[eklipse]

Here's a Gedanken (thought experiment) for you:

What would have happened if the present day US administration (Bushey, Cheney, Rummy, Condi & Co.) were running the show circa October 1962? (i.e. at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis)

Would North America, Cuba, Russia and Berlin have become smoking radioactive craters? - or, would a relatively peaceful resolution have been sought and ultimately achieved?

[RooneyX]

The Cold War was a con, a game played by businessmen in the west and east. No conspiracy theory, just the ugly truth. The Kremlin had lots of financial investments in the west that banking institutions knew about. They still do. Lots of politicians made money from the arms trade during that whole period. Society was paranoid too and consumed more thinking they were going to die, so they might as well live the high life.

War, they think, is good for the economy. It spurs innovation in the technology sectors, sure, but people sacrifice their lives on the battlefield serving those who profit the most.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The Cold War was a con, a game played by businessmen in the west and east. No conspiracy theory, just the ugly truth. The Kremlin had lots of financial investments in the west that banking institutions knew about. They still do. Lots of politicians made money from the arms trade during that whole period. Society was paranoid too and consumed more thinking they were going to die, so they might as well live the high life.

War, they think, is good for the economy. It spurs innovation in the technology sectors, sure, but people sacrifice their lives on the battlefield serving those who profit the most.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The Cold War was a con, a game played by businessmen in the west and east. No conspiracy theory, just the ugly truth. The Kremlin had lots of financial investments in the west that banking institutions knew about. They still do. Lots of politicians made money from the arms trade during that whole period. Society was paranoid too and consumed more thinking they were going to die, so they might as well live the high life.

War, they think, is good for the economy. It spurs innovation in the technology sectors, sure, but people sacrifice their lives on the battlefield serving those who profit the most.

May I have some of what you're smoking, please?!

The very scenario you posit would be founded on conspiracy; yet you say there is no conspiracy theory!

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The Cold War was a con, a game played by businessmen in the west and east. No conspiracy theory, just the ugly truth. The Kremlin had lots of financial investments in the west that banking institutions knew about. They still do. Lots of politicians made money from the arms trade during that whole period. Society was paranoid too and consumed more thinking they were going to die, so they might as well live the high life.

War, they think, is good for the economy. It spurs innovation in the technology sectors, sure, but people sacrifice their lives on the battlefield serving those who profit the most.

Is all that smog in LA damaging your thought process?

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Is all that smog in LA damaging your thought process?

hahahah! I'm sucking in the polluted air from radioactive, reprocessed weapons-grade uranium and my neurons fire better than what the smog in LA does to you.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
hahahah! I'm sucking in the polluted air from radioactive, reprocessed weapons-grade uranium and my neurons fire better than what the smog in LA does to you.

Are you dissing Scwarzenegger?

[lil'babykitten]

It's hard to imagine that a peaceful solution would have come about had the current administration been there at the time. Not with this doctrine of 'pre-emptive action'.

On a side note, how about the last few posters contribute to the topic. Just a thought.

[theolein]

It's an interesting, if somewhat flamebaited, post.

The missile crisis came damn close to getting the world involved in a nuclear war. Although there are certainly people in the US administration who were in some sort of office back then, I don't think that one could draw the simple conclusion that you are aiming for, if I read your post (between the lines i.e. that Bush and Co. would have started a nuclear war) correctly.

I don't think that the Bush administration would have been more warlike then if they had known then what the Kennedy administration knew. I must remind you that the Bush administration hasn't yet launched a full scale attack on North Korea, for the simple fact that they think that North Korea has nuclear weapons, which would be used in time of war.

Cuba was a lot closer to the US, and therefore generated much more fear of a nuclear attack, and I don't think that there is any doubt that kruschev was doing his best to play a game of high risk nuclear poker. Kruschev was deposed by the Politburo after the crisis was over because they realised just how close he had come to war with his taunting of the US. The Soviet Union was way behind the US in terms of ICBMs (Intercontinental) back then (They had just 4 working rockets) which was why Kruschev wanted those Cuban IRBMs (Intermediate range) in the first place.

The fact is known that the US military wanted to attack Cuba to stop the rockets being deployed, but it was only discovered around 1992 that there were around 80 short range Frog missiles with nuclear warheads that had already been deployed in Cuba and would almost certainly have been used to stop an invasion. The invasion would have been a catastrophic failure.

At the time the US was unaware of the Soviet deficit in ICBMs and the US would probably have "won" a nuclear exchange with the Soviets back then, but probably it would have meant major devastation and radioactive pollution in most of Russia and Europe (anyone remember Chernobyl?) and some Soviet bombers and missiles would almost certainly have gotten through to the US with the result that quite a few cities would have been destroyed.

In short the US Military and Kruschev were both wrong.

Given Rumsfeld's affinity for the military, I could imagine him pushing for an invasion of Cuba along with the military, but I doubt that Bush would have gone along with that when one looks at how he reacts to potentially real threats such as North Korea and with the assumed knowledge then that an invasion would have led to nuclear war with the Soviet Union and the resulting almost certain destruction of at least some US cities.

So, in summary, It might have gone differently, but I doubt it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It's hard to imagine that a peaceful solution would have come about had the current administration been there at the time. Not with this doctrine of 'pre-emptive action'.

Kennedy did take preemptive action. He stood our troops and millions of our nation's citizens directly in the line of nuclear fire. Kennedy made it known many times that the US would use nuclear weapons to stand down the enemy.

I feel that with both national crises - both Kennedy's nuclear brink with the USSR, and the US's situation with the War on Terror - were ultimately inevitable. This is mostly due to all the events that preceded their terms.

With Bush, he was handed a situation that could have been prevented. I think the Clinton administration turned a blind eye to a gathering and growing threat. High profile, large-scale attacks on civilians on US soil were gong to happen. The unchecked development and organization of worldwide terror groups - capable and willing to carry out mass slaughterings on short notice - should never have happened.

Clinton should have used preemptive action to reduce the threat.

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Kennedy did take preemptive action. He stood our troops and millions of our nation's citizens directly in the line of nuclear fire. Kennedy made it known many times that the US would use nuclear weapons to stand down the enemy.

I feel that with both national crises - both Kennedy's nuclear brink with the USSR, and the US's situation with the War on Terror - were ultimately inevitable. This is mostly due to all the events that preceded their terms.

With Bush, he was handed a situation that could have been prevented. I think the Clinton administration turned a blind eye to a gathering and growing threat. High profile, large-scale attacks on civilians on US soil were gong to happen. The unchecked development and organization of worldwide terror groups - capable and willing to carry out mass slaughterings on short notice - should never have happened.

Clinton should have used preemptive action to reduce the threat.

I should point out that you attempting to place most of the blame for the current crisis on Clinton is perhaps as one sided as Eklipse's attempt to paint Bush as the cause of all wars.

While Clinton certainly ignored many opportunities to contain Al Qaida, He also seriously attempted to bring a lasting peace to Israel and Palestine. And while Bush may have become a true proponent of pre-emptive military action, he started out his presidency as someone who was more of an isolationist with a promise to reduce US troop involvement overseas. He was also just as inactive as Clinton was as regards Al Qaida up until the 11 September attacks.

I think almost everyone underestimated the danger of Al Qaida until it was too late. But isn't life so often like that, that one doesn't change anything until events force us to?

[eklipse]

The missile crisis came damn close to getting the world involved in a nuclear war. Although there are certainly people in the US administration who were in some sort of office back then, I don't think that one could draw the simple conclusion that you are aiming for, if I read your post (between the lines i.e. that Bush and Co. would have started a nuclear war) correctly.

I don't think there is a simple conclusion to be drawn. We don't know for sure how a military engagement would have played out and we probably still don't know about all the factors that went into decisions that were made at the time. My post was framed as a question - there was nothing between the lines to read.

I expected, if a debate was to ensue, there would be those who would view what Kennedy did as a sign of weakness and that a crushing military solution would have been better; those who believe Bush would have plunged the planet into a nuclear winter; those who perhaps believe that different men are better suited to different situations (i.e. they approve of Bush's actions now, but feel that a less heavy-handed response was what was required to resolve the Cuban crisis); and those with completely different views entirely.

I must admit I didn't foresee the 'cold-war-never-really-happened' and Arnold Schwarzenegger tangents though.

I deliberately avoided including my own opinion in the first post to avoid skewing the argument.

So, in summary, It might have gone differently, but I doubt it.

I was actually thinking along similar lines. The problem with Bush at the moment is that he has no known natural predators in the wild - meaning that to a certain extent, he is free to do whatever he can push through Congress. There are no international checks or balances on his use of force.

This was not the case in 1962. If Bush and Co. had been at the reins back then, I doubt even they would have gone through with an invasion or first strike plan - there would just be too much at stake.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by eklipse:
There are no international checks or balances on his use of force.

There are no 'international' checks and balances on any powerful nation's use of force. Perfect example: France operates at will in Africa and with disregard for the UN or international sentiment.

[theolein]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
There are no 'international' checks and balances on any powerful nation's use of force. Perfect example: France operates at will in Africa and with disregard for the UN or international sentiment.

No, this is actually wrong completely, even if you only meant it as flame bait. Do a google check for any actions in recent years in which France has undertaken actions that have been opposed by anyone apart from yourself.

I know that replying to you is probably a waste of time, since all you seem to intersperse your free time from school with your strange Al Qaida personality thing and hating and wishing death on everyone who doesn't see things from the same somewhat nazi-esque point of view as you do. I won't waste my time speculating as to why you do it either, but I will point out that during the years of nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany, there were people who were known as Jew-baiters. You wouldn't have lacked employment there, I think.

[christ]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
...High profile, large-scale attacks on civilians on US soil were gong to happen...

This shows someone with 20-20 hindsight. Before the twin towers I doubt that one in a thousand Americans would have thought this to be true, maybe not even one in ten thousand.

It seems somewhat partisan, but not uncharactersitic, of you to note that Clinton should have seen it coming, or that he could have somehow prevented it.

I personally doubt that any American President could have effectively prevented the twin towers atrocity.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by theolein:
No, this is actually wrong completely, even if you only meant it as flame bait. Do a google check for any actions in recent years in which France has undertaken actions that have been opposed by anyone apart from yourself.

You totally missed the point. Powerful nations do what they want militarily. There are no international checks and balances on their actions, because in the end, they--France, Britain, US, and Russia--will take actions they deem necessary, and no amount of UN disapproval or simple lack of UN endorsement will prevent or counter their military actions.

I know that replying to you is probably a waste of time, since all you seem to intersperse your free time from school with your strange Al Qaida personality thing and hating and wishing death on everyone who doesn't see things from the same somewhat nazi-esque point of view as you do. I won't waste my time speculating as to why you do it either, but I will point out that during the years of nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany, there were people who were known as Jew-baiters. You wouldn't have lacked employment there, I think.

very nice how you strike out with the personal insults again and comparing me to some Nazi or Nazi sympathiser. That's like tossing the racism word around. Tactics that, coming from you, are not surprising.

Nothing new cooking in your kitchen.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by christ:
It seems somewhat partisan, but not uncharactersitic, of you to note that Clinton should have seen it coming, or that he could have somehow prevented it.

That's his job - to guage and reduce threats to the US. I'd bitch about any US president who slashed intelligence and defense budgets to the extent that Clinton did. My dissatisfaction with Clinton is not based on his political affiliation, but rather due to his dismantling of our intelligence community. For 8 years, he witnessed bombings at the WTC, attaclks on the USS Cole, embassy bombings, and continued to turn a blind eye to this growing threat.

[The Ayatollah]

yes, very much so. He even allowed that insane rule that prohibitted the intel spooks from paying terrorists and criminals who were inside, knew about, worked with, or had ties to terrorist and criminal organisations. It gutted human intelligence gathering.

[finboy]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The Cold War was a con, a game played by businessmen in the west and east.

Oh my God -- the deterioration of the school system is complete!

No, my friend, it wasn't a con. Please come back when you've come around to reality, instead of historical revisionism.

[teszeract]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
The Cold War was a con, a game played by businessmen in the west and east. No conspiracy theory, just the ugly truth. The Kremlin had lots of financial investments in the west that banking institutions knew about. They still do. Lots of politicians made money from the arms trade during that whole period. Society was paranoid too and consumed more thinking they were going to die, so they might as well live the high life.

War, they think, is good for the economy. It spurs innovation in the technology sectors, sure, but people sacrifice their lives on the battlefield serving those who profit the most.

... and has something changed? Businessmen stopped infuencing those in "power" nowadays? I watched JFK (the movie last night for the first time) and while I am not passing opinion on its veracity or even probablity conspiracy-wise, what is likely is that JFK was hated for his desire not to go to war.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
You totally missed the point. Powerful nations do what they want militarily. There are no international checks and balances on their actions, because in the end, they--France, Britain, US, and Russia--will take actions they deem necessary, and no amount of UN disapproval or simple lack of UN endorsement will prevent or counter their military actions. very nice how you strike out with the personal insults again and comparing me to some Nazi or Nazi sympathiser. That's like tossing the racism word around. Tactics that, coming from you, are not surprising.

I think you perhaps missed my point. There are no international checks and balances in effect at the moment, because there are no other 'powerful' nations - at least not on the same scale as America.

This is precisely why there are no checks on the use of force.