Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM to the Troomps
Comments
-
You all are fags having a thread about Cuba and no Daisy Fuentes.
-
PurpleThrobber said:
You all are fags having a thread about Cuba and no Papi Lebatard.
-
Why do you hate Monica?PurpleThrobber said:You all are fags having a thread about Cuba and no Daisy Fuentes.
-
YellowSnow said:
Why do you hate Monica?PurpleThrobber said:You all are fags having a thread about Cuba and no Daisy Fuentes.
I prefer my Cohibas STD-free.
-
We had a 17:1 advantage overall in nuclear yield (and what most at the time would have described as first-strike capability), and we had local conventional superiority in the Caribbean. Kennedy had the luxury of doing anything he liked, and he decided to paint Krushchev into a corner immediately, giving him no honorable way out. People like to say that Krushchev thought that Kennedy was weak, since he spoke firmly to him in Vienna in 1961, but Sov accounts maintain that Krushchev was very impressed with Kennedy and knew he was a strong leader who couldn't be bullied. Kennedy took the Cuban missiles personally, and he made an impulsive and dangerous response. Krushchev's only "crime" was in telling Kennedy during the summer that he wouldn't put missiles in Cuba, then doing it in the fall.YellowSnow said:
I'm skeptical of the idea that Kennedy's first option should have to been to reach out to Khrushchev to pursue a diplomatic before announcing the blockade. I don't see how this would have caused the Soviets to change course in time. But I'm open to changing my position based on further evidence. I don't know Cienfuegos as well, but seems like there was more time for diplomacy on that one. I am somewhat of a closet Nixon sympathizer so yay.BearsWiin said:
Hint: Kennedy didn't have to respond the way he did. Love how he's lauded for ExComm and collegial model of decisionmaking, but then he tells them not to discuss a diplomatic response, so his initial response ends up needlessly backing Krushchev into a corner. Then, later, he completely end-runs them and makes a deal through Bobby/Dobrynin that ends with a poorly-worded agreement that State hated for not being able to vet at the time, and which led us eight years later to Cienfuegos (which shows the value of making a diplomatic response (yeay Nixon), even though by then the Sovs had achieved nominal parity). But yeah, it's all the Sovs' fault for wanting to redress the strategic imbalance by using allies. Sad!YellowSnow said:
And yet, no other strategic move during the Cold War took us quite the brink like that one. Quick disclaimer: I still need to read up on the 1980's and stuff like Perhsing II's in Germany (that book's on my list). Cold war arms race was a chicken/egg thing in my view. Do you think without our building up our post 1949 nuclear deterrence we would have kept the Soviets out of Western Europe? Would the USSR still have tried to build the H Bomb if we had held off and taken the advice a Cal physics prof?BearsWiin said:
Maybe for similar reasons that we ringed the USSR with nuclear bombers and Titan missiles to deter a Soviet invasion?YellowSnow said:
Seeking Soviet aid post Bay of Pigs was a logical move to preserve their regime. But how did Castro think we were going to respond? Did he envision that US intelligence wouldn't figure out what was going on and that we would just let them finish up the deployment of the missiles? Yes, after the fact Cuba got the guarantee of no US invasion (and Soviets got the our? missiles out of Turkey) so the gamble worked in hindsight, but it was hardly a forgone conclusion that the crisis could be resolved without WWIII. It was that recklessness that to me was "unforgiveable". Why couldn't a bunch of conventional Soviet military aid been enough to deter a US invasion?BearsWiin said:
Why?YellowSnow said:
Always have had mixed feelings on the subject. Bay of Pigs or not, Castro letting Khrushchev bring in nukes was an unforgivable offense. That crazy former Giants prospect almost got us? (who were alive at the time) killed. But at the same time, the embargo never really worked and made an convenient excuse for why their standard of living sucked. Furthermore, in spite of there being a large number of Vietnamese and Chinese Americans living on the left coast, an embargo of China or Vietnam in perpetuity wouldn't get one more EC votes.RaceBannon said:I don't have much of an issue with keeping the pressure on until the last of the thugs are out of there
So why did the Sov's get to piss and moan about strategic imbalance in nukes, whilst maintain massive conventional superiority in Europe?
Not going to touch your last querey, since at best it seems a silly rhetorical. -
BearsWiin said:
We had a 17:1 advantage overall in nuclear yield (and what most at the time would have described as first-strike capability), and we had local conventional superiority in the Caribbean. Kennedy had the luxury of doing anything he liked, and he decided to paint Krushchev into a corner immediately, giving him no honorable way out. People like to say that Krushchev thought that Kennedy was weak, since he spoke firmly to him in Vienna in 1961, but Sov accounts maintain that Krushchev was very impressed with Kennedy and knew he was a strong leader who couldn't be bullied. Kennedy took the Cuban missiles personally, and he made an impulsive and dangerous response. Krushchev's only "crime" was in telling Kennedy during the summer that he wouldn't put missiles in Cuba, then doing it in the fall.YellowSnow said:
I'm skeptical of the idea that Kennedy's first option should have to been to reach out to Khrushchev to pursue a diplomatic before announcing the blockade. I don't see how this would have caused the Soviets to change course in time. But I'm open to changing my position based on further evidence. I don't know Cienfuegos as well, but seems like there was more time for diplomacy on that one. I am somewhat of a closet Nixon sympathizer so yay.BearsWiin said:
Hint: Kennedy didn't have to respond the way he did. Love how he's lauded for ExComm and collegial model of decisionmaking, but then he tells them not to discuss a diplomatic response, so his initial response ends up needlessly backing Krushchev into a corner. Then, later, he completely end-runs them and makes a deal through Bobby/Dobrynin that ends with a poorly-worded agreement that State hated for not being able to vet at the time, and which led us eight years later to Cienfuegos (which shows the value of making a diplomatic response (yeay Nixon), even though by then the Sovs had achieved nominal parity). But yeah, it's all the Sovs' fault for wanting to redress the strategic imbalance by using allies. Sad!YellowSnow said:
And yet, no other strategic move during the Cold War took us quite the brink like that one. Quick disclaimer: I still need to read up on the 1980's and stuff like Perhsing II's in Germany (that book's on my list). Cold war arms race was a chicken/egg thing in my view. Do you think without our building up our post 1949 nuclear deterrence we would have kept the Soviets out of Western Europe? Would the USSR still have tried to build the H Bomb if we had held off and taken the advice a Cal physics prof?BearsWiin said:
Maybe for similar reasons that we ringed the USSR with nuclear bombers and Titan missiles to deter a Soviet invasion?YellowSnow said:
Seeking Soviet aid post Bay of Pigs was a logical move to preserve their regime. But how did Castro think we were going to respond? Did he envision that US intelligence wouldn't figure out what was going on and that we would just let them finish up the deployment of the missiles? Yes, after the fact Cuba got the guarantee of no US invasion (and Soviets got the our? missiles out of Turkey) so the gamble worked in hindsight, but it was hardly a forgone conclusion that the crisis could be resolved without WWIII. It was that recklessness that to me was "unforgiveable". Why couldn't a bunch of conventional Soviet military aid been enough to deter a US invasion?BearsWiin said:
Why?YellowSnow said:
Always have had mixed feelings on the subject. Bay of Pigs or not, Castro letting Khrushchev bring in nukes was an unforgivable offense. That crazy former Giants prospect almost got us? (who were alive at the time) killed. But at the same time, the embargo never really worked and made an convenient excuse for why their standard of living sucked. Furthermore, in spite of there being a large number of Vietnamese and Chinese Americans living on the left coast, an embargo of China or Vietnam in perpetuity wouldn't get one more EC votes.RaceBannon said:I don't have much of an issue with keeping the pressure on until the last of the thugs are out of there
So why did the Sov's get to piss and moan about strategic imbalance in nukes, whilst maintain massive conventional superiority in Europe?
Not going to touch your last querey, since at best it seems a silly rhetorical.
Winners win. -
YellowSnow said:
Why do you hate Monica?PurpleThrobber said:You all are fags having a thread about Cuba and no Daisy Fuentes.
-
RaceBannon said:
I don't have much of an issue with keeping the pressure on until the last of the thugs are out of there
RaceBannon said:I don't have much of an issue with keeping the pressure on until the last of the thugs are out of there
-
Naval blockade worked once let's do it again!
-
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-u-s-navy-is-screwed-1795662679Sledog said:Naval blockade worked once let's do it again!
