What's this about Norm Retiring.

Page 4 of 6  
Gary writes:

And Nikita's shoe-banging, of course, was the Democrat's fault. Blame it on JFK.

Ah, yes. The liberal press. You neocons dislike the press so much, I'm surprised you'll even quote from anything but Fox and Limbaugh.
Thirteen whole days, while Krushchev really had no intention of invading, and Kennedy was reasonably sure of that. He had no real choice, anyway, but to call the bluff.
Amazing. Newspaper warnings of impending annihilation and that's you're grounds for saying we were nearer annihilation at that point than at any other? Maybe so, in your opinion and in the opinion of some newspapers. Historically, one has to wonder.
Charlie Self "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

FWIW, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (whose staff has a remarkable paucity of atomic scientists by the way) set the Doomsday Clock back to 12 minutes to midnight in 1963, from the 7 that it had been earlier. The farthest it has ever been from midnight is seventeen minutes to midnight in 1991, and the closest two in 1953. If those professional Chicken Littles thought that things improved in 1963 then there's little support for the contention that there was "'that's when we're about as close to face annihilation as anytime in the history of this country".

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in
invading,
in
Ah yes, in 1963 it was moved back to 12 minutes to midnight. But immediately prior to that it had been 7 minutes to midnight ever since 1960 (3 years) and 2 minutes to midnight from 1953 to 1960. 1953 | Two minutes to midnight The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within nine months of one another. 1960 | Seven minutes to midnight The clock moves in response to the growing public understanding that nuclear weapons made war between the major powers irrational. International scientific cooperation and efforts to aid poor nations are cited. 1963 | Twelve minutes to midnight The U.S. and Soviet signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty "provides the first tangible confirmation of what has been the Bulletin's conviction in recent years-that a new cohesive force has entered the interplay of forces shaping the fate of mankind."
http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html
One thing I do know, I as 13 year old in October 1962, was scared shitless thinking the world was coming to an end any day. So were a heck of a lot of other Americans.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary wrote:

Three (Bronx) cheers for the Press. Anything to stir up a crisis and sell newspapers. My Dad was in command of a naval base in Florida at the time, and he wasn't particularly worried. Simple fact is that Kruschev was just finding out how much he could get away with and nobody who had a clue what was going on thought that he was going to start a nuclear war over it.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

I have a feeling that your father was a vert disciplined militarty man and didn't let you in on how tense things were "at work". During that almost two week period there were U-2 planes taking off and landing at Albrook Air Force Base in the Canal Zone (Panama Canal that is) - several times a day. I know because they came over Balboa High School at less than 300 feet and even closer if you were at the football/baseball practice field near the end of the runway. Quarry Heights, the HQ of USARCARIB, had more general per square yard than the Pentagon and I went to school with several of their sons and daughters. THEY were "concerned", and not because any yellow journalism was "stirring things up" - the english radio and TV were controlled by the US government - AFRTS - Armed Forces Radio and Television Service.
Living within a mile of what was surely a primary target for nuclear missiles made the tension of those days palpable.
That's my perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There have been several documentaries done recently (in the last 2-3 years) that interviewed high ranking officials in both the Kennedy AND Kruschev administrations as well as high ranking military men from both sides directly involved in the crisis. They all described how frighteningly close we came to a large "nuclear exchange" and how easily it could have gone that way. It wasn't media hype - we in fact nearly went MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - the ultimate national security policy that both sides believed in.
charlie b
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:39:52 -0700, charlie b wrote:

Thank you, Charlie, for stating what I remember and countering the revisionists around here.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
charlie b wrote:

Hardly. He was mainly pissed off that Kennedy had let Kruschev get that far.

So? U-2s were taking off and landing on Okinawa regularly during much of the Vietnam war, SR-71s as well once Johnson admitted that they existed. Does that mean that Vietnam was about to launch a nuclear attack? Monitoring a developing situation does not mean that nuclear war is imminent.

Was Kruschev going to give the order? No. He says himself that he was just pushing to see how far he could get and that he was quite surprised at how much he got away with. He wasn't expecting to be allowed to keep missiles in Cuba, but what they hey, might get away with it so worth a shot. Was Kennedy going to give the order? I don't think he was that crazy. So how did we come close to a large nuclear exchange? Was Castro going to push the button? Kruschev didn't give him one. Was somebody else going to do it? Not in Russia--_they_ shoot people without trial for that sort of thing. And in the US if the President is alive then nobody else is authorized to give the order.
Think about it, what would it gain Kruschev to launch a nuclear attack on the US? He had no way to follow it up. All he'd do is reduce the Soviet Union to rubble that the Finns could then take over at their leisure, assuming they wanted it and the United States to the same that Canada or Mexico could take over at their leisure if they wanted it.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:
snip

You seem to be under the assumption that there was literally only one "button" on each side and that only Kennedy and/or Kruschev could push it. In fact, every nuclear sub commander, every SAC B-52 pilot with nuclear bombs, every pair of guys in nuclear ICBMs silos had the ability to start the ball rolling - towards major devistation. Both sides had military officers who wanted to annihilate the other side once and for all and have their nation fulfill it's destiny as they saw it. Some felt that such decisions should not be in the hands of civilians, especially politicians. There were also very influential civilians who were what later were called Hawks who were itching to wipe out the other side and were convinced it could be done with "acceptable levels of casualties".
There is a balancing act for the military - train and arm your personnel to destroy the enemy any where at any time AND give them the discipline to stand down OR start WW III when ordered to. A warrior can not stay ready for imminent battle for very long - he'll either implode or explode. During the Cuban Missile Crisis both militaries where cranked up even higher than normal for battle - and an all out war at that.
Now add the weak link in the command and control equation - communication. We didn't always have cell phones and satelite communications and even today, we have no way to communicate with deeply submerged submarines - each with enough nuclead "devices" to devastate major portions of the planet's land masses. There was no CNN, no live coverage, no 24 hour news, no see and disseminate, no "inbeds". It took time to develop film, miles of it, analyze the pictures, not digital images, no digital image analysis software/hardware, and type up, not word process, a report, with carbon copies (the cc in a memo), and fly the report to the White House. It could be 8 to 10 hours from "incident" to "decision makers" and then it took time to get the orders out. In 10 -12 hours a lot could have happened.
So you've got a destroyer captain confronting a submarine escort of ships carrying ICBMS to Cuba and each captain knows that the best defense is offense and knows that his opponent has the same view. Neither would hesitate to give their lives and the lives of their men to protect their homeland yet niether would willingly allow their enemy to destroy them without a fight. They've trained most of their adult lives for this moment of engagement.
Thankfully they stood down. But it could easily have gone the other way.

Get the context - Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the U.S. a moral dilema It ended The War but we'd let the genie out of the bottle. Then the Korean "Police Action" and the "truce" - seen by others as indicating our unwillingness to use nuclear weapons, even when faced with "losing face" in a part of the world where "losing face" was unthinkable..
Now add to that, Joe McCarthy and the devastation he did to the State Department. Men who knew "the other side" better than anyone on "our side" were suspect because of their connections with "the other side" - a necessity of their profession. Hell, by the time we got into Viet Nam, we didn't have anyone who knew much about the area or the country. Had experienced hands been available and listened to we surely would not have installed a Catholic to lead a Buddhist country -or more accurately, the southern portion of a country. For that matter, we might not have backed Chiang Kai Chek (sp?) either despite opposition from US military advisors who'd worked with Mao during WW II and knew Chiang was no "general" and certainly no warrior. How we could continually shoot ourselves in the foot and still be able to step in shit over and over again is a mystery to me.
So when the Cuban Missile Crisis came up the Soviet Union had reason to believe that if they could hit us first and hit us hard we'd fold. Unlike the Soviets, we'd not lived through repeated invasions over hundreds of years. Hell, the last major conflict on our shores was nearly a hundred years gone by. We'd never lost 20 MILLION of our citizens - just in the most recent war.
It amazes me that WW III didn't start off of Cuba.

Do you have any idea of the size of the nuclear arsenals on both sides at the time? Do you have any idea of the devastation - for hundreds and hundreds of years - world wide - that a full nuclear exchange would have caused? There wouldn't have been any Finns or Canadians or Mexicans to take over anything - for a long, long, long, long time. Forget the radiation - think BIG - nuclear winter - probable Ice Age.
You clearly do not understand the magnitude of what almost happened, the consequences or how close we came to the unthinkable.
Oppenheimer understood better than anyone what nuclear weapons meant. On the first successful detonation of a thermonuclear device his reaction was to quote the Bahgvaghita (s?) "I am Shiva, the Come Death, Destroyer of Worlds.".
Those who do not learn from history are condemed to relive it., perhaps with a much less desirable outcome. I personally have no desire to live through anything like the Cuban Missile Crisis again.
charlie b
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
charlie b wrote:

In point of fact three officers have to agree to launch.
And there is in fact no "button". What there is is a briefcase full of codes.

One B-52 is unlikely to get very far into Soviet airspace. Especially when if he goes every other B-52 in his squadron is going to be doing their damndest to stop him or bring him down.

Are you _sure_ that the two guys can launch without an authorization? Seems to me that there's also a code involved.

Which is why a system was put in place so that such people could not launch an attack.
Now, what does any of this have to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis? If there is a risk that some nutcase in the military is going to go bugfuck and starting a nuclear war, the risk is not dependent on there being a "missile crisis" but on their being a nutcase. Such a person is liable to go off for any reason or for no reason at any time. And there are still Hawks who want to nuke everybody in sight. So what? "Influential civilians" do not have the authority to order a nuclear attack.

There is only one kind of nuclear war. "all out".

So what? The US had no trouble communicating with its forces during WWII. What changed between then and 1962 to remove that capability? You don't need satellites and cell phones to communicate. Shortwave worked fine for a long time. There were also moonbounce, tropo scatter, and all kinds of other methods.

You mean that somebody dug up the ELF antennas while I wasn't looking? Dang, take your eye off 'em for one minute . . .

So what? If you can't send the order then they don't fire. This is a problem how? Or are you concerned that without getting orders ever five minutes a submarine crew will just out of sheer boredom decide for the Hell of it to launch a nuclear strike?

So what?

So what?

If the destroyer is _confronting_ a submarine then I fail to see how CNN, live coverage, 24 hour news, "see and disseminate", "inbeds" (that's actually "embeddeds" by the way), digital images, ditgital image analysis, etc have any relevance. They guy on the destroyer can _see_ the effing thing or has sonar contact with it. None of that stuff that you mention is going to show a submerged submarine.

So what?

Thankfully? Just how incompetent do you think our military officers to be? The commander of that destroyer wasn't _about_ to fire on the Soviet Navy without an order to do so. The _danger_ there was not that he'd do something irresponsible but that some event would occur that led him to believe that the Russian had fired on him and that he had to shoot back to defend his ship.
The _real_ concern though was that if the Soviets didn't back down then he _would_ have to be ordered to fire on them and nobody knew where that would go.

Only if somebody had ordered it to.

Trinity let the genie out of the bottle.

So?
The State Department does not control nuclear weapons, so what do they have to do with anything except to the extent that they might screw up badly enough that military action was the only option?

Chiang Kai-Shek--my mother had a lovely cloth-of-gold coat that was a gift from Chiang. That was before my time though--I never met him myself.

Can't really comment on the China situation other than to say that that was more of the "anti-communism" crap--instead of worring about "isms" they should have been worrying about what the particular movements were really all about. With Vietnam the real blown opportunity was when Ho came to the US asking for aid and got none. That's another mess the bloody French got us into.

The major concern about the missiles in Cuba was that the flight time was short enough that they could take out the US chain of command before the launch order could be given. If it was just a matter of "hit us hard and we'd fold" they didn't need to put missiles in Cuba.
Regardless, the cost of guessing wrong in that kind of endeavor is such that nobody in his right mind would take the risk.
In any case, the belief they could hit us first and hit us hard we'd fold appears to have been a figment of the imaginations of advocates of the use of nuclear weapons in Korea. Do you know of any credible testimony from anybody in a position of authority in the Soviet military or governent that would support that viewpoint? Kruschev says over and over again that the Russians did not want war.

So what? You think that the Russians _wanted_ to lose another 20 million plus all their military forces plus all their industrial capacity plus have the whole place turned into a radioactive wasteland? Just how stupid do you believe the Russians are? If you're this afraid what makes you think that they aren't?

Then you're far too easily amazed.

Do you? Or do you just have worst-case guesses? This is something that nobody is going to _know_ until it actually happens. And perhaps it might occur to you that Kruschev and Kennedy both had a hell of a lot more information in that regard than you do, and were as much aware of the risks.

And why is that? Fallout? Fallout doesn't fall everywhere uniformly, it falls downwind of the explosion. Do the prevailing winds go from Finland to Russia or from Russia to Finland? Do they go from the US to Mexico or Mexico to the US?

Uh huh. You mean like the ice age that Saddam lighting the oil fields caused? Remember, the same model that predicted "nuclear winter" from a nuclear exchange also predicted that that would bring about "nuclear winter". It didn't. Maybe it would with a real nuclear exchange, maybe it wouldn't. Nobody knows for sure, however current thinking is that to end the current interglacial (we're _in_ an Ice Age--right now we're just experiencing a warm spell, and we're due for the next glaciation unless the whole thing is winding down and going back to the "endless summer" that is the normal state of the planet) would require a shift in ocean currents in the North Atlantic and "nuclear winter" doesn't have a mechanism to cause this.

I probably understand it better than you do. As to "how close we came to the unthinkable", if it was "unthinkable" then nobody would think to do it, so cut the hyperbole.

Nope, that was the first succesful detonation of a nuclear device. Thermonuclear came later and was Teller's baby. And what he actually said was "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds".

I have no desire to live through the entire Cold War again, but if there is a history lesson there is it not that no nation of superpower status is going to be stupid enough to start a nuclear war.
I'm going to leave you with this:
"Cuba was 11,000 kilometers from the Soviet Union. Our sea and air communications with Cuba were so precarious that an attack against the US was unthinkable." Not my words. Kruschev himself said that.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
to: J. Clarke from: charlie b subject: We got a lot closer than you think - with references
I'm probably spiitting in the wind but here goes... Below are some references which you might find worth looking into further. Please note the first paragraph of the Svetlana Sarvanskaya's "second point" and the following paragraphs that support the statement.
The following excerpt from http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/forum_cmc_021006.html
CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE James Blight, Philip Brenner, Julia Sweig, Svetlana Savranskaya, Graham Allison as moderator
John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation
October 6, 2003
SVETLANA SAVRANSKAYA My second point, how dangerous was the crisis? I think we will return to this question again and again and again. And more and more documents are being declassified, and coming out now. The public has access to, in the Soviet Union, in Cuba. And based on the reading of the newer declassified documents, I can say that it was even more dangerous than we thought. Even more dangerous than we thought a couple of years ago.
What about the tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba? The United States, at the time, did not realize that the Soviet Union actually deployed nuclear-capable bombers, cruise missiles, and short-range launchers that could carry nuclear warheads and nuclear warheads in Cuba.
The standard procedure was that the commanders on the island could use both the strategic and the tactical nuclear weapons, only with authorization from the Soviet Premier. However, it was not exactly like that on the ground. We know that the Defense Ministry in the Soviet Union prepared draft orders to the Commander of the Soviet forces in Cuba, pre-delegating authority to use tactical nuclear weapons in two cases: U.S. air strikes or U.S. invasion, landing on Cuba. The order was never signed by Khrushchev himself or by Defense Minister Myunorvsky (?). But ...(inaudible) was informed of that order, was ...(inaudible) so what? He did not get the final authorization.
But we also know that the U2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba without any authorization from Moscow. And Moscow was quite unhappy with that fact, but could do nothing about it. So based on the reading of the new documents and on my interviews with Russian military officials-- and I underline here, military officials, who were in Cuba at that time-- I would say that the probability of use of tactical nuclear weapons in case of either U.S. air strikes or land invasion of Cuba was very, very high.
And here's a list of URLs on the subject
From the JFK Library - with minutes of meetings during the crisis http://www.jfklibrary.org/cmc_intro.html http://www.jfklibrary.org/cmc_excomm_meetings.html#October20_250pm ***** ****NOTE: General Taylor for immediate air strikes and possible use of nukes ****
A Russian persepective from Soviet's archives http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/archive/khrushchev/1962/10/23.htm
CNN's series on the subject with interviews of two key participants http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10 / http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/interviews/sorensen / http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/interviews/dobrynin /
from George Washington University http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/brenner.htm#8
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/annals.htm
library of congress sovieat archives http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/coldwar.html
National Security Administration www.nsa.gov/cuba/index.cfm
Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs http://www.cubanmissilecrisis.org /
A list of Links to info on the Cuban Missile Crisis http://history1900s.about.com/cs/cubanmissile /
THIS ONE'S OF PARTICULAR INTEREST SINCE IT NOTES THAT THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS WAS NOT - REPEAT - NOT - A GAME OF CHICKEN http://plus.maths.org/issue13/features/brams / game theory and the CMC
TIM WEINER, "Word for Word: The Cuban Missile Crisis," New York Times, October 5, 1997 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/baytape.htm
Jim Lehrer Report http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec97/cuba_10-16.html
US Naval History site http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq90-2.htm
NOTE THIS ONE - still looking into the source - all one line http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tidI5&id 33662002 Soviet Sub commander nearly fired nuclear torpedo*********
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa103197.htm personal recollections\
From The Atlantic Monthly http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/missilecrisis.htm
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
charlie b wrote:

I'm curious--why is this matter of such huge importance to you that you'll waste a lot of your time looking up references on the topic?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Several reasons
The "learn from history or relive it" thing requires that the history one is to learn from is factual There is a point after a significant historical event where the written history of the event can be updated to include new information that becomes available. The Cuban Missile Crisis WAS a significant historical event and enough time has gone by for most of the primary parties to have died or are at a point in their lives when getting out what really happened is important to them. The fact that some of the records of the event in the Soviet Union have become available provides a unique opportunity to see what the "other side" was thinking and why.
In time the facts can become distorted and the history of the event may be watered down to reduce the actual seriousness and significance of the event. Once that starts to happen the learning value of the history starts to drop off - or worse yet, can be rewritten and used erronesously to justify current decisions and actions. THAT concerns me.
When one lives through a significant historical event, especially if one was living in a Primary Target very close to the launch point of nuclear missiles (the Panama Canal), one has clear and distinct memories of the event.
I lived through, and was an eye witness to, another historical event a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - The 1964 Flag Pole Incident that took place in Panama/Canal Zone. Being awakened by the sound of a tank outside my bedroom window and looking through the blinds, seeing the end of the underside of a tank barrel sort of sticks with you. The reports of the incident, even by the Christian Science Monitor - possibly the most objective and accurate newspaper at the time, were almost a hundred and eighty degrees off of what I saw and heard during the critical hour before and after the triggering incident at the flagpole in front of my high school
You presented a view of the event which was significantly different from my recollections. To see if you perhaps had a more accurate view of the event I looked into what is out there now. Took maybe an hour and the time was well spent - learned a lot. I've subsequently read the "history" of this event that's in Panama's version of history. The description of the initial hours of the incident are significantly different from what I personally saw and heard. What thy learn from their version of history won't IMHO, serve them ery well.
Does that answer your question?
charlie b
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
charlie b wrote:

Not really. The simple fact is that my recollections (and I was pretty damned close to a prime target too, about half as far from Cuba as any point in Panama) are different from yours. Just as Kruschev's were different from Kennedy's, and so on. As for repeating history, I doubt that I am ever going to be in a position that gives me any power with regard to the launching or withholding launch of nuclear weapons, so convincing me that your view is right, even is you are successful, would seem to me to be a total waste of your time.
Yes, it was a dangerous even in a dangerous time. Was it so much more dangerous than the rest of that dangerous time as to justify all the media attention and hand wringing and doomsaying? I don't think so, you do, that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I take it your eyes are brown?
Where did you learn about positive control, in the movies?

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary responds:

Some others. I was a 23 old former Marine who was pissed that he might have to go back on active duty because the Commies were saber rattling again. Whoops. Sorry. I turned 24 just before that.
I have a feeling my overall impressions may be a tad more accurate than those of a 13 year old, but maybe you were an exceptional 13 year old.
Charlie Self "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gary, Gary, Gary (a little tardy but I'll be damned if I'm gonna forfeit my turn) - You credit Reagan with his stance against the Soviets and criticize JFK for the closeness he took us to "annhilation." If you look at The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists link you posted of the Doomsday Clock you'll see that during Reagan's terms we were the closest to midnight of any time period since 1953. And at that, '53 was two minutes to twelve whereas '84 brought us three minutes to twelve. The closest the '60's got was 7 minutes - which is equivalent to where the clock is set today.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:30:26 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC

Everybody here is making the assumption that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was/is an impartial and objective entity. They too had an agenda and bought into the idea that the Soviet Union was a given and that the best thing for the US was to roll over like a cowed puppy and urinate on ourselves rather than confront them and make them mad. Thus, when Reagan actually stood up to the Soviets, the BAS had a cow and thus set the clock forward. Remember also that the clock setting was pretty much an arbitrary setting based upon the feelings of a group of people who really did not have any insight into actual Soviet doctrine or inside Soviet political machinations. However, the BAS could use that clock setting to influence American and Western opinion.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message

Uh, the invasion referred to in "Invasion Possible" above was the US invading Cuba, not the Krushchev invading anywhere.
--

FF

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fredfigher notes:

WTF? Who said anything about the big K invading? The deal with him, and with the USSR generally, was not invasion (until about the '80s when everyone went ape over tank warfare in Yurp). It was missiles and the worry that someone there was crazy enough to push the button--before someone here was crazy enough to push the button.
I don't know if there were plans to invade Cuba--and I doubt if anyone else on here really does--but it might have been a semi-sane reaction to Russian missiles in the Cuban mountains. Fortunately, Krushchev didn't push matters that far.
Charlie Self "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

but I remember the threat being at its highest in 1963. as http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?idH&category=life puts it:

Premier Nikita Krushschev demanded that NATO troops leave Berlin, emphasizing his point with a scary shoe-banging tantrum at the United Nations.

shelter for everybody," he said, "as rapidly as possible." Calling Berlin "the great testing place of Western courage and will," Kennedy promised to let every citizen know what steps he could take without delay to protect his family in case of attack.

over central Russia and warned the west that "It would take really very few multimegaton nuclear bombs to wipe out your small and densely populated countries and kill you instantly in your lairs."

13 agonizing days. Newspaper headlines blared warnings of impending annihilation. "Highest Urgency, Kennedy Reports," "Invasion Possible, Air, Sea and Ground Forces Ordered Out for Maneuvers," they cried."

That's the way I remember it, too, except for the year. But what you said was:

That's not the Cuban Missile Crisis. The bomb shelter craze was pretty much over by then. There hadn't been a nuclear attack drill in years. I don't think you could find many public fallout shelters in the mid '60s. That stuff happened in the '50s, which is what I said:

Yes, the Cuban Missile Crisis happened in 1962 (not '63, as you imply), but all the other stuff you mention (and, by the way, is confirmed in the link YOU provided; did you read it?), was mostly the '50s.
- - LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.