5 ms·

Putting a missile in Cuba isn't a blockade either.. things can still move freely out of the US. What's the problem here? Why all the hysteria?

fnordpiglet 3y ago
There’s a difference between a missile and a nuclear missile. I would note that advanced nuclear submarines somewhat make the issue moot. You keep saying a single missile in your comments. I’m not sure if you’re mistaken or being hyperbolic. But the Soviet’s actually deployed 24 R-12 medium range missiles and 16 R-14 intermediate range missiles as well as a large number of long range bombers. At this time the soviets had several hundred nuclear warheads, so deploying 40 to Cuba was something like 10% of their entire nuclear arsenal. The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. This is not comparable to establishing defensive capability in nations surrounding a geopolitical rival who has been expansionist and nationalistic. The Soviet move established their desire to destroy us without provocation (after all first strike requires surprise), while establishing defensive positions is meant to stabilize a status quo.
- reisse 3y ago
  > The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. You know one of the reasons for Soviet missile deployment on Cuba was to counterbalance US missile deployment in Turkey, right? And that the resolution of Cuban missile crisis was basically "withdrawing US nukes from Turkey in exchange for withdrawing Soviet nukes from Cuba"? Was the US missile deployment in Turkey "desire to destroy us [Soviets] without provocation", by your own words?
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Yes and yes it was. I didn’t take sides did I?
- corethree 3y ago
  Right so weapons of war, air raids and bombs, the threat of death is not a big deal but if the US moved nukes to taiwan then China will go into hysteria? If there was a Chinese carrier off the coast of california (but no nuclear weapons) you're saying that's not a big deal? Of course it's a big deal. It's provocative either way. You're argument is like saying threatening someone with a knife to their throat is not as big of a deal as threatening someone with a gun to their throat. Btw, for the cuban missile crisis, the US already had weapons pointing at Russia from adjacent countries long before Russia made a move.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    I’m not sure any of your points counter any of what I said. The carriers near China are near China because Taiwan is near China, a carrier or even a carrier group isn’t an offensive posture against a nation, it’s too small a force. It’s provocative because there’s a provocative situation between Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, et al, and China all of whom are U.S. allies. However I don’t see any evidence the U.S. is preparing to attack China. On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
    - corethree 3y ago
      >I’m not sure any of your points counter any of what I said. The carriers near China are near China because Taiwan is near China, a carrier or even a carrier group isn’t an offensive posture against a nation, it’s too small a force. It’s provocative because there’s a provocative situation between Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, et al, and China all of whom are U.S. allies. However I don’t see any evidence the U.S. is preparing to attack China. What exactly are you saying then? Taiwan is not an official ally of the US. It's an unofficial relationship. Probably going to be made official soon because it's advantageous to the US. US is not preparing to attack China. The US just wants to keep Taiwan and TSMC out of China to slow down it's economic progress. Additionally the US wants to maintain military power in the pacific and Taiwan is a key strategic point here. China on the other hand sees Taiwan as a rogue state seceding from the Union. Similar to what the southern states tried to do during the US civil war. >On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan. No i disagree. The US reaction to it was obviously uncharacteristic. Other countries have to accept neighboring threats calmly when they have missiles at their door step but for the US it's unacceptable by their reaction to the missile crisis. I bring it up because it's hypocritical. Of course the US is self aware that what they're doing to other countries is a known physical threat. We know this by their own reaction to weapons on their doorstep during the cuban missile crisis.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

There’s a difference between a missile and a nuclear missile. I would note that advanced nuclear submarines somewhat make the issue moot. You keep saying a single missile in your comments. I’m not sure if you’re mistaken or being hyperbolic. But the Soviet’s actually deployed 24 R-12 medium range missiles and 16 R-14 intermediate range missiles as well as a large number of long range bombers. At this time the soviets had several hundred nuclear warheads, so deploying 40 to Cuba was something like 10% of their entire nuclear arsenal. The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. This is not comparable to establishing defensive capability in nations surrounding a geopolitical rival who has been expansionist and nationalistic. The Soviet move established their desire to destroy us without provocation (after all first strike requires surprise), while establishing defensive positions is meant to stabilize a status quo.

reisse 3y ago
> The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. You know one of the reasons for Soviet missile deployment on Cuba was to counterbalance US missile deployment in Turkey, right? And that the resolution of Cuban missile crisis was basically "withdrawing US nukes from Turkey in exchange for withdrawing Soviet nukes from Cuba"? Was the US missile deployment in Turkey "desire to destroy us [Soviets] without provocation", by your own words?
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Yes and yes it was. I didn’t take sides did I?
corethree 3y ago
Right so weapons of war, air raids and bombs, the threat of death is not a big deal but if the US moved nukes to taiwan then China will go into hysteria? If there was a Chinese carrier off the coast of california (but no nuclear weapons) you're saying that's not a big deal? Of course it's a big deal. It's provocative either way. You're argument is like saying threatening someone with a knife to their throat is not as big of a deal as threatening someone with a gun to their throat. Btw, for the cuban missile crisis, the US already had weapons pointing at Russia from adjacent countries long before Russia made a move.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I’m not sure any of your points counter any of what I said. The carriers near China are near China because Taiwan is near China, a carrier or even a carrier group isn’t an offensive posture against a nation, it’s too small a force. It’s provocative because there’s a provocative situation between Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, et al, and China all of whom are U.S. allies. However I don’t see any evidence the U.S. is preparing to attack China. On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
  - corethree 3y ago
    >I’m not sure any of your points counter any of what I said. The carriers near China are near China because Taiwan is near China, a carrier or even a carrier group isn’t an offensive posture against a nation, it’s too small a force. It’s provocative because there’s a provocative situation between Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, et al, and China all of whom are U.S. allies. However I don’t see any evidence the U.S. is preparing to attack China. What exactly are you saying then? Taiwan is not an official ally of the US. It's an unofficial relationship. Probably going to be made official soon because it's advantageous to the US. US is not preparing to attack China. The US just wants to keep Taiwan and TSMC out of China to slow down it's economic progress. Additionally the US wants to maintain military power in the pacific and Taiwan is a key strategic point here. China on the other hand sees Taiwan as a rogue state seceding from the Union. Similar to what the southern states tried to do during the US civil war. >On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan. No i disagree. The US reaction to it was obviously uncharacteristic. Other countries have to accept neighboring threats calmly when they have missiles at their door step but for the US it's unacceptable by their reaction to the missile crisis. I bring it up because it's hypocritical. Of course the US is self aware that what they're doing to other countries is a known physical threat. We know this by their own reaction to weapons on their doorstep during the cuban missile crisis.