Cuban Missile Crisis & Obama/Mccain

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 90s when Clinton ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[senseamp]

McCain is pretty much going to launch nuclear war and ask questions later.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 90s when Clinton ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.

That's why you're a nutcase.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets call a spade a spade, we do not know. I blame GWB&co for creating reverse Cuban missile crisis #2.

So give analogy, suppose some cop stops me for speeding. Lets say I was wrong and was speeding and lets further stipulate I am polite and not belligerent to the cop. But for some strange reason, the cops whips out his gun and sticks it right in my face.

Going into the situation of being stopped for speeding, I knew the cop had a gun and could kill me, but when the cops flaunts it bright in my face, its just not very wise on the part of the cop to do that for a minor offense.

And that is what we are doing in Poland. Is GWB&co very wise? Especially when he does not have police standing, no moral standing at all, and Russia has no foreign military conflicts, is awash in oil money, has the much shorter supply line, and is tired of being pushed around.

Pull the missiles out of Poland and the problem goes away in the same way anyone would be uncomfortable with having anyone stick a gun in their face for no reason.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets call a spade a spade, we do not know. I blame GWB&co for creating reverse Cuban missile crisis #2.

So give analogy, suppose some cop stops me for speeding. Lets say I was wrong and was speeding and lets further stipulate I am polite and not belligerent to the cop. But for some strange reason, the cops whips out his gun and sticks it right in my face.

Going into the situation of being stopped for speeding, I knew the cop had a gun and could kill me, but when the cops flaunts it bright in my face, its just not very wise on the part of the cop to do that for a minor offense.

And that is what we are doing in Poland. Is GWB&co very wise? Especially when he does not have police standing, no moral standing at all, and Russia has no foreign military conflicts, is awash in oil money, has the much shorter supply line, and is tired of being pushed around.

Pull the missiles out of Poland and the problem goes away in the same way anyone would be uncomfortable with having anyone stick a gun in their face for no reason.

Is the missile shield system an offensive or defensive system. I'm being honest, don't really know much about it. My understanding is that it is a defensive system only, and in that case the cop would be wearing a bulletproof vest not pointing a gun around.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets call a spade a spade, we do not know. I blame GWB&co for creating reverse Cuban missile crisis #2.

So give analogy, suppose some cop stops me for speeding. Lets say I was wrong and was speeding and lets further stipulate I am polite and not belligerent to the cop. But for some strange reason, the cops whips out his gun and sticks it right in my face.

Going into the situation of being stopped for speeding, I knew the cop had a gun and could kill me, but when the cops flaunts it bright in my face, its just not very wise on the part of the cop to do that for a minor offense.

And that is what we are doing in Poland. Is GWB&co very wise? Especially when he does not have police standing, no moral standing at all, and Russia has no foreign military conflicts, is awash in oil money, has the much shorter supply line, and is tired of being pushed around.

Pull the missiles out of Poland and the problem goes away in the same way anyone would be uncomfortable with having anyone stick a gun in their face for no reason.

Is the missile shield system an offensive or defensive system. I'm being honest, don't really know much about it. My understanding is that it is a defensive system only, and in that case the cop would be wearing a bulletproof vest not pointing a gun around.

Depends on who you ask. I believe it is almost purely an offensive system. The argument for it being defensive is the one you've always heard. A rogue nation fires a missile at us, with our NMD system we shoot it down and now tin pot dictators can't hold us hostage anymore.

The offensive argument goes something like this: Tin pot dictators are exceedingly unlikely to launch a WMD loaded missile at us because we'll know exactly who did it and completely obliterate them. They are far more likely to use other avenues of attack. (sneaking it across a border, in a shipping container, etc.) This is not lost on our leaders, so the question is what is it good for? It will likely never be strong enough to stop a full scale attack from a major nuclear power like Russia. What it DOES do for us however is make a first strike a viable option. If we carry out an all-out counterforce attack on Russia's nukes, a few will undoubtedly survive to launch back at us. An effective NMD system could in theory mop up the few remaining missiles after a US first strike. That's why many people, myself included, consider it an offensive system.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sportage
The FACT that he can give a speech proving his head is screwed on right,
shows his head is screwed on right.
Experience = wisdom. Obama has wisdom.

It proves no such thing. None whatsoever.

A speech is just *performance art*.

The candidates don't even write the speeches themselves, even if they did it wouldn't change anything.

In times of crisis one must correctly identify and weigh the pluses and minuses. One must anticipate consequences and the opponent's reactions/moves and counter-moves; and do so quickly and under a lot of pressure. A speech? It's a rehearsed performance with no opponent and prepared for long in advance etc. A speech doesn't have an opponent.

It's completely ludricrous to assert that public speaking ability demonstrates anything than public speaking ability. If Obama was in the Cuban Missle crisis we can probably be sure he would eloquently deliver his remarks, but that hardly assures the wisdom of the content etc.

Fern

Actually frequently Obama writes his own speeches.

While I agree speaking ability certainly does not mean good judgment or whatever, there are a lot of cases in history where someone who knew how to give a speech made a huge difference precisely because of that. Never underestimate the power of a good speech.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: sportage
Doesn?t matter what or where Obama comes from or his experience.
The FACT that he can give a speech proving his head is screwed on right,
shows his head is screwed on right.
Experience = wisdom. Obama has wisdom.

<snip>

:laugh: Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets call a spade a spade, we do not know. I blame GWB&co for creating reverse Cuban missile crisis #2.

So give analogy, suppose some cop stops me for speeding. Lets say I was wrong and was speeding and lets further stipulate I am polite and not belligerent to the cop. But for some strange reason, the cops whips out his gun and sticks it right in my face.

Going into the situation of being stopped for speeding, I knew the cop had a gun and could kill me, but when the cops flaunts it bright in my face, its just not very wise on the part of the cop to do that for a minor offense.

And that is what we are doing in Poland. Is GWB&co very wise? Especially when he does not have police standing, no moral standing at all, and Russia has no foreign military conflicts, is awash in oil money, has the much shorter supply line, and is tired of being pushed around.

Pull the missiles out of Poland and the problem goes away in the same way anyone would be uncomfortable with having anyone stick a gun in their face for no reason.

Is the missile shield system an offensive or defensive system. I'm being honest, don't really know much about it. My understanding is that it is a defensive system only, and in that case the cop would be wearing a bulletproof vest not pointing a gun around.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somewhat of a good point techaz, but as Russia is ready to resume its super power status, its changes the calculus of MAD, requires Russia to expend big bucks to equal the deterrent, is a violation of a treaty, and how do we or the Russian know some offensive missiles are not slipped in?

Its a still a provactive act that accomplishes no real purpose while it endangers Poland.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sportage
The FACT that he can give a speech proving his head is screwed on right,
shows his head is screwed on right.
Experience = wisdom. Obama has wisdom.

It proves no such thing. None whatsoever.

A speech is just *performance art*.

The candidates don't even write the speeches themselves, even if they did it wouldn't change anything.

In times of crisis one must correctly identify and weigh the pluses and minuses. One must anticipate consequences and the opponent's reactions/moves and counter-moves; and do so quickly and under a lot of pressure. A speech? It's a rehearsed performance with no opponent and prepared for long in advance etc. A speech doesn't have an opponent.

It's completely ludricrous to assert that public speaking ability demonstrates anything than public speaking ability. If Obama was in the Cuban Missle crisis we can probably be sure he would eloquently deliver his remarks, but that hardly assures the wisdom of the content etc.

Fern

Actually frequently Obama writes his own speeches or takes them from Gov. Duval Patrick and doesn't give credit for it.

While I agree speaking ability certainly does not mean good judgment or whatever, there are a lot of cases in history where someone who knew how to give a speech made a huge difference precisely because of that. Never underestimate the power of a good speech.

Fixed

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
McCain is pretty much going to launch nuclear war and ask questions later.

"Fear mongering" again?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Actually frequently Obama writes his own speeches or takes them from Gov. Duval Patrick and doesn't give credit for it.

While I agree speaking ability certainly does not mean good judgment or whatever, there are a lot of cases in history where someone who knew how to give a speech made a huge difference precisely because of that. Never underestimate the power of a good speech.

Fixed

Don't be a moron.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Actually frequently Obama writes his own speeches or takes them from Gov. Duval Patrick and doesn't give credit for it.

While I agree speaking ability certainly does not mean good judgment or whatever, there are a lot of cases in history where someone who knew how to give a speech made a huge difference precisely because of that. Never underestimate the power of a good speech.

Fixed

Don't be a moron.

It's not true?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Actually frequently Obama writes his own speeches or takes them from Gov. Duval Patrick and doesn't give credit for it.

While I agree speaking ability certainly does not mean good judgment or whatever, there are a lot of cases in history where someone who knew how to give a speech made a huge difference precisely because of that. Never underestimate the power of a good speech.

Fixed

Don't be a moron.

It's not true?

They are two people of very similar ideology who have frequently shared speech writing ideas, precisely the reason Patrick said it was a non-issue. Of course you neglected to mention that.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Actually frequently Obama writes his own speeches or takes them from Gov. Duval Patrick and doesn't give credit for it.

While I agree speaking ability certainly does not mean good judgment or whatever, there are a lot of cases in history where someone who knew how to give a speech made a huge difference precisely because of that. Never underestimate the power of a good speech.

Fixed

Don't be a moron.

It's not true?

I read the same thing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 90s when Clinton ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.

That's it in a nutshell.

You forgot the "bullsh". Hey, another poster who posts ideological fantasies, great.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 90s when Clinton ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.

That's it in a nutshell.

You forgot the "bullsh". Hey, another poster who posts ideological fantasies, great.

You should be the only one?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Lets call a spade a spade, we do not know. I blame GWB&co for creating reverse Cuban missile crisis #2.

So give analogy, suppose some cop stops me for speeding. Lets say I was wrong and was speeding and lets further stipulate I am polite and not belligerent to the cop. But for some strange reason, the cops whips out his gun and sticks it right in my face.

Going into the situation of being stopped for speeding, I knew the cop had a gun and could kill me, but when the cops flaunts it bright in my face, its just not very wise on the part of the cop to do that for a minor offense.

And that is what we are doing in Poland. Is GWB&co very wise? Especially when he does not have police standing, no moral standing at all, and Russia has no foreign military conflicts, is awash in oil money, has the much shorter supply line, and is tired of being pushed around.

Pull the missiles out of Poland and the problem goes away in the same way anyone would be uncomfortable with having anyone stick a gun in their face for no reason.

Is the missile shield system an offensive or defensive system. I'm being honest, don't really know much about it. My understanding is that it is a defensive system only, and in that case the cop would be wearing a bulletproof vest not pointing a gun around.

First, there's an inherently 'offensive' aspect to it, in that it gives you increased first-strike capabilities.

If two guys have handguns, then when one gets a device that disables the other guy's handgun, it may be defensive but in effect it's the same as if neither had handguns, and he got one, something that's clearly offensive. Suddenly you have one guy with a gun and one without.

Second, I see no reason the system can't be turned into a directly offensive weapon. If it can destroy missiles flying through the air, why couldn't it destroy ground targets?

You need to remember that the people who are behind it have strong motives for new powerful offensive weapons, and that they are incented to *say* the system is only defensive to get the most public support and try to undermine opponents' arguments against it. They're not above misleading statements about its being only defensive.

Ronald Reagan may or may not have been sincere in saying it was meant for defense and we'd give it for free to the USSR, but that doesn't mean it's what's going to happen.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: sportage
Doesn?t matter what or where Obama comes from or his experience.
The FACT that he can give a speech proving his head is screwed on right,
shows his head is screwed on right.
Experience = wisdom. Obama has wisdom.

<snip>

:laugh: Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

Anandtech should charge you for wasting their disk space.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: woodie1

You should be the only one?

I think the kids call that "weaksauce".

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
McCain is pretty much going to launch nuclear war and ask questions later.

"Fear mongering" again?

Fern

I bet he is itching to get even with the Russians over the Cold War and the torture he endured.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
McCain is pretty much going to launch nuclear war and ask questions later.

"Fear mongering" again?

Fern

I bet he is itching to get even with the Russians over the Cold War and the torture he endured.

I have to disagree with you here. I think McCain understand that not only were the Russians not to blame, but the Russians at that time are not in power now.

I think it's pretty outrageous to say McCain will be extremely likely to start a nuclear war, I see no evidence for that. He is likely to kill a lot of people he shouldn't, though, with his unapologietci for support of tyranny by the US for our own interests - not unlike the way Bush put war criminals like Elliot Abrams back in power.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
McCain is pretty much going to launch nuclear war and ask questions later.

"Fear mongering" again?

Fern

I bet he is itching to get even with the Russians over the Cold War and the torture he endured.

I have to disagree with you here. I think McCain understand that not only were the Russians not to blame, but the Russians at that time are not in power now.

I think it's pretty outrageous to say McCain will be extremely likely to start a nuclear war, I see no evidence for that. He is likely to kill a lot of people he shouldn't, though, with his unapologietci for support of tyranny by the US for our own interests - not unlike the way Bush put war criminals like Elliot Abrams back in power.

Well, I don't think he views present Russian leadership very different from the old USSR. Plus he is a maverick. I just don't see him backing down. And ultimately both US and USSR backed down and moved missiles out of Cuba and Turkey to resolve the missile crisis.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We should also not forget that Kennedy's inexperience caused his first meeting with Khrushchev to be a total disaster that lead the Russians into think they could push Kennedy around.

The missile crisis was created because the Russians didn't think Kennedy would stand up to him the way he did.

We learned the same lesson in the late 1970s when Carter showed the world that he was weak and the result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And we learned that lesson yet again in the 90s when Clinton ignored terrorist attack after terrorist attack until we finally got hit with 9-11.

That's it in a nutshell.

You forgot the "bullsh". Hey, another poster who posts ideological fantasies, great.

From the New York Times itself.
link
partial quoted since it is long
The bolded part is Kennedy's own words.

But Kennedy?s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one?s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings ? his Harvard thesis was titled ?Appeasement at Munich? ? he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy?s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: ?Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them??

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting ?old, moribund, reactionary regimes? and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood ?against other peoples following its suit.? Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was ?very unwise? for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy?s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was ?just a disaster.? Khrushchev?s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed ?very inexperienced, even immature.? Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was ?too intelligent and too weak.? The Soviet leader left Vienna elated ? and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy?s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the ?roughest thing in my life.? Kennedy went on: ?He just beat the hell out of me. I?ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I?m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won?t get anywhere with him.?

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that ?a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.? The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to ?throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam?s pants?: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna ? of Kennedy as ineffective ? was among them.

 

[Lemon law]

We also have to understand that 1962 was quite a different time in superpower relations and relative power. At the time missile technology was not that reliable or prevalent and the bulk of the US nuclear arsenal depended upon air force bombers of SAC. And in terms of a bomber fleet, it was a basic USA monopoly as the USSR was hopeless behind at the time. Russia may have been able to hurt the USA but the USA could annihilate the Soviet Union as Kennedy and Khrushchev well knew. And in fact, the USSR spent the bulk of the 1950's basically wildly PR puffing up their offensive capacity which played right into the hands of our military industrial complex.

Post Cuban missile crisis, Khrushchev was sacked and a entire subsequent generation of Soviet leaders wrecked their economy building up their military capacity to prevent such a open humiliation. And now we have wrecked our economy and tied up our military in two large quagmires.

And now technology has moved on and the only question is can either side destroy each other with the press of a button, and if we and they have 5X or 10 X the required overkill. Why don't I feel safer if we go for 15X when Russia can build more missiles cheaper than we can build working ABM's?