He's put you on Ignore; seems like he does that to anyone who confront him with rhetoric that does match his world view.
Russia(gate/bot) At what rate is NATO planning to invite in Ukraine? If NATO doesn't know, why is negotiating away a neutrality agreement a non-starter?
- Thread starter raharris1973
- Start date
We didn't go nuclear over Cuba. Rather, JFK launched a blockade/quarantine of Cuba instead. He even refused his advisers' calls for a conventional US invasion of Cuba.
King Arts
Well-known member
Oh so either a coward or an idiot. Well people are free to use the block button but I’d rather those kinds of people that can’t deal with opinions they hate never get mod powers.
Yes because the Soviets backed off. But I believe we most certainly would have used force to prevent a danger so close to our shores.
A nuclear first strike is very dangerous, though, especially relative to the course of action that JFK actually ended up implementing.
King Arts
Well-known member
Well yes but I never said anything about a first strike. If the Soviets don’t back off and our navy fought theirs in the Caribbean but we won we also would not use nukes their military is at the bottom of the sea. They probably won’t use nukes either since they were humiliated but it’s far from home. Now if on the other hand the impossible happens if our navy got destroyed and the Soviets just go on to Cuba. What do you think would happen would we accept it?
Now with Ukraine if we tried to put NATO troops there first Russia would probably do the Cuban crisis, if that does not workand they use conventional force to push us out and win they won’t use nukes, we probably won’t either our army was destroyed and humiliated but our homeland is not in danger, but if the Russians lose and our superior army bests theirs. Do you think that’s the end and they will accept it?
What truly amazes you about your analogy is the sneaky switch between nuclear missiles being the red line in Cuban Crisis (because Soviets did base some conventional forces in Cuba afterwards) to mere conventional troops being a similar red line in Ukraine.
King Arts
Well-known member
It’s not that much of a difference. America puts nuclear weapons in quite a few NATO nations, like Turkey. There is no reason to think that we would completely refuse to station nukes in Ukraine if the opportunity was available. TheSoviets also had nukes in some Warsaw Pact nations.
I was under the impression that we were not willing to risk MAD over Soviet troops in Cuba just so long as this also did not involve the presence of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Am I wrong?
You are not. The missile had little to do with communism in Cuba over communist with nukes in Cuba.
Do you even read what you write yourself?
Mechanized division or nuclear missile silos, what difference does it make.
And doesn't put them in most of them.
When it does, its also not ballistic (or even cruise) missiles with the infamous nervousness promoting "x minutes to capital" tags.
The nuclear weapon USA stations in allied countries in its nuclear sharing program is, in current age tactical at best, and symbolic at worst.
Its the B61 freefall bomb.
Oh but there is. The total lack of nukes being stationed in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Bulgaria, which are NATO members already.
In terms of distance to Moscow, Estonia or Latvia is almost as good as Ukraine.
Obviously 100-150 km makes little difference to ballistic missiles traveling at double digit mach number.
So if NATO was going to take that opportunity, it already would have. Especially since in few years ago Russia stationed Iskander SRBMs in the Kaliningrad enclave purely to make NATO nervous.
King Arts
Well-known member
Wait? Are you saying there were Soviet troops actually stationed in Cuba? I'm talking like a base like America has in Germany, not deniable assets. I honestly did not know that, but the thought would make me pretty nervous, I would not want my rivals to set up ANY military units close to my borders.
According to Gorbachev himself, 11k troops.
King Arts
Well-known member
That's an entire army! I can't believe that the president's were ok with that.According to Gorbachev himself, 11k troops.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Might want to think how confident you are of your understanding of politics around military deployments then.
Makes sense.
Yep, we tolerated this for decades. Could've overthrown Castro but didn't. Never tried again after the 1961 Bay of Pigs failure.
Yep, Russia's former capital of St. Petersburg is already extremely vulnerable due to NATO membership for the Baltic countries, and yet Russia is more-or-less OK with this. Or is it different because the Baltic countries can be cut off with a Russian thrust through Belarus and the Suwalki Corridor?
And Yeah, Russia hasn't exactly been concerned with NATO sensibilities either. Of course, Russia will simply claim that it was acting defensively in response to NATO's expansion.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
Putin wouldn't be that STUPID in threatening to invade Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.,
History Learner
Well-known member
They didn't, it created a crisis:
What followed was a textbook example of a political crisis almost entirely devoid of substance. The presence of 2,000 to 3,000 Soviet combat troops in Cuba was unacceptable to many Washington leaders, both Republican and Democrat.
Sen. Frank Church, a liberal Democrat from Idaho who served as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, immediately demanded the brigade’s removal. “The United States,” he said on Sept. 4, “cannot permit the Soviets to establish a military base on Cuban soil, nor can we allow Cuba to be used as a springboard for real or threatened Russian military intervention in the hemisphere.”
Sen. Richard Stone of Florida echoed this sentiment, arguing that the brigade’s deployment violated the Monroe Doctrine. Howard Baker, the Republican leader in the Senate, stated that if the U.S. tolerated the presence of Soviet combat troops in Cuba, “we will in effect be letting the Soviet Union thumb their noses at us.”
Ronald Reagan, preparing for his run for the presidency in 1980, said that the United States “should not have any further communications with the Soviet Union” until the troops were withdrawn.
We were unwilling to tolerate a single brigade of Soviet troops in Ukraine, without the threat of nuclear weapons, but now we expect the Russians to accept Ukraine in NATO and us basing hundreds of nuclear weapons near their borders? Pot, meet kettle.
History Learner
Well-known member
I guess I missed the report of NATO having armored divisions at all there, or that we had invaded Russia, which was the context I was speaking of. Let's stop creating strawman, shall we?
You mean "single bridge of Soviet troops in Cuba", no? Anyway, what about Soviet trainers?
Because you did.
Russia is Russia, Ukraine is not Russia. Yet, at least.