Cuban missile crisis: how the US played Russian roulette with nuclear war

reply to post by leosnake


It was called the "Cold War" for a reason. Were we supposed to wage war by allowing Russia to maneuver? Or should we do what we can to inhibit and counter those maneuvers?

This is the worst thread ever. You don't even really bother to state a premise. You give a horrible OP. And you respond to your commenters with one line, half assed attempts to give some semblance of a viewpoint.

Yeah....do better. I may come back.

reply to post by JDmOKI

I am speaking of a direct infringement and a blatant act of war on Russia's part if she were to get caught.

We seem to have a very different view about what constitutes a act of war. At best I would agree that it would had been an extreme risk to the US national security but not an outright aggressive act by itself, even less so if you consider the context and that it was the result of an escalation started by the US...

Sanctions are better than Cuba becoming the 51 state by brute force.

I disagree, both are wrong. The real valid path would have been self determination and building on that. But like many times in the past in Egypt now or the Palestinian elections recently, the US can not seem to live up to the propaganda it creates. "Leader of the freeworld" yeah right...

reply to post by Panic2k11


The US would never allow nukes in Cuba and Russia knew this and was posturing in defense or their "ally" in that region. The Russians knew the impact such a move would make weather of not they were ready for war with the US is debatable. I'm stating that if Russia didn't back down that the direct effect would have been war, which is obvious.

Yes, the US doesn't practice what they preach but what country does anymore...I want to clear out congress, lobbyist, career politicians, and send all of our military home to protect our own soil. Let the rest of the world defend themselves and only supply humanitarian aid through our navy. That way when I do go to Europe or Australia I don't have to be talked down to like an ignorant American.

reply to post by JDmOKI

The US would never allow nukes in Cuba and Russia knew this and was posturing in defense or their "ally" in that region. The Russians knew the impact such a move would make weather of not they were ready for war with the US is debatable.

We are in agreement here. But the fact that the Soviets (lets call them that since Russia today is different and before it was a lot more than Russia and the Stalinist ideology) took the chance demonstrates the willingness to at least risk that war, even if it was a calculated risk. Imagine if the missiles hadn't been detected until they had became operational. There wouldn't be any war, but the US would be in a very bad situation in terms of defense and nuclear strategy. The fact remains that the Soviets did win the match, even their first declared goal (the protection of Cuba from a US invasion).

The Cuban situation, their own creation had put the US in a very bad position. The world was a bit different then lots of more unaligned nations. The Bay of Pigs was again not only a major fail but had shown the world at large how the US conducted their policies. If we add to that the naval blockade of Cuba (a extremely illegal operation by international law) was a defacto prelude of a declaration of war to Cuba and the Soviet Union.

I'm extremely irritated when I see Americans making a distinction between the UN and the US government in several threads. I have attempted to demonstrate that it demonstrates extreme ignorance in regards to history and past events. This is another one of the cases that proves that the UN in general terms works as a US lead geopolitical tool (not strictly an extension of the us US government but almost, it wouldn't have any credibility if it was so transparent). I think that ATS would benefit from a larger discussion in regards to the UN to demystify the wrong notion that it is the UN that dictates US policy...

I'm stating that if Russia didn't back down that the direct effect would have been war, which is obvious.

I do not believe that the Soviet had any intention in going to war, they just took the chance to make some bold moves in the "chess game". We are also in agreement there. I also do not believe that they had any certitude that they wouldn't be detected, to me it was the best move made during the Cold War, closely fallowed by the creation of NATO.

send all of our military home to protect our own soil. Let the rest of the world defend themselves and only supply humanitarian aid through our navy. That way when I do go to Europe or Australia I don't have to be talked down to like an ignorant American.

I hope that you realize that as a super power your military can not retreat inside your borders, that that view would ultimately result in probably China taking over the world stage a lot faster (again a US created problem) and a lot of conflicts getting out of hand (that is being resolved by other forces that wouldn't be working for the benefit of the US).

"ignorant American" today has been completely changed from cold war times. Before it was mostly an image prevalent in Europe and mostly due to the general type of tourist (mostly to France). To a point it was also driven by a bit of jealousness due to standard of living of the American middle class allied with the demonstrative lack of knowledge about the world outside US borders and a somewhat lack of respect for local cultures. This image has long past, probably died in the 90's...

reply to post by Panic2k11


I think that the UN is a joke and is a tool for the US government. On the bright side, at least we have the illusion of empire control through the UN .

The ignorant American statement was based off of my own experience and my complete inability to have a conversation due to preconceived notions of Americans.

Originally posted by JDmOKI
Its better than "if they're not with us they're against us" attitude...

OWS or George Bush?

One of the best videos I have ever seen on youtube ....

www.youtube.com...