4 ms·

How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the oth

How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the other hand Washington is further away from Cuba than Moscow from the site in Poland. Both capitals would be in range of the interceptors. I do not really know enough to judge whether Putin's statement that one could easily replace interceptors with offensive weapons is true or not but I do not really see why you could not do that. So would the US be okay with Russian interceptors in Cuba if they promised that it is only for defensiv purposes and can not be repurposed? Putin certainly is not the nice guy but I can to some extend unterstand that he might be rather unhappy with the actions of the USA and NATO more generally since the end of the Cold War. EDIT: This comment was meant to be as a response to [1] asking about a new Cold War. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16511248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16511248

s3nnyy 9y ago
> "How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba?" I think that was the trigger for the Cuba crises?
- djrogers 9y ago
  No, you’re mixing up missile defense and missile silo/launch site.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    While this is absolutely true in this case, one should not ignore the fact that an interceptor can be just as big a missile as an ICBM and they can even have nuclear warheads to blow up incoming missiles. There are of course really important differences, but those things are powerful weapons on their own and one should not think of a missile defense site as a harmless thing firing little rockets towards incoming reentry vehicles.
- danbruc 9y ago
  That were offensive weapons right from the start but that is of course why I picked Cuba together with the similar distances. It is only a bad example because I can not easily come up with a justification for Russia needing a missile defense site there that is as good or bad as NATO justifying the need with Iran and North Korea.
- user982 9y ago
  The Cuban Missile Crisis was directly precipitated by the US placing nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey and aiming them at Moscow.
horsecaptin 9y ago
Even though Cuba is further away from DC compared to Poland from Moscow, wealth is more spread out in the US. There are many wealthy and influential people that reside in Florida compared to say, the border of Russia with Poland.
IntronExon 9y ago
By the same token, if the Ukraine had been more paranoid about Russian intentions, they might not have been invaded by Russia yet again. It’s not just the US, Poland has no interest in becoming a Russian satellite again. We can try to equivocate, but after WWII Russia took over half of Europe, and the US didn’t. Would Russia have rebuilt Japan and let it go? The history of (East) Germany suggests an answer.
- danbruc 9y ago
  I will stay away from Ukraine as an example because I am unable to judge if and to what extend the West tried to influence the situation there and if Russia's actions where at least partially reactions.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    If only Russia had stayed away, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I’ll say this for the US, at least when they invade they admit it; thy royally fuck it up, but they admit it.
    - danbruc 9y ago
      Let me just add this for the records because you added to your initial comment while I replied, I am from East Germany and am surly happy that the Soviet Union fell apart. But I am also quite skeptical and a black and white picture of the good NATO and bad Russia seems rather unlikely. During the German reunification talks it was supposedly at least suggested that the NATO would not expand eastwards and the US has a long history of messing with unwelcome governments. I really do not want to justify Russian actions in the Ukraine in any way, but I do not feel confident to say that it was pure aggression from Russia. Also whether one should deny a NATO memberships to countries that might have legitimate interests in just because the Soviet Union was against it at the end of the Cold War and especially if it was never even part of any formal agreement is by no means a clear cut issue that I want to argue for or against here. I really just want to avoid judgments here because I certainly do not understand all the forces and motivations at work.
aerostable_slug 9y ago
If it were like the defensive site in Poland, there is no reason to become alarmed. Putting aside the declared capabilities of the interceptors (let us assume they are all-powerful and always achieve 100% effectiveness against any target), you have a simple N+1 problem. For N interceptors, simply launch N+1 ballistic missiles. Offensive ballistic missiles are relatively inexpensive and Russia has a large alert force. These ABM sites are not strategically destabilizing for this simple fact. They do not invite a first strike in the same way a fully operational SDI might have: there simply aren't enough interceptor missiles.
woodandsteel 9y ago
You're absolutely right. Russia should be absolutely terrified by the US abm sites because the US is planning on launching a massive nuclear missile attack that would totally destroy Russia.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  missing sarcasm tags
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    You're right, I should have included them. Poe's Law and all.
- danbruc 9y ago
  They should be as worried as the US that Russia is planning on launching a massive nuclear missile attack. Or Iran or North Korea.

s3nnyy 9y ago

> "How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba?" I think that was the trigger for the Cuba crises?

djrogers 9y ago
No, you’re mixing up missile defense and missile silo/launch site.
- danbruc 9y ago
  While this is absolutely true in this case, one should not ignore the fact that an interceptor can be just as big a missile as an ICBM and they can even have nuclear warheads to blow up incoming missiles. There are of course really important differences, but those things are powerful weapons on their own and one should not think of a missile defense site as a harmless thing firing little rockets towards incoming reentry vehicles.
danbruc 9y ago
That were offensive weapons right from the start but that is of course why I picked Cuba together with the similar distances. It is only a bad example because I can not easily come up with a justification for Russia needing a missile defense site there that is as good or bad as NATO justifying the need with Iran and North Korea.
user982 9y ago
The Cuban Missile Crisis was directly precipitated by the US placing nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey and aiming them at Moscow.

horsecaptin 9y ago

Even though Cuba is further away from DC compared to Poland from Moscow, wealth is more spread out in the US. There are many wealthy and influential people that reside in Florida compared to say, the border of Russia with Poland.

IntronExon 9y ago

By the same token, if the Ukraine had been more paranoid about Russian intentions, they might not have been invaded by Russia yet again. It’s not just the US, Poland has no interest in becoming a Russian satellite again. We can try to equivocate, but after WWII Russia took over half of Europe, and the US didn’t. Would Russia have rebuilt Japan and let it go? The history of (East) Germany suggests an answer.

danbruc 9y ago
I will stay away from Ukraine as an example because I am unable to judge if and to what extend the West tried to influence the situation there and if Russia's actions where at least partially reactions.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  If only Russia had stayed away, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I’ll say this for the US, at least when they invade they admit it; thy royally fuck it up, but they admit it.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    Let me just add this for the records because you added to your initial comment while I replied, I am from East Germany and am surly happy that the Soviet Union fell apart. But I am also quite skeptical and a black and white picture of the good NATO and bad Russia seems rather unlikely. During the German reunification talks it was supposedly at least suggested that the NATO would not expand eastwards and the US has a long history of messing with unwelcome governments. I really do not want to justify Russian actions in the Ukraine in any way, but I do not feel confident to say that it was pure aggression from Russia. Also whether one should deny a NATO memberships to countries that might have legitimate interests in just because the Soviet Union was against it at the end of the Cold War and especially if it was never even part of any formal agreement is by no means a clear cut issue that I want to argue for or against here. I really just want to avoid judgments here because I certainly do not understand all the forces and motivations at work.

aerostable_slug 9y ago

If it were like the defensive site in Poland, there is no reason to become alarmed. Putting aside the declared capabilities of the interceptors (let us assume they are all-powerful and always achieve 100% effectiveness against any target), you have a simple N+1 problem. For N interceptors, simply launch N+1 ballistic missiles. Offensive ballistic missiles are relatively inexpensive and Russia has a large alert force. These ABM sites are not strategically destabilizing for this simple fact. They do not invite a first strike in the same way a fully operational SDI might have: there simply aren't enough interceptor missiles.

woodandsteel 9y ago

You're absolutely right. Russia should be absolutely terrified by the US abm sites because the US is planning on launching a massive nuclear missile attack that would totally destroy Russia.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
missing sarcasm tags
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  You're right, I should have included them. Poe's Law and all.
danbruc 9y ago
They should be as worried as the US that Russia is planning on launching a massive nuclear missile attack. Or Iran or North Korea.