The New Korean War: Discuss it here

[Lt. Fred]

The Soviets' placement of missiles in Cuba may have been a political brinksmanship ploy to bring the world's attention to the fact that US missiles basically surrounded their borders, yet America "won't play fair" when tit comes to tat. It blew up in their faces because most countries hated and feared the Soviets much more so than they hated and feared the US. We were basically given a "pass" on the hypocrisy issue. So glad the Cold War is over - the possibility of nuclear war was always a thing lurking in the back of your mind, even for a kid back then. The world then seemed a much grimmer place because of it.

That's fine, too. But I personally feel that the burden of proof falls on the people who automatically assume any Soviet must be lying.

Again, Kruschev said he was honestly trying to protect an ally. Certainly, he didn't think the Americans would respond as they did (many of the meetings are recorded). I think he's  telling the truth.

The good news is that neither superpower would INTENTIONALLY start a nuclear war. Both sides knew the price of war, and refused to use their nuclear weapons unless the other side fired first. This meant that while they were each pointing big guns at each other, neither of them were stupid enough to shoot first. The only time war nearly occurred was two or three accidental incidents were something like a radar fuckup made it look like an attack was beginning against all logic and expectations.

There were a few nasty moments in the CMC where Americans dropped what Soviets thought were depth charges on nuclear-armed submarines. And where Soviet and US jets almost came to blows. Or US intel jets were shot down by Cubans (Americans thought the Soviets had done it). It was scary stuff.

What North Korea doesn't get is that it's not the same balance of power. If intelligence is correct, they only have a handful of nuclear weapons of dubious quality. The only nations they hate that they can really reach with definite accuracy are South Korea and Japan,

My understanding is that their ballistic missiles are just conventional scud-style rockets. Their nukes are too large to load onto them. I may well be wrong.

[ironbite]

And preemptive strike will be special forces with drone support.

[chitoryu12]

And preemptive strike will be special forces with drone support.

We wouldn't even need that. As long as the target is above ground, an airstrike can ruin any launch attempts within a few seconds of entering the area. Unless they've been hiding some amazing modern SAMs, all of their anti-air missiles would be too primitive to actually take out the craft.

The B-2 test run demonstrated last week exactly what our biggest strength is: we have logistics good enough to send bombers that are nearly invisible to radar (especially old Cold War stuff) on an intercontinental trip and have them hit a target within hours of launching. We wouldn't even need to do that, since apparently they're shipping F-22s over to the area and they have just as good stealth capability without needing to be maintained in climate-controlled hangers and only touched with feather dusters. Within an hour or less, they could probably be away from the airfield and ready to hit the launch pad.

[mellenORL]

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2

7th fleet could launch this.

[chitoryu12]

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2

7th fleet could launch this.

Tomahawks are good, but I don't know what ships are within range of North Korea. We DEFINITELY have an airbase in Japan and a good number of troops already in South Korea (some of whom are on the border as we speak), and they're definitely sending F-22s to the area.

[mellenORL]

Ah, F-22....my fave plane to fly in combat sim games...so pretty...so capable...too bad they are too expensive to build any more.

Yeah, I zeroed in on that news when it popped last week, and you are right that just those two planes are a game changer if used to their full potential in the right scenario.

[Lt. Fred]

As far as citations go, I'd like to see one for Kennedy actually trying to humiliate Khrushchev.

Sorry, I apologise. I didn't mean that Kennedy was trying to personally humiliate Krushchev (though he ultimately did). Kennedy was trying to get the Soviets to accept what appeared to be humiliating terms; a public unconditional surrender. Why did he refuse Russia's initial offer of October 26 and insist instead on secret rather than public reduction of the Turkish missiles (the deal that was ultimately done?)

"Later [on Saturday], accepting a proposal from Dean Rusk, [John F.] Kennedy instructed his
brother to tell Ambassador Dobrynin that while there could be no bargain over the missiles that had been supplied to Turkey, the president himself was determined to have them removed and would attend to the matter once the present crisis was resolved—as long as no one in Moscow called that action part of a bargain"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm

"Concerned as we all were by the cost of a public bargain struck under pressure at the apparent expense of the Turks..."

"To announce now a unilateral decision by the president of the USA to withdraw missile bases from Turkey—this would damage the entire structure of NATO and the US position as the leader of NATO, where, as the Soviet government knows very well, there are many arguments. In short. if such a decision were announced now it would seriously tear apart NATO..."

This is obvious nonsense. Turkey was not threatened by the Soviet Union, it had no need for nuclear weapons on its soil. It was well under the US nuclear shield, with or without obsolete missiles the Americans were planning to remove in any case. NATO was never based on the unilateral right of American to place nuclear weapons aimed at the Soviets.

Of course, the Warsaw Pact would not be 'torn apart' by a much worse, public, deal for the Cubans (which was threatened by the US, and was not under the Soviet defence shield). Because America.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138175/james-a-nathan-and-graham-allison/the-cuban-missile-crisis-revisited?page=show

"If these were the lessons that Kennedy drew, then why did he keep his concession on the missiles in Turkey a secret? Too many students of foreign policy imagine countries as moving pieces on the chessboard of international politics alone. Rarely do they remember former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill's adage, "All politics is local." Applied to international affairs, O'Neill's maxim can serve as a reminder that U.S. presidents have to play three-dimensional chess. Every move on the horizontal board against an international adversary simultaneously moves a piece on the vertical board of domestic politics. While mistakes on the international chessboard can have major consequences for the world, blunders on the domestic chessboard can remove the leader in question from both games entirely. Kennedy kept the missile concession a secret, as many shrewd politicians would, to protect his seat at the domestic chessboard."

http://www.historytoday.com/john-swift/cuban-missile-crisis

"Kennedy certainly came out of the crisis with a reputation greatly enhanced in the west. Khrushchev, for his part, was deemed by his colleagues to have suffered a humiliation, and the crisis was one of the issues that led to his being deposed in October 1964."

You get a whole lot of votes if you manage to make the other guy 'suffer a national humiliation' don't you?

[Lt. Fred]

So let me give you a heads up Freddy boy.  I'm still wanting a citation that the only reason the Cuban Missile Crisis went down is because Kennedy wanted to humiliate the USSR.

Ironbite-other then an opinion you pulled straight out of your lower descending colon.

I asserted no such thing, nor would I. The crisis occurred because the US overreacted in response to action well within the normative bounds of established international behaviour, action that posed no threat the US and merely helped defend a far-flung Soviet ally stuck in the line of fire. That overreaction- an act of war- precipitated the crisis. Later Kennedy refused to accept any terms but humiliating ones for the USSR; he demanded they totally lose face, at the risk of global nuclear war.

[ironbite]

....if you can't remember what you posted, I'm done with you.

[Lt. Fred]

A flat out lie. Standard. Routine.

[davedan]

A flat out lie. Standard. Routine.

Hey Fred, can you stop with calling anything you disagree with a 'lie' . It is really unecessary and it detracts from anything relevant you might have to say.

[Lt. Fred]

It's not just 'something I disagree with'. This is a claim ironbite knows to be false. According to my dictionary, someone making a claim they know to be false is 'lying' and is called a 'liar'.

[davedan]

Hmm but now you are claiming to know Ironbite's mind and that he knows it to be false. What are the particulars of your knowledge of this?

Moreover I didn't notice anyone else calling you a 'liar' in relation to selectively quoting people or quoting people out of context. A situation where you admitted that the meaning was changed from the original intent. If they can restrain themselves from screaming 'Liar' at you, perhaps you can extend the same courtesy?

Really as I said it just tends to obscure good points that you may have had under what, at least in my opinion, appears to be hysterical rhetoric.

[ironbite]

...................................................................OH LOOK NOW I GET TO GO DIG THROUGH LT. FRED'S POST HISTORY TO FIND HIS CLAIM!  OH JOY FOR ME!

The Crisis was entirely the fault of Kennedy. If Kennedy had been willing to accept reasonable terms it would have been fairly trivial. It was his demand that the Soviets accept humiliation, even at risk of nuclear war, that really caused the crisis.

I take it you have a source for a claim that goes against the standard view of history?

Basically, Castro wanted nukes for use in self-defence. The Soviets covertly sent those nukes. Completely reasonable thing to do, utterly routine from the Americans who had (in turn) armed the UK, Italy, Turkey, and probably Japan- all well within range of the Soviet Union. In fact, Turkey has a land border with the Soviet Union; 'secret' US missiles in Turkey were a major factor in the crisis. The Turkish missiles were so out-of-date the Americans were going to remove them, though the Soviets couldn't know that.

The Soviets figured they could do exactly the same thing; seems fair. Nobody at the Kremlin even considered that the US could go crazy about a extra few rockets, since their ICBM and bomber fleets were within range of the mainland US anyway. So why did they do it? This is a matter of dispute, but in my view Krushchev was just honestly trying to provide an ally with the means to protect itself from a large aggressive neighbour. Certainly that's what he consistently claimed until the day he died. As Kissinger I think pointed out, the Cuban Missiles would be an ineffective tool for first strike purposes or in the defence of Russia due to the poor long-range communications of the time.

Of course, the Americans then escalated the situation by blockading Cuba- an act of war, whatever they called it. The Russians almost kill everyone after American destroyers start depth-charging them, only to back down. Then the Russians publicly offer a reasonable deal- remove your obsolete missiles from Turkey in return for the Cuban missiles being removed.

Kennedy desperately tries to find a way not to end the crisis. He doesn't want to reduce the risk to world peace, he wants to humiliate the Soviets. Ultimately, Kennedy mostly gets his way with the Soviets agreeing that they will publicly remove their missiles in return for a secret replacement of the obsolete American missiles with better ones.

Emphasis mine you piece of crap.

Ironbite-forever banished to the blagol and my iggy list.

[Lt. Fred]

Hmm but now you are claiming to know Ironbite's mind and that he knows it to be false. What are the particulars of your knowledge of this?

Fair enough.

Ironbite has made a claim either in full knowledge that it is false or recklessly, without regard to whether it is correct- despite having easy access to disproof. That's still lying.

Edit: this is now moot. Ironbite has clearly read the initial post.

Moreover I didn't notice anyone else calling you a 'liar' in relation to selectively quoting people or quoting people out of context. A situation where you admitted that the meaning was changed from the original intent. If they can restrain themselves from screaming 'Liar' at you, perhaps you can extend the same courtesy?

That was an error, not known to be false. M52 can be difficult to read, and I leaped on something I misread as outrageous (in fact it was off-topic). That is not the same thing as (now) openly claiming the sky is green.

...................................................................OH LOOK NOW I GET TO GO DIG THROUGH LT. FRED'S POST HISTORY TO FIND HIS CLAIM!  OH JOY FOR ME!

The Crisis was entirely the fault of Kennedy. If Kennedy had been willing to accept reasonable terms it would have been fairly trivial. It was his demand that the Soviets accept humiliation, even at risk of nuclear war, that really caused the crisis.

I take it you have a source for a claim that goes against the standard view of history?

Basically, Castro wanted nukes for use in self-defence. The Soviets covertly sent those nukes. Completely reasonable thing to do, utterly routine from the Americans who had (in turn) armed the UK, Italy, Turkey, and probably Japan- all well within range of the Soviet Union. In fact, Turkey has a land border with the Soviet Union; 'secret' US missiles in Turkey were a major factor in the crisis. The Turkish missiles were so out-of-date the Americans were going to remove them, though the Soviets couldn't know that.

The Soviets figured they could do exactly the same thing; seems fair. Nobody at the Kremlin even considered that the US could go crazy about a extra few rockets, since their ICBM and bomber fleets were within range of the mainland US anyway. So why did they do it? This is a matter of dispute, but in my view Krushchev was just honestly trying to provide an ally with the means to protect itself from a large aggressive neighbour. Certainly that's what he consistently claimed until the day he died. As Kissinger I think pointed out, the Cuban Missiles would be an ineffective tool for first strike purposes or in the defence of Russia due to the poor long-range communications of the time.

Of course, the Americans then escalated the situation by blockading Cuba- an act of war, whatever they called it. The Russians almost kill everyone after American destroyers start depth-charging them, only to back down. Then the Russians publicly offer a reasonable deal- remove your obsolete missiles from Turkey in return for the Cuban missiles being removed.

Kennedy desperately tries to find a way not to end the crisis. He doesn't want to reduce the risk to world peace, he wants to humiliate the Soviets. Ultimately, Kennedy mostly gets his way with the Soviets agreeing that they will publicly remove their missiles in return for a secret replacement of the obsolete American missiles with better ones.

Emphasis mine you piece of crap.

Ironbite-forever banished to the blagol and my iggy list.

Again, a flat out lie. Note the chronology. At no point did I suggest, as you said I did, that Kennedy deliberately set out to create a crisis in order to force the Soviets to humiliating terms- ie "the only reason the Cuban Missile Crisis went down is because Kennedy wanted to humiliate the USSR." The crisis happened largely by accident, with the Americans' overreaction the major causal factor. I said, as you've shown above, that the Americans later, at the end of the crisis, refused to accept any terms except humiliating ones, which is simply a matter of history.