Does anyone rember ?

[TaiPan]

This week marks yje 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yesterday the JFK Library hosted a 5 hour symposium marking the event which was covered in its entirety by CSPAN. It is well worth the investment in time to watch. Some 2500 new documents have been released from classified RFK files relevant to the event as well as tape recordings of ExComm meetings, telephone calls and other heretofore unreleased information.

For many of us alive today The Cuban Missile Crisis was the first crisis event we experienced in the context of a War or Peace alternative. It is also remembered as the nearest occasion the world has come to actual nuclear war. There was a very poignant moment at the end of the day when the grandson of President Kennedy, John Schlossberg met and shook hands with the son of Nikita Krushev for the first time Krushev presented him with a special 1/2 ruple coin minted to commemorate the event.

There is a special section on the jfklibrary.org website concerning this watershed event in world history that is worth the visit. I hope many of you will take a moment to visit and remember what didn't happen because of Kennedy and Krushev.

Tai Pan

 

[EatTheRich]

1) The closest the world came to actual nuclear war was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But I guess people of color don't count.

2) That war was avoided has little to do with Kennedy's or Khruschev's statesmanship and everything to do with the Cubans' determination and preparation to defend themselves. Kennedy backed down after the Pentagon estimated that--although the threat posed by Soviet missiles was effectively neutralized by the U.S.'s ability to retaliate with overwhelming nuclear force--an invasion of Cuba would result in over 4000 American casualties the first day and over 18000 (which is more than in the first 5 years of the Vietnam War) in the jfirrst 10 days.

 

[fairsheet]

1) The closest the world came to actual nuclear war was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But I guess people of color don't count.

2) That war was avoided has little to do with Kennedy's or Khruschev's statesmanship and everything to do with the Cubans' determination and preparation to defend themselves. Kennedy backed down after the Pentagon estimated that--although the threat posed by Soviet missiles was effectively neutralized by the U.S.'s ability to retaliate with overwhelming nuclear force--an invasion of Cuba would result in over 4000 American casualties the first day and over 18000 (which is more than in the first 5 years of the Vietnam War) in the jfirrst 10 days.

1) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "atomic", not "nuclear". I don't imagine that's of much comfort to the victims, but since "1)" above was obviously posted in the vein of some sort of "righteous" correction, this "re-correction" is apropos.

2) The angle that the Cubans had the slightest say in this matter, is funny. It's an interesting new angle, but it's nonetheless funny.

 

[EatTheRich]

Fission bombs like the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki work by splitting the nuclei of atoms and are therefore nuclear weapons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Perhaps the word you had in mind was "thermonuclear." But more likely you just didn't count the Japanese, then thought you saw an opportunity by your pedantry to cover up that racism.

 

[trapdoor]

1) The closest the world came to actual nuclear war was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But I guess people of color don't count.

BS. There was no possibility of nuclear war because there was no possibility of a nuclear exchange -- only the U.S. had nuclear weapons.

2) That war was avoided has little to do with Kennedy's or Khruschev's statesmanship and everything to do with the Cubans' determination and preparation to defend themselves. Kennedy backed down after the Pentagon estimated that--although the threat posed by Soviet missiles was effectively neutralized by the U.S.'s ability to retaliate with overwhelming nuclear force--an invasion of Cuba would result in over 4000 American casualties the first day and over 18000 (which is more than in the first 5 years of the Vietnam War) in the jfirrst 10 days.

Historically untrue. The war was averted by Kennedy's under the table deal on deploying U.S. missiles. It had nothing to do with the difficulty of invasion (and Kennedy didn't back down).

 

[jammer]

1) The closest the world came to actual nuclear war was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But I guess people of color don't count.

2) That war was avoided has little to do with Kennedy's or Khruschev's statesmanship and everything to do with the Cubans' determination and preparation to defend themselves. Kennedy backed down after the Pentagon estimated that--although the threat posed by Soviet missiles was effectively neutralized by the U.S.'s ability to retaliate with overwhelming nuclear force--an invasion of Cuba would result in over 4000 American casualties the first day and over 18000 (which is more than in the first 5 years of the Vietnam War) in the jfirrst 10 days.

Pulling crap out of your posterior much? How do you know the number of deaths an invasion would have caused? Many of the Cubans would have fought against Castro, or at least just kept their heads down.
Kennedy didn't back down, he was willing to sink Soviet ships if it came to it and Khruschev was not willing to risk it. maybe you should read some history instead of making up your own version.

 

[EatTheRich]

Timeline of events:

1) Cubans overthrow the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and establish a workers' state led by Fidel Castro.
2) Cuban militia and armed forces deal a resounding blow to U.S.-backed invaders at Playa Giron (Bay of Pigs).
3) U.S. steps up plans for a full-scale invasion (Operation Mongoose). U.S.-sponsored terrorism causes deaths and economic dislocation, but the U.S. is unable to erode Castro's broad popular support.
4) The USSR secretly installs nuclear missiles in Cuba.
5) Kennedy discovers the missiles and institutes the blockade.
6) Khruschev offers to remove Cuban missiles if the U.S. removes missiles in Turkey and is publicly repudiated by Kennedy.
7) Kennedy requests the Pentagon's final invasion plans and is met with the stinning casualty estimates later made available to the press through FOIA.
8) Kennedy secretly agrees to the deal he earlier rejected and shelves Operation Mongoose.

 

[fairsheet]

Fission bombs like the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki work by splitting the nuclei of atoms and are therefore nuclear weapons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Perhaps the word you had in mind was "thermonuclear." But more likely you just didn't count the Japanese, then thought you saw an opportunity by your pedantry to cover up that racism.

The "atomic" vs. "nuclear" distinction I applied in this case, is sufficiently acceptable within the common parlance, for me to use it to dismiss your pathetic attempt at diversion. Save your pissant dictionary-googling, for a thread that specifically addresses the scientific aspects of the various WMD.

 

[NightSwimmer]

This thread got derailed rather quickly, didn't it?

I remember, but only vaguely.

 

[middleview]

No Jammer....he's right, only Kennedy backed down because he knew Castro was about to invade Colorado...don't you remember Red Dawn? We'd have lost that war because Patrick Swayze wasn't old enough to fight in 1962....

 

[JackDallas]

I remember it; I was there. I ran the Russians out of Cuba.

This week marks yje 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yesterday the JFK Library hosted a 5 hour symposium marking the event which was covered in its entirety by CSPAN. It is well worth the investment in time to watch. Some 2500 new documents have been released from classified RFK files relevant to the event as well as tape recordings of ExComm meetings, telephone calls and other heretofore unreleased information.

For many of us alive today The Cuban Missile Crisis was the first crisis event we experienced in the context of a War or Peace alternative. It is also remembered as the nearest occasion the world has come to actual nuclear war. There was a very poignant moment at the end of the day when the grandson of President Kennedy, John Schlossberg met and shook hands with the son of Nikita Krushev for the first time Krushev presented him with a special 1/2 ruple coin minted to commemorate the event.

There is a special section on the jfklibrary.org website concerning this watershed event in world history that is worth the visit. I hope many of you will take a moment to visit and remember what didn't happen because of Kennedy and Krushev.

Tai Pan

 

[EatTheRich]

It's "diversion" to object to the claim that nuclear war is only a hypothetical possibility when in fact "nuclear weapons" (a term I used correctly, and you used incorrectly--the "distinction" you mention was never in scientific, political, military, or popular parlance, and I challenge you to show otherwise) were used to kill Japanese civilians
and children at a rate Eichmann could only envy? Showing a crumb of respect for the victims of this crime by not allowing a bald denial of its very existence to go unquestioned?

I'll grant, though, that "war" may be an unsuitable term since the nuclear weapons were only on one side. Perhaps " nuclear aggression," "nuclear massacre," or "nuclear genocide" would be more
appropriate.

 

[gabriel]

I remember it; I was there. I ran the Russians out of Cuba.

you were writing what you call poetry as far back as that???

 

[middleview]

It's "diversion" to object to the claim that nuclear war is only a hypothetical possibility when in fact "nuclear weapons" (a term I used correctly, and you used incorrectly--the "distinction" you mention was never in scientific, political, military, or popular parlance, and I challenge you to show otherwise) were used to kill Japanese civilians
and children at a rate Eichmann could only envy? Showing a crumb of respect for the victims of this crime by not allowing a bald denial of its very existence to go unquestioned?

I'll grant, though, that "war" may be an unsuitable term since the nuclear weapons were only on one side. Perhaps " nuclear aggression," "nuclear massacre," or "nuclear genocide" would be more
appropriate.

I'm sure you would have worked out a more gentle and civilized end to the war that the Japanese and Germans started....We should have used less deadly weapons...right?

What kind of logic is it that convinces you that if someone attacks you with a knife and you have a gun you shouldn't use that gun? The Japanese used every weapon they had, including chemical and bio weapons, to win the war they started. They didn't hesitate to slaughter those who were defenseless, including prisoners, women and children. What "crumb of respect" did they show to non-Japanese victims of their aggression?

You are a fool to think they deserved more humane treatment than they got.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Some folks seem to get a kick out of always backing the loser. Doesn't matter whether they are basically good or evil -- only that they are somehow seen as "underdogs".

 

[middleview]

got a link to those "stinning" casualty estimates?

Kennedy was not in favor of starting a war with the Soviet Union. The invasion of Cuba could have started such a war. It wasn't that he was afraid of the Cuban armed forces. Hell, they were still flying WWII aircraft. Their air force would have been destroyed in the first 10 minutes.

 

[NightSwimmer]

What Kennedy inherited when he came into office was not an imminent war with Cuba, but a harebrained scheme to implement a "dark war" against Cuba with a ragtag group of CIA assets and Cuban dissidents.

EDIT: Not unlike the shenanigans that Ronnie Raygun and Ollie North were attempting to pull off in South America back in the 1980s. It must just be a Republican thing, I guess?

 

[middleview]

I have to wonder exactly what Eisenhower knew about the CIA plan. I've long thought that their plan was to put the Cuban exiles ashore, tell the president that they'd be slaughtered without US help and then be given the go ahead for a full scale assault by US forces on ships offshore.

 

[JackDallas]

Well said.

I'm sure you would have worked out a more gentle and civilized end to the war that the Japanese and Germans started....We should have used less deadly weapons...right?

What kind of logic is it that convinces you that if someone attacks you with a knife and you have a gun you shouldn't use that gun? The Japanese used every weapon they had, including chemical and bio weapons, to win the war they started. They didn't hesitate to slaughter those who were defenseless, including prisoners, women and children. What "crumb of respect" did they show to non-Japanese victims of their aggression?

You are a fool to think they deserved more humane treatment than they got.

 

[EatTheRich]

Why was the U.S. at war with Japan? Because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. But why? Because the U.S. imposed an embargo with the declared intent of starrving Japan. Why? Alliances, arms limitations agreements, invasions, but what was it all about? The ultimate prize for both empires, the prize for which working-class Japanese, who haad nothing to do with decisions in Tokyo, and working-class Americans, who had nothing to do with decisions in Washington, were sacrificed en masse was control of China---the world's largest market.

ANYTHING that ended this slaughter would've been better than continuing it, including leaving China in Japan's hands. I hear your pious outrage about the Japanese atrocities, the rape of Nanking, Chinese sex slaves, and biological research, the Bataan death march--you well-fed moralist who today excuses the U.S.-Japan alliance with China--and I remind you of the ongoing rape of Okinawa, the Filipina sex slaves, biological research on Blacks, nucllear testing on American Indian and Melanesian land, U.S.-organized massacres from Greece to Korea, Indonesia to Vietnam, Kampuchea, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, or Nicaragua. What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki themselves?

The U.S. needed the overwhelming devastation of 2 atomic bombs, not to defeat Japan, who were never offered the peace terms eventually agreed upon (retention of the emperor) until after the bombs. Truman's comment afteer the Hiroshima bomb was, "Now I've got old Joe [Stalin] where I want him."

After Japan's surrender, U.S. troops were ordered to China, where the People's Liberation Army backed by Stalin was threatening the position of Chiang Kai-shek, the U.S.'s man there, with the blood of the 600,000 civilians murdered in his coup on his hands. But the GIs mutinied, refused to go, and built a successful armed services-wide "bring us home" movement with union backing. Patton's plan to invade the USSR was put on hold, allowing political space to organize further defeats for U.S. interests in Korea, China, Cuba, and Vietnam, giving the USSR the opportunity to develop its own nuclear weapons, and eventually forcing Nixon's detente policy.

It is to this day the example of these GIs that makes the U.S. afraid to invade Cuba---which declassified Soviet documents show was never protected by the Soviet nuclear umbrella. The National Liberation Front of Vietnam waged a successful guerrilla war against the U.S. with no air force, mostly homemade or captured weapons (vs. Cuba's state-of-the-art Kalashnikovs), and a lower share of popular support than Castro. And meanwhile internal dissent in the U.S. wasgrowing by leaps and bounds. It's not that the U.S. rulers are worried about Cuba's air force, per se. They are worried that Cuba's militias, backed by the air force, could hold out long enough for American soldiers to see that Castro and they share a common enemy.