He's put you on Ignore; seems like he does that to anyone who confront him with rhetoric that does match his world view.What?
He's put you on Ignore; seems like he does that to anyone who confront him with rhetoric that does match his world view.What?
Well it’s great you aren’t setting policy then. Because the Russians may very well call your bluff and be willing to go nuclear over western troops on their border with Ukraine just like we were with Soviet nukes in Cuba. Also Germany and other European nations are dependent on Russian gas unless you want to literally give them fuel just for a pissing match with Russia they won’t join in sanctions.
Why not? Why do you think America or the west is the only one willing or has the balls to launch if rivals military was in a neighboring country. Like you’d support doing anything necessary to stop Russians or Chinese stationing troops in Cuba or Mexico. Why don’t you think Russians would do the same as in regards to Ukraine?
Oh so either a coward or an idiot. Well people are free to use the block button but I’d rather those kinds of people that can’t deal with opinions they hate never get mod powers.He's put you on Ignore; seems like he does that to anyone who confront him with rhetoric that does match his world view.
Yes because the Soviets backed off. But I believe we most certainly would have used force to prevent a danger so close to our shores.We didn't go nuclear over Cuba. Rather, JFK launched a blockade/quarantine of Cuba instead. He even refused his advisers' calls for a conventional US invasion of Cuba.
Yes because the Soviets backed off. But I believe we most certainly would have used force to prevent a danger so close to our shores.
Well yes but I never said anything about a first strike. If the Soviets don’t back off and our navy fought theirs in the Caribbean but we won we also would not use nukes their military is at the bottom of the sea. They probably won’t use nukes either since they were humiliated but it’s far from home. Now if on the other hand the impossible happens if our navy got destroyed and the Soviets just go on to Cuba. What do you think would happen would we accept it?A nuclear first strike is very dangerous, though, especially relative to the course of action that JFK actually ended up implementing.
What truly amazes you about your analogy is the sneaky switch between nuclear missiles being the red line in Cuban Crisis (because Soviets did base some conventional forces in Cuba afterwards) to mere conventional troops being a similar red line in Ukraine.Well yes but I never said anything about a first strike. If the Soviets don’t back off and our navy fought theirs in the Caribbean but we won we also would not use nukes their military is at the bottom of the sea. They probably won’t use nukes either since they were humiliated but it’s far from home. Now if on the other hand the impossible happens if our navy got destroyed and the Soviets just go on to Cuba. What do you think would happen would we accept it?
Now with Ukraine if we tried to put NATO troops there first Russia would probably do the Cuban crisis, if that does not workand they use conventional force to push us out and win they won’t use nukes, we probably won’t either our army was destroyed and humiliated but our homeland is not in danger, but if the Russians lose and our superior army bests theirs. Do you think that’s the end and they will accept it?
It’s not that much of a difference. America puts nuclear weapons in quite a few NATO nations, like Turkey. There is no reason to think that we would completely refuse to station nukes in Ukraine if the opportunity was available. TheSoviets also had nukes in some Warsaw Pact nations.What truly amazes you about your analogy is the sneaky switch between nuclear missiles being the red line in Cuban Crisis (because Soviets did base some conventional forces in Cuba afterwards) to mere conventional troops being a similar red line in Ukraine.
Well yes but I never said anything about a first strike. If the Soviets don’t back off and our navy fought theirs in the Caribbean but we won we also would not use nukes their military is at the bottom of the sea. They probably won’t use nukes either since they were humiliated but it’s far from home. Now if on the other hand the impossible happens if our navy got destroyed and the Soviets just go on to Cuba. What do you think would happen would we accept it?
Now with Ukraine if we tried to put NATO troops there first Russia would probably do the Cuban crisis, if that does not workand they use conventional force to push us out and win they won’t use nukes, we probably won’t either our army was destroyed and humiliated but our homeland is not in danger, but if the Russians lose and our superior army bests theirs. Do you think that’s the end and they will accept it?
You are not. The missile had little to do with communism in Cuba over communist with nukes in Cuba.I was under the impression that we were not willing to risk MAD over Soviet troops in Cuba just so long as this also did not involve the presence of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Am I wrong?
Do you even read what you write yourself?It’s not that much of a difference.
And doesn't put them in most of them.America puts nuclear weapons in quite a few NATO nations, like Turkey.
Oh but there is. The total lack of nukes being stationed in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Bulgaria, which are NATO members already.There is no reason to think that we would completely refuse to station nukes in Ukraine if the opportunity was available. TheSoviets also had nukes in some Warsaw Pact nations.
Wait? Are you saying there were Soviet troops actually stationed in Cuba? I'm talking like a base like America has in Germany, not deniable assets. I honestly did not know that, but the thought would make me pretty nervous, I would not want my rivals to set up ANY military units close to my borders.I was under the impression that we were not willing to risk MAD over Soviet troops in Cuba just so long as this also did not involve the presence of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Am I wrong?
According to Gorbachev himself, 11k troops.Wait? Are you saying there were Soviet troops actually stationed in Cuba? I'm talking like a base like America has in Germany, not deniable assets. I honestly did not know that, but the thought would make me pretty nervous, I would not want my rivals to set up ANY military units close to my borders.
That's an entire army! I can't believe that the president's were ok with that.According to Gorbachev himself, 11k troops.
That's an entire army! I can't believe that the president's were ok with that.
You are not. The missile had little to do with communism in Cuba over communist with nukes in Cuba.
That's an entire army! I can't believe that the president's were ok with that.
Oh but there is. The total lack of nukes being stationed in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Bulgaria, which are NATO members already.
In terms of distance to Moscow, Estonia or Latvia is almost as good as Ukraine.
Obviously 100-150 km makes little difference to ballistic missiles traveling at double digit mach number.
So if NATO was going to take that opportunity, it already would have. Especially since in few years ago Russia stationed Iskander SRBMs in the Kaliningrad enclave purely to make NATO nervous.
That's an entire army! I can't believe that the president's were ok with that.
Both, plus major underfunding of their military which they don't want to change.
Wow, i guess in that case we have missed the news of many NATO divisions being nuked in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
They didn't, it created a crisis:
What followed was a textbook example of a political crisis almost entirely devoid of substance. The presence of 2,000 to 3,000 Soviet combat troops in Cuba was unacceptable to many Washington leaders, both Republican and Democrat.Sen. Frank Church, a liberal Democrat from Idaho who served as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, immediately demanded the brigade’s removal. “The United States,” he said on Sept. 4, “cannot permit the Soviets to establish a military base on Cuban soil, nor can we allow Cuba to be used as a springboard for real or threatened Russian military intervention in the hemisphere.”Sen. Richard Stone of Florida echoed this sentiment, arguing that the brigade’s deployment violated the Monroe Doctrine. Howard Baker, the Republican leader in the Senate, stated that if the U.S. tolerated the presence of Soviet combat troops in Cuba, “we will in effect be letting the Soviet Union thumb their noses at us.”Ronald Reagan, preparing for his run for the presidency in 1980, said that the United States “should not have any further communications with the Soviet Union” until the troops were withdrawn.
We were unwilling to tolerate a single brigade of Soviet troops in Ukraine, without the threat of nuclear weapons, but now we expect the Russians to accept Ukraine in NATO and us basing hundreds of nuclear weapons near their borders? Pot, meet kettle.
Because you did.I guess I missed the report of NATO having armored divisions at all there,
Russia is Russia, Ukraine is not Russia. Yet, at least.or that we had invaded Russia, which was the context I was speaking of. Let's stop creating strawman, shall we?