

26-11-2008, 01:32

Elian is now a member of the Communist Party. He considers Fidel to be - not only a friend, but family.

Source?

Grave_n_idle

26-11-2008, 01:47

Source?

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4299294.stm)

"In the interview, Elian said Mr Castro had attended his elementary school graduation and told the boy he was his friend.

"I also believe I am his friend," Elian said. He considers Mr Castro "not only as a friend but as a father"."

He also says:

"He said his Miami relatives, with whom he spent five months, had tried to persuade him to stay.

"They were telling me bad things about [my father]," Elian is quoted by CBS as saying. "They were also telling me to tell [my father] that I did not want to go back to Cuba and I always told them I wanted to.""

As for the Communist Party connection:

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7455748.stm)

"He was quoted by Communist youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde as saying he will never let down ex-President Fidel Castro and his brother Raul."

Knights of Liberty

26-11-2008, 01:49

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4299294.stm)

He also says:

As for the Communist Party connection:

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7455748.stm)

This is the part were Maimi says Castro brainwashed him.

Grave_n_idle

26-11-2008, 01:54

This is the part were Maimi says Castro brainwashed him.

Oh, absolutely. I... think that argument was used in the second of the two sources.

It still seems to be an issue to some in Miama, but Elian seems to be getting on with his life, and probably has no interest at all in the political desires of someone like this 'Miami Shores' person, and would not only fight against their 'Viva Elian Gonzalez just not in Cuba' rhetoric... but would actually fight against them if they tried to remove him.

Andaluciae

26-11-2008, 01:55

Awesome. Was there a point?

Yes. That Khrushchev's deployment of the MRBM's and IRBM's to Cuba was pointless. Had he not done so, the Jupiter missiles would have been removed from Turkey in a very short period of time, and, as a result of the missile deployment and public retraction, Khrushchev did more harm than good to himself and the Soviet cause.

What I've been saying this entire thread, and you've claimed is some sort of "Andy hates the commies" statement.

Grave_n_idle

26-11-2008, 02:00

Yes. That Khrushchev's deployment of the MRBM's and IRBM's to Cuba was pointless. Had he not done so, the Jupiter missiles would have been removed from Turkey in a very short period of time, and, as a result of the missile deployment and public retraction, Khrushchev did more harm than good to himself and the Soviet cause.

Ah. So the 'point' was... something not connected in any way to what you wrote. Good, I don't have to feel like I missed some encoded detail.

What I've been saying this entire thread, and you've claimed is some sort of "Andy hates the commies" statement.

No, I think the one constant burr under your saddle has been more like: "Kennedy, though, is not the one who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Khrushchev is..."

And it's that kind of 'they-started-it' whining that comes across as the 'fear-of-a-red-menace' mentality.

Hydesland

26-11-2008, 02:02

No, I think the one constant burr under your saddle has been more like: "Kennedy, though, is not the one who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Khrushchev is..."

And it's that kind of 'they-started-it' whining that comes across as the 'fear-of-a-red-menace' mentality.

You seem to be doing exactly the same however, just for the other side.

The Phoenix Milita

26-11-2008, 02:02

Non Aligned States

26-11-2008, 02:12

Oh, absolutely. I... think that argument was used in the second of the two sources.

It still seems to be an issue to some in Miama, but Elian seems to be getting on with his life, and probably has no interest at all in the political desires of someone like this 'Miami Shores' person, and would not only fight against their 'Viva Elian Gonzalez just not in Cuba' rhetoric... but would actually fight against them if they tried to remove him.

Well I wouldn't know if he'll attempt to make that argument here, but it would be telling just exactly how much he respects democracy, which is to say, none at all unless he's the one making the decisions.

Grave_n_idle

26-11-2008, 02:21

You seem to be doing exactly the same however, just for the other side.

Not really. The evidence says that the Jupiters were in place before Cuba, and that we knew the weapons weren't live. Those things aren't 'opinion'.

And that was where I came in - go back and look at my first post. I was discussing how we came close to war over 'weapons' that were not capable of doing any harm. (Because it seems relevent to the perceptions surrounding the 'missile shield' situation).

The difference between my argument and Andy's, here - is that the facts I've presented aren't opinion, and clearly mark the Cuba/Carribean Crisis as retaliatory. Andy, on the other hand, appears to be a cheerleader.

Non Aligned States

26-11-2008, 02:25

Europe should not be protected from ballistic missiles whether they be from Russia, Iran, or independent terrorists, even if they contain chemical, biological or nuclear payloads. History has shown the only reason people go to war is because we have too many weapons and defenses. If we didn't have any weapons, no one would try to attack us. Having a shield against the most horrific weapons known to man is nothing more than a provocation. In fact putting this shield there is just asking Russia to nuke us.
Just like locking your car when you park it in a bad neighborhood is the same as asking for someone to steal it.

Doesn't work that way TPM, not with nuclear weapons. Unlike conventional arms, these are all or nothing weapons. Either you use them to absolutely devastate your enemy, or you don't. There's not much of an in between since it's impossible for it not to escalate once you use them in an aggressive strike.

When only one side had them, there was practically no incentive against using them whatsoever other than whether you wanted to or not.

When two sides had them, it became a pissing match of who could have enough left over to finish off the other side once the nuclear weapons were taken out. That's why the Soviets invested in long range, slow fueling liquid fueled rockets while the Americans had a lot of bombers in permanent duty with nuclear payloads.

But all that meant was that whoever struck first, the other side would see it coming and be able to hit back.

Then came along SLBMs and MIRVs, which turned the doctrine from retaliatory strikes to putting a premium on decapitating strikes. If you could sneak a few SSBNs with MIRV warheads near an enemy coast, you could theoretically fire off enough missiles on a depressed trajectory that by the time the leadership realized what was happening, they'd all be dead and out of intact silos.

It became a race of "how fast can I sucker punch you?" but the neither side really expected to be fully protected. It was what kept the peace.

The ABM system on the other hand, changed that. If one side gained an immunity to ICBMs, then it would have no disincentive to engage in an aggressive nuclear war. The other side would find that they're most potent retaliatory weapons were now rendered useless, and would have to bow down to the demands of the ABM shielded party or face annihilation. Even worse, the ABM shielded party could prevent the development of any competing ABM system with impunity using nuclear blackmail.

This, more than anything else, would increase the probability of a nuclear war, if only to destroy the first true strategic ABM shield before it becomes active and preserve the balance of power before it tilted forever in one direction.

Hydesland

26-11-2008, 02:28

Not really. The evidence says that the Jupiters were in place before Cuba, and that we knew the weapons weren't live. Those things aren't 'opinion'.

And that was where I came in - go back and look at my first post. I was discussing how we came close to war over 'weapons' that were not capable of doing any harm. (Because it seems relevent to the perceptions surrounding the 'missile shield' situation).

The difference between my argument and Andy's, here - is that the facts I've presented aren't opinion, and clearly mark the Cuba/Carribean Crisis as retaliatory. Andy, on the other hand, appears to be a cheerleader.

I'm not talking about that. It's just the way you present your views, that you only ever attack attack attack, you never present more than one side to the story. The way you post, even if you aren't really like that, makes it seem as if you believe that Russia are the goodies (or Venezuela, or Iran), and the US are the evil baddies. Perhaps Andy would be less vitriolic to your ideas if you were to acknowledge the fact that neither side is perfect and what they are/were both doing is/was probably not such a good idea (something Andy seems to concur with), rather than only exclusively focus on one side of the issue.

Andaluciae

26-11-2008, 02:41

All of which would be relevent.. if Castro had been the instigation, or if I'd suggested that he was.

If the USSR had wanted to deter the US from invading, there were other less radical options available, such as the deployment of conventional forces to the region through a status of forces agreement, or a mutual protection pact.

You clearly know very little about Khrushchev.

I know that Khrushchev was widely viewed both at home and abroad as an abrasive gambler. He was fundamentally out of step with the rest of the Soviet leadership, and was perceived as dangerous.

Not at all. If I was saying your argument was weak because of your 'fear of the red menace', then you may have had some room to argue that.

On the other hand - I've said your argument is weak because... well, it's weak. The fact that you seem to buy so hard into the 'red scare' mentality is icing.

My argument is quite strong, broadly accepted in the academy and derived from first hand documentation at the time. Further, while I am reflecting a red scare attitude, it's as you said--perception based. The US was scared of the USSR, and it had far more legitimate reasons than Iran or Venezuela to be so

My attitude towards both sides in this matter are pretty icy. I'm not that attached to early sixties US or early sixties USSR. I do have a problem with Khrushchev and his decision making style, though, and I'd think that I've tried to communicate that by my constant references to him by name, rather than towards the USSR.

And that observation is based on your behaviour in this very thread. It doesn't matter that the Cuba gesture was directly in response to other perceived threats - threats you've mentioned yourself - you still somehow want it to be the USSR at fault.

They are 'striking back'... as instigation...

It's not that I want it to be the USSR's fault, it's that it is the USSR's fault. Had Khrushchev not deployed the IRBM's and MRBM's to Cuba, the situation in regards to the missiles in Turkey would have resolved itself in very short order. Instead, Khrushchev who was perceived as impulsive, brash and undiplomatic within the Soviet inner circle, exacerbated the problem.

Is it any surprise that once Khrushchev was out of power, there were no further "crises" of the Berlin or Cuba type?

Rubbish. Mainly off-topic, of course, but worth mention. The 'Obama is a socialist' angle fell down with Independents, was never going to impress many Democrats anyway, but did brisk trade with a lot of the people that ended up voting Republican.

You're the one who brought modern red baiting into the discussion. And, while I voted for Obama, all the polling data I've read indicates that over half of McCain voters were not swayed by that sort of stuff.

The discussion was about how Venezuela PERCEIVES the US. Apparently, you still don't get that. Our international profile makes us look like a threat. And your rose tinted Captain America take on it, just isn't helpful. In any way.

That doesn't mean I'm supporting Venezuela - but your response DOES illustrate your weird relationship with the US.

I understand that it's a perception issue. My view is that there is no way that the US can be rationally seen as being capable of invading Venezuela. My point has never been that the US is inherently peaceful or any of that. It's that the US cannot do what Venezuela perceives them as wanting to do. If Venezuela was acting rationally, it would recognize that fact. I've argued that looking at the matter objectively shows us that the US cannot invade Venezuela, and, as such Venezuela should not worry about it.

What's weird about that?

Again, the argument that time, was about PERCEPTION of threat. ABout Iran fearing US plans to invade. You've talked a whole load of stuff on the topic, which isn't even vaugely convincing, because - a) it is irrelevent to PERCEPTION and b) you often directly contradict all the evidence to make your claims

See above. The US cannot invade Iran. It's that simple, the logistics, support, resources and international backing are, simply, not there. That's all I'm saying. If Iran were acting rationally, they wouldn't worry about something that can't happen. If it can't happen, it should be very relevant to perception.

I could worry about a unicorn impaling me on my way to work, and I could perceive that as a threat, but that doesn't make it a rational perception.

But, according to you, pointing out that optimism isn't evidence, emans I also support Iran.

I'm not being optimistic, I'm being realistic. You're being absurd by accepting their concerns as legitimate.

Ironic?

You painted me as 'supporting the USSR' because I pointed out that your GI Joe version of reality was just goldpaint over pewter. You did the same thing when we discussed Venezuela, and the same thing when we discussed Iran.

You're justifying the actions of the USSR, and arguing that the US is at fault for the crisis, that's a reasonable assumption to make.

And now you're complaining about ME talking about 'you're either with us or against us' mentality...

The line "...because I believe something different from you, you are trying to fit me into a mold of everything that you view as villainous in the world..." would be comical, if you hadn't been tying me to every regime you dislike, every time I dare to debate against you.

Once again, you're trying to cast me as having made a normative judgment in regards to these states, whether they're "good or evil". I've never said that, nor have I ever believed that. I feel that their concerns are irrational, given the constraints on US action that exist, and that your defense of their concerns is equally irrational. That's all.

The only reason it's funny... is that this isn't about belief. We KNOW that the USSR wasn't ready to go live in Cuba. We KNOW that US Intelligence knew it. We KNOW that the President pushed the issue.

We also know that if Kennedy wanted to gain the most positive outcome for himself and for the United States, he had a very short window to act in--during this immediate time period. Had the missiles gone active, Kennedy's options would have been further constrained, and the best possible outcome he could achieve would be significantly less so than had the missiles never gone live.

I don't see where you're getting me making a normative judgment out of that.

including firing on Russian vessels that WERE armed and live.

In the case of the Beale, the President did not know about the naval decision to fire on the Soviet submarine. Neither did anyone in the cabinet or EXCOMM. In fact, the commander of the Beale took it upon itself to fire on B-59.

It's not about belief - it's about the evidence - and the fact that it EXISTS, and that I presented it, is apparently cause for you to label me.

What? You are defending Soviet actions by attempting to justify them.

I don't see the GI Joe, I just see you trying to put words in my mouth. Both sides did fucked up shit that they shouldn't have done.

Grave_n_idle

26-11-2008, 02:42

I'm not talking about that. It's just the way you present your views, that you only ever attack attack attack, you never present more than one side to the story. The way you post, even if you aren't really like that, makes it seem as if you believe that Russia are the goodies (or Venezuela, or Iran), and the US are the evil baddies. Perhaps Andy would be less vitriolic to your ideas if you were to acknowledge the fact that neither side is perfect and what they are/were both doing is/was probably not such a good idea (something Andy seems to concur with), rather than only exclusively focus on one side of the issue.

I don't know how to accomodate Andy if he thinks me posting the transcripts of the actual meetings is somehow me taking a side.

What I was talking about on the Iran and Venezuela issues - is perception. Again - I don't know how to present that otherwise. If anti-American feeling is up (and it has been, for half a decade), and trust for US foreign policy is down (which, again, it has been), the perception is often going to be - especially in nations that feel like they are outside of the 'circle of friends' category - fearful, worried, insecure.

And merely pointing that out - has had Andy paint me as a 'supporter' of various regimes, from modern theocratic Iran, to Cold War Soviet Russia.

I'm not that interested in talking about the 'there is good and bad in everyone - kumbaya' bullshit. I live in a reality where the nation I live in does some good things, and some bad ones, and I'm not going to pretend it's perfect, because it's not. And saying that doesn't mean that someone else IS perfect.

Grave_n_idle

26-11-2008, 03:02

If the USSR had wanted to deter the US from invading,

If?

...there were other less radical options available, such as the deployment of conventional forces to the region through a status of forces agreement, or a mutual protection pact.

Which might have been the most appropriate actions, if that had been the only thing that the USSR had to worry about.

...The US was scared of the USSR,

As the USSR was scared of the US, and with better reason.

...and it had far more legitimate reasons than Iran or Venezuela to be so

Horseshit.

At least both sides were 'armed'.

It's not that I want it to be the USSR's fault, it's that it is the USSR's fault.

Sure - if you ignore all the evidence.

Which you do.

So - I have to assume it IS that you 'want it to be the USSR's fault'.

Had Khrushchev not deployed the IRBM's and MRBM's to Cuba, the situation in regards to the missiles in Turkey would have resolved itself in very short order.

Or not. It hadn't resolved itself in a year.

Is it any surprise that once Khrushchev was out of power, there were no further "crises" of the Berlin or Cuba type?

You mean, after the two powers basically decided on a 'never-again-shall-the-world-be-desstroyed-by-fire' kind of agreement, and actually circumvented most of the brinkmanship by setting up direct communication?

Which they did in direct responses to the Cuba Crisis?

Yeah, you're right. That's just weird.

I understand that it's a perception issue. My view is that there is no way that the US can be rationally seen as being capable of invading Venezuela.

...What's weird about that?

Nothing 'weird'. It's just ignorant of reality.

See above. The US cannot invade Iran. It's that simple, the logistics, support, resources and international backing are, simply, not there. That's all I'm saying. If Iran were acting rationally, they wouldn't worry about something that can't happen. If it can't happen, it should be very relevant to perception.

The US could easily invade Iran, tomorrow.

That 'threat' is at least as realistic as the Cuba Crisis ending with Soviet nukes in US cities.

I'm not being optimistic, I'm being realistic. You're being absurd by accepting their concerns as legitimate.

Their concerns are legitimate, and I don't attach a whole lot of weight to your rosy-tinted 'but it will never happen' protestations.

We've seen the US invade a nation on much LESS pretext than either Iran or Venezuala presents.

You're justifying the actions of the USSR, and arguing that the US is at fault for the crisis, that's a reasonable assumption to make.

I'm not justifying the actions of the USSR - history is. Because that's what I did - I presented the actual evidence that says we KNEW there were no active weapons.

Apparently, you have an argument you'd like to take up with 'history'...?

We also know that if Kennedy wanted to gain the most positive outcome for himself and for the United States, he had a very short window to act in--during this immediate time period. Had the missiles gone active, Kennedy's options would have been further constrained, and the best possible outcome he could achieve would be significantly less so than had the missiles never gone live.

Speculation. Live munitions in Cuba... I'm sure that could have been parlayed into an exchange - like... removing the live munitions from Turkey. No?

What? You are defending Soviet actions by attempting to justify them.

You certainly seem to think so.

Apparently "there were US missiles just outside their borders" is me attempting to justify something. After all, why would a rational country like Russia worry about the real, and live, nukes pointed at their cities, yes?

The Phoenix Milita

26-11-2008, 03:08

Doesn't work that way TPM, not with nuclear weapons. Unlike conventional arms, these are all or nothing weapons. Either you use them to absolutely devastate your enemy, or you don't. There's not much of an in between since it's impossible for it not to escalate once you use them in an aggressive strike.

When only one side had them, there was practically no incentive against using them whatsoever other than whether you wanted to or not.

When two sides had them, it became a pissing match of who could have enough left over to finish off the other side once the nuclear weapons were taken out. That's why the Soviets invested in long range, slow fueling liquid fueled rockets while the Americans had a lot of bombers in permanent duty with nuclear payloads.

But all that meant was that whoever struck first, the other side would see it coming and be able to hit back.

Then came along SLBMs and MIRVs, which turned the doctrine from retaliatory strikes to putting a premium on decapitating strikes. If you could sneak a few SSBNs with MIRV warheads near an enemy coast, you could theoretically fire off enough missiles on a depressed trajectory that by the time the leadership realized what was happening, they'd all be dead and out of intact silos.

It became a race of "how fast can I sucker punch you?" but the neither side really expected to be fully protected. It was what kept the peace.

The ABM system on the other hand, changed that. If one side gained an immunity to ICBMs, then it would have no disincentive to engage in an aggressive nuclear war. The other side would find that they're most potent retaliatory weapons were now rendered useless, and would have to bow down to the demands of the ABM shielded party or face annihilation. Even worse, the ABM shielded party could prevent the development of any competing ABM system with impunity using nuclear blackmail.

This, more than anything else, would increase the probability of a nuclear war, if only to destroy the first true strategic ABM shield before it becomes active and preserve the balance of power before it tilted forever in one direction.
Before you try to educate me, educate yourself.

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd60.htm

Non Aligned States

26-11-2008, 03:10

http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd60.htm

Not very telling.

NOTE: the actual text of this document is classified TS/ESI [TOP SECRET / EXTREMELY SENSITIVE INFORMATION] and is likely to remain so for many years to come.

And even then, it doesn't repudiate the idea of retaliatory strikes, or for that matter, the ability to perform pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

The Phoenix Milita

26-11-2008, 03:15

Not very telling.

Unlike conventional arms, these are all or nothing weapons. Either you use them to absolutely devastate your enemy, or you don't. There's not much of an in between since it's impossible for it not to escalate once you use them in an aggressive strike.
The directive indicates that the United States must maintain the assured response capability to inflict "unacceptable damage" against those assets a potential enemy values most. It also posits that the U.S. must continue to plan a range of options to insure that the U.S. can respond to aggression in a manner appropriate to the provocation, rather than being left with an "all or nothing" response. The new guidance also continues the policy that the U.S. will not rely on "launch on warning," but will maintain the capability to respond promptly to any attack, thus complicating an adversary's calculations. However, the new guidance eliminates previous Cold War rhetoric including references to "winning a protracted nuclear war."

Non Aligned States

26-11-2008, 03:18

The directive indicates that the United States must maintain the assured response capability to inflict "unacceptable damage" against those assets a potential enemy values most. It also posits that the U.S. must continue to plan a range of options to insure that the U.S. can respond to aggression in a manner appropriate to the provocation, rather than being left with an "all or nothing" response. The new guidance also continues the policy that the U.S. will not rely on "launch on warning," but will maintain the capability to respond promptly to any attack, thus complicating an adversary's calculations. However, the new guidance eliminates previous Cold War rhetoric including references to "winning a protracted nuclear war."

This indicates to me, a more conventional response rather than nuclear arms.

Shofercia

26-11-2008, 04:30

Yes. That Khrushchev's deployment of the MRBM's and IRBM's to Cuba was pointless. Had he not done so, the Jupiter missiles would have been removed from Turkey in a very short period of time, and, as a result of the missile deployment and public retraction, Khrushchev did more harm than good to himself and the Soviet cause.

What I've been saying this entire thread, and you've claimed is some sort of "Andy hates the commies" statement.

Umm, actually GnI answered that one earlier - short term's memory's awesome, so I'll just restate what GnI said:

Deployment was not pointless because:

1. US promised to never invade Cuba - and they didn't.
2. US promised not to place new missiles in Turkey to replace the Jupiters and they haven't. Considering the Russo-Turkic relationship, that was huge for the USSR.

Shofercia

26-11-2008, 04:41

I'm not talking about that. It's just the way you present your views, that you only ever attack attack attack, you never present more than one side to the story. The way you post, even if you aren't really like that, makes it seem as if you believe that Russia are the goodies (or Venezuela, or Iran), and the US are the evil baddies. Perhaps Andy would be less vitriolic to your ideas if you were to acknowledge the fact that neither side is perfect and what they are/were both doing is/was probably not such a good idea (something Andy seems to concur with), rather than only exclusively focus on one side of the issue.

Well the attacks against Russia, spesifically Putin's so-called "land-grab" have been without substance. Even the US Ambassador & OSCE said Russia responded. When side A attacks side B and side B responds and wins the war, I don't have much sympathy for side A. Had Russia attacked Georgia, rather then defending her base, troops and civilians, I would be criticizing Russia, not Georgia. When reasonable people, such as GnI and Velka Morava tried to point that out, you "righties" quickly denounced Russia and exalted Georgia. A retard, Luke Harding, even wrote that Russia attacked Georgia because Saakashvili called Putin, Liliputin and when clips were posted from KVN, the most popular Russian Comedy Show calling Putin - Liliputin, and the show's still running, not a single "anti-Russia person (ARP)" stood up and said: "we were wrong" at least not on this forum. Some still want to go to war with Russia over Georgia. Even on this forum, I still see the South Ossetia issue used against Russia and Putin. So what can reasonable people do against your blind flames of Putin, but to go on the offensive, and show the double-standards? We'd love a reasonable debate, but the "ARPs" attack Putin for anything and everything, from defending his own military base (I mean come on!) to extending the presidential term from 4 to 6 years, which was Medvedev's measure actually, not Putin's. Fairly soon Putin will get attacked for promoting Space Tourism with that logic.

Edit: fine, I'll put a joke in:

Andaluciae: If the USSR had wanted to deter the US from invading...
Grave n Idle: If?

Andaluciae

26-11-2008, 07:09

If?

Which might have been the most appropriate actions, if that had been the only thing that the USSR had to worry about.
Fine, then, what were Khrushchev's goals?

Remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey.
Deter a US invasion of Cuba.

Funny. It seems that both goals are highly compatible with other, less provocative solutions.

As the USSR was scared of the US, and with better reason.

Because the US maintained massive offensive ground forces in Central Europe? No, that's not it...

Horseshit.

At least both sides were 'armed'.

In international law there's this thing called "imminence". The classic example of imminence would have been the massing of Wehrmacht forces on the Soviet border in preparation for Barbarossa. This was a massing of forces on the US border. There is no massing of forces on the Venezuelan or Iranian borders, thus, no imminence of threat.

Sure - if you ignore all the evidence.

Which you do.

So - I have to assume it IS that you 'want it to be the USSR's fault'.

If anyone's ignoring the evidence it is you. Yes, the USSR wanted the Jupiters out of Turkey. Yes, the USSR wanted a no invasion pledge for Cuba. But, not only were there other solutions available that wouldn't have resulted in the crisis, that Khrushchev had the deployment carried out in secret made it seem even worse.

Or not. It hadn't resolved itself in a year.

If Khrushchev expected the US government to get anything done in the space of a year In 2005, the US Congress cut funding for the Regional Biomass Energy Program completely at the request of the Department of Energy.

You mean, after the two powers basically decided on a 'never-again-shall-the-world-be-desstroyed-by-fire' kind of agreement, and actually circumvented most of the brinkmanship by setting up direct communication?

Which they did in direct responses to the Cuba Crisis?

Yeah, you're right. That's just weird.

You're giving too much credit to the leaders of both countries. The "hotline", while popular in the movies, is significantly less important to the post-crisis stability than is the installation of the stable, gerontified Brezhnev (and successors). Khrushchev was an impulsive and dangerous cowboy. You can have all the wonderful means of communication in the world, but that doesn't mean some impulsive actor won't show up and ruin everything by gambling with millions of lives for the first four years of his Presidency and prattles on about "evil empires".

Nothing 'weird'. It's just that you're ignorant of reality.

The US could easily invade Iran, tomorrow.

That 'threat' is at least as realistic as the Cuba Crisis ending with Soviet nukes in US cities.

The US was running low on troops in 2004 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3372093.stm), before the civil war erupted in Iraq. After another four years in that country, and with the war in Afghanistan accelerating, I know you're severely overestimating the capability of the US military.

It remained a problem in 2007 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/27/national/main2519581.shtml). How, might I ask, would you presume the US would be able to launch a military action against either Iran or Venezuela? Iran is significantly more populous than Iraq was, and Venezuela has far more hostile terrain. Where, might I ask, would you presume the US could pull the forces required to do this out of? Its ass?

Meanwhile, once the Soviet IRBM's were

Their concerns are legitimate, and I don't attach a whole lot of weight to your rosy-tinted 'but it will never happen' protestations.

What's rosy about my "protestations"? The US does not have the necessary forces to invade Iran or Venezuela. I'm not attributing some sort of rosy desire for peace on the part of the US, just that it can't do it.

We've seen the US invade a nation on much LESS pretext than either Iran or Venezuala presents.

The US could have all the pretexts and support in the world, but it would not be able to invade either country, because it does not have the logistical capability, the physical resources or the funding. Look at how stretched the army is, and how limited its operational capability has become. Venezuela and Iran might as well worry about being invaded by Mongolia.

I can perceive myself as being a coffee magnate in control of 99% of the world's coffee supply, but that doesn't change the fact that I control precisely one pound of the stuff in a paper shopping bag on my kitchen counter.

I'm not justifying the actions of the USSR - history is. Because that's what I did - I presented the actual evidence that says we KNEW there were no active weapons.

Apparently, you have an argument you'd like to take up with 'history'...?

It doesn't matter that they weren't active yet. You clearly don't understand what I've been typing here. You seem to be highly competent at taking what I say out of context, ascribing motivations to me that I clearly reject and trying to paint me as a (in your words) "baddie".

Speculation. Live munitions in Cuba... I'm sure that could have been parlayed into an exchange - like... removing the live munitions from Turkey. No?

Did Khrushchev achieve the removal of those missiles though? Their removal had already been ordered. The goal of the removal of the missiles would have been achieved with far less fuss if he had, instead, done nothing.

Saying that Khrushchev got the missiles out of Turkey is like saying the sun comes up because your alarm clock goes off.

You certainly seem to think so.

Apparently "there were US missiles just outside their borders" is me attempting to justify something. After all, why would a rational country like Russia worry about the real, and live, nukes pointed at their cities, yes?

There were US missiles pointed at Russian cities with or without the Jupiters in Turkey. So, once again, I reiterate, what difference did it make?

The US had dozens of ICBM's and SLBM's already deployed, not to mention SAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(missile)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that this state of affairs was the correct one to be in. In fact, it was a morally repulsive state of affairs to be in, just as MAD has always been. BUT, Khrushchev would not have altered the situation significantly had the reason the Jupiter's were removed been because of his gamble in Cuba. By placing the missiles in Cuba, he is the one who brought the world to the brink of war. Not Eisenhower, not Kennedy. Khrushchev.

Andaluciae

26-11-2008, 07:17

Andaluciae: If the USSR had wanted to deter the US from invading...
Grave n Idle: If?

If you can't get the implied meaning in my comment, you should be going over your writing texts.

Shofercia

26-11-2008, 08:48

If you can't get the implied meaning in my comment, you should be going over your writing texts.

Ouch! Although - if you didn't get that I was joking - you should try basic reading skills.

Risottia

26-11-2008, 08:58

In international law there's this thing called "imminence". The classic example of imminence would have been the massing of Wehrmacht forces on the Soviet border in preparation for Barbarossa. This was a massing of forces on the US border. There is no massing of forces on the Venezuelan or Iranian borders, thus, no imminence of threat.

Ehm, your "classical example of imminence" is good for times of yore (let's say not later than WW2), when military attacks were mostly made by slow ground forces.
It fails in a world with ICBMs, SLBMs, strategic bombers and massive use of airmobile armies. And with a superpower who has military bases all around the world. New times & new tech mean new military doctrine.

Indri

26-11-2008, 10:04

I think Valdimer Putin is a pretty cool guy, eh threatens Poland and doesn't afraid of anything.

Velka Morava

26-11-2008, 12:16

This indicates to me, a more conventional response rather than nuclear arms.

In a document titled "Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy Guidance"?

But, seriusly, why are we going over this all once again...
I tought the previous thread about the shield had most of the points appearing here covered already and I refuse to go over all of them again.

Risottia

26-11-2008, 13:10

I think Valdimer Putin is a pretty cool guy, eh threatens Poland and doesn't afraid of anything.

Big deal. I woulnd't be afraid of anything too, if I controlled the KGB, the спецназ and the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Velka Morava

26-11-2008, 13:21

Big deal. I woulnd't be afraid of anything too, if I controlled the KGB, the спецназ and the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Pssst.... We call it FSB now.

[NS::::]Olmedreca

26-11-2008, 13:50

Europe should not be protected from ballistic missiles whether they be from Russia, Iran, or independent terrorists, even if they contain chemical, biological or nuclear payloads.

Definitely! Potential of Europe being nuked by terrorists sounds just freaking awesome!

History has shown the only reason people go to war is because we have too many weapons and defenses. If we didn't have any weapons, no one would try to attack us.

Yeah, right! Belgium got invaded in both world wars obviously because they had too many weapons, same obviously applies for Denmark, Norway, Finland, Poland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, China, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania and Ethiopia before and during WW II, and for Kuwait in 1990 and for Iran in 1980, and for UK in 1982 etc. I am absolutely sure that Sweden and Switzerland have stayed succesfully neutral for quite some time by not having any weapons or defences at all.

Having a shield against the most horrific weapons known to man is nothing more than a provocation. In fact putting this shield there is just asking Russia to nuke us.

Nope.

Just like locking your car when you park it in a bad neighborhood is the same as asking for someone to steal it.

I assume you never lock your car?

Risottia

26-11-2008, 14:28

Pssst.... We call it FSB now.

Don't speak its name in vain, comrade.

Shofercia

26-11-2008, 23:12

Big deal. I woulnd't be afraid of anything too, if I controlled the KGB, the спецназ and the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

You forgot the GRU, the President's Guard, the Russian Air Force, the Russian Navy, etc. And yet Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and Brezhnev had all those and were still afraid. What Putin has is guts, and that's a great thing for Russia.

Shofercia

26-11-2008, 23:18

Olmedreca;14248970']Definitely! Potential of Europe being nuked by terrorists sounds just freaking awesome!

Yeah, right! Belgium got invaded in both world wars obviously because they had too many weapons, same obviously applies for Denmark, Norway, Finland, Poland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, China, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania and Ethiopia before and during WW II, and for Kuwait in 1990 and for Iran in 1980, and for UK in 1982 etc. I am absolutely sure that Sweden and Switzerland have stayed succesfully neutral for quite some time by not having any weapons or defences at all.

Nope.

1. What's that potential? I mean do you really think that terrorists will launch a nuke from a country and not use a suitcase bomb? I mean Iran nuking Poland, or the EU - get real.

2. Shall I recall how WWI started? First there was mobilization, then there was war. You really want to argue it was over an Arch Duke? Too many guns make another reason for war, it may not be the only reason, but it certainly helps.

3. Wrong. If we are pointing a gun at each other, and we both want to live, neither of us will pull the trigger. However, if you put on a bullet proof vest that covers your whole body, a "shield" what's to stop you from shooting me?

[NS::::]Olmedreca

27-11-2008, 00:13

1. What's that potential? I mean do you really think that terrorists will launch a nuke from a country and not use a suitcase bomb? I mean Iran nuking Poland, or the EU - get real.

Actual potential isnt really relevant as point was adressed to TPM, who as far as I understood claimed that EU should have no protection against terrorists nuking them on principle.

Anyway, the potential may be extremely low, but its far bigger than potential of this missile shield actually removing US-Russia MAD.

2. Shall I recall how WWI started? First there was mobilization, then there was war. You really want to argue it was over an Arch Duke? Too many guns make another reason for war, it may not be the only reason, but it certainly helps.

War can start in many different ways, there is no denying of it. But that doesn't really contradict my point which was adressed to TPM's ridiculous claims.

3. Wrong. If we are pointing a gun at each other, and we both want to live, neither of us will pull the trigger. However, if you put on a bullet proof vest that covers your whole body, a "shield" what's to stop you from shooting me?

Putting on bullet proof vest that protects you against person who has pistol(iran), matters little in relation to guy who aims you with howitzer (russia).

Shofercia

27-11-2008, 01:01

Olmedreca;14250613']Actual potential isnt really relevant as point was adressed to TPM, who as far as I understood claimed that EU should have no protection against terrorists nuking them on principle.

Anyway, the potential may be extremely low, but its far bigger than potential of this missile shield actually removing US-Russia MAD.

Putting on bullet proof vest that protects you against person who has pistol(iran), matters little in relation to guy who aims you with howitzer (russia).

1. You don't nuke on principle. Otherwise Estonia and Georgia would be gone by now. You just don't do that. No groups functions on principle. The terrorists need bases to maintain, recruits to get, weapons to get, etc. They cannot just act on principle.

2. There is no potential here. You are making it up. Whereas the MAD actually exists.

3. You know, I don't think Iran is a terrorist sponsoring state. Let's not forget that Cuba was also on that list, and that Russia's counter-attack on South Ossetia was just plain evil, that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam and bin Laden were boyfriends. All claims of the same exact media. You can see why I'm doubting their claims on Iran as well. Also, yes Iran supports insurgents, but terrorists? What, now I'm supposed to believe in the Mahmanedejad (sp?) bin Laden connection? Has Iran even invaded a country recently? In the past 50 years? Yeah, they talk a lot of smack, but I don't see them doing anything, except sponsoring Iraqi insurgents, which wouldn't have happened had Cowboy not gone in.

Also, a bulletproof vest works against a Howitizer too.

Non Aligned States

27-11-2008, 01:33

In a document titled "Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy Guidance"?

Which presumably has the when's and when not's of nuclear weapons employment?

[NS::::]Olmedreca

27-11-2008, 02:00

1. You don't nuke on principle. Otherwise Estonia and Georgia would be gone by now. You just don't do that. No groups functions on principle. The terrorists need bases to maintain, recruits to get, weapons to get, etc. They cannot just act on principle.

2. There is no potential here. You are making it up. Whereas the MAD actually exists.

3. You know, I don't think Iran is a terrorist sponsoring state. Let's not forget that Cuba was also on that list, and that Russia's counter-attack on South Ossetia was just plain evil, that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam and bin Laden were boyfriends. All claims of the same exact media. You can see why I'm doubting their claims on Iran as well. Also, yes Iran supports insurgents, but terrorists? What, now I'm supposed to believe in the Mahmanedejad (sp?) bin Laden connection? Has Iran even invaded a country recently? In the past 50 years? Yeah, they talk a lot of smack, but I don't see them doing anything, except sponsoring Iraqi insurgents, which wouldn't have happened had Cowboy not gone in.

Also, a bulletproof vest works against a Howitizer too.

1. Eh, poor wording in my part, I didnt mean nuking on principle, but on principle not having any protection against terrorists with nukes.

2. When you should be happy, evil capitalist empire USA is wasting money on pointless system.
US - Russia MAD wont be affected in either way.

3. Problem that missile shield is supposed to solve isnt limited to Iran. Problem is whole idea of any unstable 3rd world state getting hands on WMDs and long range missiles. Iran is just most notable case currently, in 10 years we may have forgotten Iran and be talking about Syria and Pakistani problem.

Btw, by your complaints towards media I assume that you prefer censorship to keep those evil journalists in line?

Shofercia

28-11-2008, 06:47

Olmedreca;14250884']1. Eh, poor wording in my part, I didnt mean nuking on principle, but on principle not having any protection against terrorists with nukes.

2. When you should be happy, evil capitalist empire USA is wasting money on pointless system.
US - Russia MAD wont be affected in either way.

3. Problem that missile shield is supposed to solve isnt limited to Iran. Problem is whole idea of any unstable 3rd world state getting hands on WMDs and long range missiles. Iran is just most notable case currently, in 10 years we may have forgotten Iran and be talking about Syria and Pakistani problem.

Btw, by your complaints towards media I assume that you prefer censorship to keep those evil journalists in line?

1. Who are the terrorists with nukes? Only terrorist cell that are trying to get nukes is Al Qaeda and I'm all for wiping them out.

2. I don't think USA is evil. And I think MAD will be affected, if the system can at least down one Russian nuke, because then it can just be replicated.

3. Nothing to do with evil journalists. I just want journalists reporting the truth, not the truthiness (copyright Colbert). Is that too much to ask?

[NS::::]Olmedreca

28-11-2008, 13:31

1. Who are the terrorists with nukes? Only terrorist cell that are trying to get nukes is Al Qaeda and I'm all for wiping them out.

1. Eh, this point wasn't are we facing terrorists with nukes at the moment. It was, should we have defence, then we are facing terrorists with nukes. To make an analogy, its not about that if terrorist has pistol, but about that should we wear bulletproof vest if terrorist has a pistol?

2. I don't think USA is evil. And I think MAD will be affected, if the system can at least down one Russian nuke, because then it can just be replicated.

2. That is massive oversimplification.
Desinging countermeasures to penetrate any missile shield has been going on by major powers since Moscow ABM system.
MIRV itsselfly already quarantees that its far cheaper to launch ten nuclear warheads then ten interceptors.
Then there are decoys, for every warhead you can deploy hundreds of decoys, even Iran could probably create some more simpler decoys, although obviously their quality would be very low compared to decoys of states that have developed such stuff for decades, like Russia.
Then there is MARV, which means that interceptors trying to hit warhead would have very high miss probability because warhead is also manouvering.
Then you can use first nukes (you have plenty, so not all need to be aimed on cities) for high altitude EMP to disrupt ABM radars.

Finally there are Ballistic missile submarines which major powers have as final quarantee of second strike even if their land based nukes are wiped out in surprise strike. As subs can hit from any place at sea, its easy to strike enemy in a way that either surpasses ABM system or is simply launched too close for ABM system to react. Obviously missiles on subs can be also MIRV-ed and have decoys etc. Even single sub can wipe out several dozens of major cities.

And that is all existing technology being in active development by major powers for decades, not something that Russia would need to start developing from 0. MAD is doing just fine.

3. Nothing to do with evil journalists. I just want journalists reporting the truth, not the truthiness (copyright Colbert). Is that too much to ask?

3. General problem with free media is that we get all points of view, from total bull???? to accurate information. Its like democracy, a horrible system but best what we have, as any attempt to restrict media to Truth (TM) is pretty much quaranteed to end up with one official lie.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Vladimir Putin urges Barack Obama to drop missile shield