The Dead Hand

[tim 360]

I just finished reading an interesting investigative book of The Cold War Era.  A jolly good read for anyone interested in that time period and who the players were and their strategies of total war.  It's title "The Dead Hand" is taken from the lethal Soviet automatic nuclear response if sensors detected an attack.  Amazing we didn't kill each other off.

[brad5959]

especially since the Soviets tried to put nuclear weapons in Cuba so close to the US homeland.  most people are not aware how close we came to nuclear war in that little scenario.  we had planes in the air ready to bomb when the Soviet Union wisely decided to back down.

[Shadow]

Troubling times indeed. Lets hope that looking at this history America understand why Russia is opposing rocket shield 'to stop attacks from the middle east' so close to their soil.
It would be very easy to escalate things by placing nuclear power in to the hands of the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, but I think even the Kremlin will not trust him with thise...

[SMS60]

Troubling times indeed. Lets hope that looking at this history America understand why Russia is opposing rocket shield 'to stop attacks from the middle east' so close to their soil.
It would be very easy to escalate things by placing nuclear power in to the hands of the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, but I think even the Kremlin will not trust him with thise...

Umm, Apples to Watermelons. The sheilds do not contain actual nuclear weapons. They dont have the capability of doing damage on the ground except falling thru someones roof.

[Shadow]

Umm, Apples to Watermelons. The sheilds do not contain actual nuclear weapons. They dont have the capability of doing damage on the ground except falling thru someones roof.

Question is, why would a country subject themselves to an attack by placing such shields.

[tim 360]

especially since the Soviets tried to put nuclear weapons in Cuba so close to the US homeland.  most people are not aware how close we came to nuclear war in that little scenario.  we had planes in the air ready to bomb when the Soviet Union wisely decided to back down.

"tried"?  Not known until fairly recently, but the Soviets did have a full compliment of tactical nukes and Russian Troops in Cuba manning them.  They were fully mobilized and targeted for Guantanamo and any US ships which might approach for a land invasion.  Ditto for any beach landings or planes overhead.  If the USA had tried to storm the beaches the result could well have been WW3 and the Soviets knew it.  Cuba was just not worth that high of a price.

[SMS60]

Question is, why would a country subject themselves to an attack by placing such shields.

Are you saying a rogue nation would most likely launch a weapon towards a country which has sheilds than one which is not protected?

[kievstar]

Its better to disturb below ground than above ground.  Future will have to have defense of the very core of earth. 

[GQBlues]

Question is, why would a country subject themselves to an attack by placing such shields.

You think Shadow that actually may have something to do with....

1) NATO headache problem section No. 3 sub-section "c"; or...
2) The fact Russia supplies Iran with enriched Uranium themselves? Of course they don't admit to that, but they didn't admit to the Cuban missille placement either...

[ECOCKS]

especially since the Soviets tried to put nuclear weapons in Cuba so close to the US homeland.  most people are not aware how close we came to nuclear war in that little scenario.  we had planes in the air ready to bomb when the Soviet Union wisely decided to back down.

I remember the discussions on the Missile Crisis back in the 60's and 70's and being always perplexed as to why the double standard applied. While I mistrusted the Russian mentality of the day as much or more than the average guy on the street, I can remember people being aghast that I considered it only fair that they be allowed to position the missiles since WE/NATO had nukes in France and England as well as (probably) Germany, Japan and Turkey.

This was particularly viewed with concern when discussing it in school classes and public places in Gitmo. Ah well, turn about is fair play and all of that....

[BC]

I remember the discussions on the Missile Crisis back in the 60's and 70's and being always perplexed as to why the double standard applied. While I mistrusted the Russian mentality of the day as much or more than the average guy on the street, I can remember people being aghast that I considered it only fair that they be allowed to position the missiles since WE/NATO had nukes in France and England as well as (probably) Germany, Japan and Turkey.

This was particularly viewed with concern when discussing it in school classes and public places in Gitmo. Ah well, turn about is fair play and all of that....

Yeah, it's all tit for tat politics.

I think Turkey was the last straw and what compelled the Cuba move.  That remained quite secret for many years thereafter.. certainly not in mainstream US news.

[Shadow]

Are you saying a rogue nation would most likely launch a weapon towards a country which has sheilds than one which is not protected?

In case of warfare, the first attack would be to take out the shield launching installations. After that, the road to nuclear attack is open.

You think Shadow that actually may have something to do with....

1) NATO headache problem section No. 3 sub-section "c"; or...
2) The fact Russia supplies Iran with enriched Uranium themselves? Of course they don't admit to that, but they didn't admit to the Cuban missille placement either...

According to latest NATO guidelines, their organisation does not have the goal to offer military counter balance to Russia. Which is rather peculiar if you look at the origins of NATO.
As for Russia, they are not against supplying Iran, because at least something bought on the open market is more easy to control and follow as something bought illegally.

[GQBlues]

I remember the discussions on the Missile Crisis back in the 60's and 70's and being always perplexed as to why the double standard applied. While I mistrusted the Russian mentality of the day as much or more than the average guy on the street, I can remember people being aghast that I considered it only fair that they be allowed to position the missiles since WE/NATO had nukes in France and England as well as (probably) Germany, Japan and Turkey.

This was particularly viewed with concern when discussing it in school classes and public places in Gitmo. Ah well, turn about is fair play and all of that....

been 'while for me...but:

They should've told you the reason for that was Cuba is NOT a member of the Warsaw Pact Treaty, while Turkey, Germany, France, and England were members of NATO. SA was hotly contested between the two bloc regions and thus NAM (Non Aligned Movement) was created for countries who would like their sovereignty to be in tact without having to align themselves with those power entities. Thus, Russia do not have any reasonable rights during that time to install missilles in Cuba based on the decree both by the Warsaw Pact and NATO alliances.

Cuba arming itself with nukes can easily be considered as hostile and an act of aggression to the US. Post-WWII SA was a political battleground between the two powers. Both extending their spheres of influences in the region. Political and economic alliances, yes. Military, no. e.g. Korean / Vietnam /Afghanistan war.

The USSR's installation of those missles were nothing more than total provocation of nuclear war. Had the US installed covert nuclear missilles in NAM, or non-Soviet / NATO member countries within close proximity to Moscow, it would have easily started a nuclear war instantly.

Poland, EG, etc..did have nukes during the cold war. Moreover, Japan never had nuclear weaponry and still don't despite the present NK threat because Japan was the front runner in nuclear development during the onset of WWII. Its defeat in WWII vanquish any nuclear development and installation in the country.

[GQBlues]

As for Russia, they are not against supplying Iran, because at least something bought on the open market is more easy to control and follow as something bought illegally.

  So all the diplomatic meetings and handling of the current Iran affairs in the SC, which includes sanctions, is for nothing more than a freak show then?

[acctBill]

been 'while for me...but:

They should've told you the reason for that was Cuba is NOT a member of the Warsaw Pact Treaty, while Turkey, Germany, France, and England were members of NATO. SA was hotly contested between the two bloc regions and thus NAM (Non Aligned Movement) was created for countries who would like their sovereignty to be in tact without having to align themselves with those power entities. Thus, Russia do not have any reasonable rights during that time to install missilles in Cuba based on the decree both by the Warsaw Pact and NATO alliances.

Cuba arming itself with nukes can easily be considered as hostile and an act of aggression to the US. Post-WWII SA was a political battleground between the two powers. Both extending their spheres of influences in the region. Political and economic alliances, yes. Military, no. e.g. Korean / Vietnam /Afghanistan war.

The USSR's installation of those missles were nothing more than total provocation of nuclear war. Had the US installed covert nuclear missilles in NAM, or non-Soviet / NATO member countries within close proximity to Moscow, it would have easily started a nuclear war instantly.

Poland, EG, etc..did have nukes during the cold war. Moreover, Japan never had nuclear weaponry and still don't despite the present NK threat because Japan was the front runner in nuclear development during the onset of WWII. Its defeat in WWII vanquish any nuclear development and installation in the country.

GQBlues true Cuba wasn't a member of the Warsaw Pact it was however a vassal state of the USSR at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The Revolution that put Fidel in power was a couple of years old and few countries were trading or rendering aid to the new Cuba, the USSR kept Cuba alive with its aid.  Without Soviet aid Cuba would have been destitute and Fidel might have found himself overthrown in a new revolution.

Cuba was a favourite port of call for the Soviet Navy during the 1960's and also a refueling depot for the Soviet Air Force.  There were so many Soviet military personnel in Cuba and visiting Cuba that members of the Soviet military even brought Cuban wives back to the USSR.  

While it might seem to the general public that the US and President Kennedy won the Cuban Missile Crisis because the Soviets removed their nuclear missiles from Cuba what is not generally known is that the US removed their nuclear missiles from Italy and Turkey.  Nuclear missiles that could have easily reached Moscow and other parts of the USSR.  Somehow President Kennedy managed to convince Khrushchev not to make the Americans removal of their nuclear missiles public.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

[BillyB]

In case of warfare, the first attack would be to take out the shield launching installations. After that, the road to nuclear attack is open.

It takes time to take out those installations so basically with the missile shield, Russia loses the practically instant and effective "YOU LOSE" nuclear option in war. By the same time it takes to take out those missile shield installations in a nuclear war, their missile bases would be nuked by then.

Eastern European countries like the idea of a missile shield. With that shield, it guarantees we will protect them if they are attacked. If they don't do business with the Western World and Russia wants a country such as Poland again, very few countries will spill their soldier's blood against a major army like Russia to save a country like Poland. Security is one reason many Eastern European countries want to join the European Union and NATO.

We don't have to worry about nuclear war between 1st World nations since mutual destruction does not accomplish the goal of winning a war while maintaining economic prosperity. I suspect there will be nuclear war someday since the World doesn't have the balls to stop rogue nations from creating nuclear weapons.

[GQBlues]

GQBlues true Cuba wasn't a member of the Warsaw Pact it was however a vassal state of the USSR at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

.......which blatantly violated the Monroe Doctrine, thus instigated the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Which in turn instigated the missile crisis. Cuba was an ally and had actually declared war on Japan, as did many of the south American nations, after the Pearl Harbor attack. Fidel's rise to power shifted that alliance and partnered with USSR, breaking the doctrine.

Italy and Turkey were NATO members. The missile installation were as 'legal' as the USSR installed missiles in Poland. No US missilles were ever installed on any NAM nation that carried a very short distance to Moscow.

3 provocations by the Soviet: Berlin blockade, breaking of the Monroe Doctrine, and missile installation in a NAM nation.

[ECOCKS]

GQBlues true Cuba wasn't a member of the Warsaw Pact it was however a vassal state of the USSR at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The Revolution that put Fidel in power was a couple of years old and few countries were trading or rendering aid to the new Cuba, the USSR kept Cuba alive with its aid.  Without Soviet aid Cuba would have been destitute and Fidel might have found himself overthrown in a new revolution.

Cuba was a favourite port of call for the Soviet Navy during the 1960's and also a refueling depot for the Soviet Air Force.  There were so many Soviet military personnel in Cuba and visiting Cuba that members of the Soviet military even brought Cuban wives back to the USSR.  

While it might seem to the general public that the US and President Kennedy won the Cuban Missile Crisis because the Soviets removed their nuclear missiles from Cuba what is not generally known is that the US removed their nuclear missiles from Italy and Turkey.  Nuclear missiles that could have easily reached Moscow and other parts of the USSR.  Somehow President Kennedy managed to convince Khrushchev not to make the Americans removal of their nuclear missiles public.

Yes and the ELINT station they maintained there for decades was their largest military presence outside of their Warsaw Pact borders.

Still I never had a coherent response from senior naval officers or my teachers as to why they should be expected to have ours so close to them and they couldn't position them with their legitimate allies. Our carriers and both countries' subs were cruising everywhere with them so I don't even consider it particularly provocative of them to attempt to put them there.

OTOH, I think Kennedy certainly stood them down and stopped a potential danger to America that had not been present prior to that point. It's even possible that Khrushchev got what he wanted in the exchange although at the time it was certainly milked for its propaganda value when presented as a "US victory" through the media.

Was it an acceptable risk? Maybe he knew that Nikita would wimp out and back down and played his hand accordingly.

It was all political gamesmanship.

[acctBill]

.......which blatantly violated the Monroe Doctrine, thus instigated the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Which in turn instigated the missile crisis. Cuba was an ally and had actually declared war on Japan, as did many of the south American nations, after the Pearl Harbor attack. Fidel's rise to power shifted that alliance and partnered with USSR, breaking the doctrine.

Italy and Turkey were NATO members. The missile installation were as 'legal' as the USSR installed missiles in Poland. No US missilles were ever installed on any NAM nation that carried a very short distance to Moscow.

3 provocations by the Soviet: Berlin blockade, breaking of the Monroe Doctrine, and missile installation in a NAM nation.

GQBlues the USSR was not a signatory to the Monroe Doctrine in fact the USSR didn't even exist in 1823 (date the Monroe Doctrine came into effect).  American law does not work beyond America's borders.  Just as Russian or German law does not work beyond their borders. 

If the Monroe Doctrine is to be held as law then why has the US interfered in the "internal concerns of European countries" which the US expressly said it wouldn't do under the Monroe Doctrine? Also if North and South America are US spheres of influence then what is wrong with the USSR having eastern European countries under the USSR spheres of influence?  The eastern European countries didn't like being under USSR spheres of influence, true but many Latin, Caribbean and South American countries didn't/don't like being under the US spheres of influence and yet these countries just had to live with it and put up with US interference.

As for a USSR missile installation in a NAM nation if Cuba wants it why is it wrong?  Pakistan and India are NAM nations yet the US gives them lots of money and weapons.  Afghanistan and Iraq are both NAM nations I think the US is somehow involved in both of these countries.  Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are both NAM nations and the US is involved in these countries.  The list of NAM nations that the US and Russia is involved with is long.  NAM means very little now or during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Shadow]

So all the diplomatic meetings and handling of the current Iran affairs in the SC, which includes sanctions, is for nothing more than a freak show then?

Correct. Lets say that I know of at least one company who orders components from the USA, re-labels them as European and sends them to Iran. Nothing to do with nuclear power, but it shows how the SC is nothing more than cosmetic.

[kievstar]

Its also common to sell to a company in Austria from USA who than sells into Iran.  Many USA companies do this method. 

I had a 2 month project to look for foreign corrupt practice violations and doing business with banned persons / companies when I was at KPMG.  Of the 5 fortune 100 companies we reviewed all where in violation and it was not hard to find.  When I was at Rockwell 100% of our Asian expats were in violation with working with Chinese politicans and giving bribes.  This was self disclosed and we paid a 8 figure plus fine.   

[GQBlues]

GQBlues the USSR was not a signatory to the Monroe Doctrine in fact the USSR didn't even exist in 1823 (date the Monroe Doctrine came into effect).  American law does not work beyond America's borders.

Of course the USSR didn't exist back then. But the Russian Imperial Government did. You shouldn't rely so much on Wiki for your information.  http://www.nationalcenter.org/MonroeDoctrine.html

If the Monroe Doctrine is to be held as law then why has the US interfered in the "internal concerns of European countries" which the US expressly said it wouldn't do under the Monroe Doctrine?

You're first error is to debate a point from the perspective the MD is a law. All other points thereafter will be erroneous.
To exemplify, read the following thought process....

If the Monroe Doctrine is to be held as law then why has the US interfered in the "internal concerns of European countries" which the US expressly said it wouldn't do under the Monroe Doctrine? Also if North and South America are US spheres of influence then what is wrong with the USSR having eastern European countries under the USSR spheres of influence?  The eastern European countries didn't like being under USSR spheres of influence, true but many Latin, Caribbean and South American countries didn't/don't like being under the US spheres of influence and yet these countries just had to live with it and put up with US interference.

You may now read about the 8 points and a handshake in the middle of the ocean between the US and UK, or what many Americans need to read and understand about something called the 'Atlantic Charter'. This single charter alone is what changed much of the political global landscape in the world we know today. It is, what many historians believe, what made Japan attack the US and thus got us in WW II. IT was, as many believed, Churchill's obituary/last attempt to implicate the US into the big war, etc...

So many colonies in the globe by countries presently being tattered and beaten, and who yah gonna call?

As for a USSR missile installation in a NAM nation if Cuba wants it why is it wrong?  Pakistan and India are NAM nations yet the US gives them lots of money and weapons.  Afghanistan and Iraq are both NAM nations I think the US is somehow involved in both of these countries.  Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are both NAM nations and the US is involved in these countries.  The list of NAM nations that the US and Russia is involved with is long.  NAM means very little now or during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Conventional weaponry is a far cry from nuclear weaponry in case you didn't realize that. Besides, all the silly significance of first strike and the time it takes to react- type of thingy. They simply thought it had its advantages back then, but dunno. Maybe a few tanks and .50 caliber machine guns carried the same threat.

I'm not an American by birth but sometimes I do wonder why many natural born citizens doesn't carry the same interest like naturalized citizens do about this country's history.

But OK...let me walk away from the screaming "Why can't Cuba have its missiles. It's only fair!" crowd. After all, it's a free country.

[tim 360]

As for a USSR missile installation in a NAM nation if Cuba wants it why is it wrong?  

Depends if one is a neighbor of Cuba.  These were short and intermediate range nukes and basing them in Cuba--we sure know who is being targeted.  If your next door neighbor mounts a 50mm machine and points it at your house and following your logic--"what's wrong with that"?  

"These events seemed dangerous at the time. But it wasn’t until nearly thirty years afterward that we learned, from General Gribkov’s testimony at a January 1992 conference here in this room in Havana, that the nuclear warheads for both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons had already reached Cuba before the quarantine line was established—162 nuclear warheads in all. If the president had gone ahead with the air strike and invasion of Cuba, the invasion forces almost surely would have been met by nuclear fire, requiring a nuclear response from the United States".  Robert McNamara

Here is some additional info: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_11/cubanmissile