Imagine if Russia wanted to put nuclear missiles in Cuba

[Dawkinsrocks]

And so the US started threatening Cuba (even more than it already does).

Imagine Putin lecturing the US about how this would damage relations.

Obviously such a thing would never even get of the starting blocks ha ha but if it did maybe the US would then have a very good understanding of how spectacularly hypocritical it is being.

It has placed nuclear weapons in Poland and the Russians don't like it.

Funny that.

[AlanC]

And so the US started threatening Cuba (even more than it already does).

Imagine Putin lecturing the US about how this would damage relations.

Obviously such a thing would never even get of the starting blocks ha ha but if it did maybe the US would then have a very good understanding of how spectacularly hypocritical it is being.

It has placed nuclear weapons in Poland and the Russians don't like it.

Funny that.


Defensive anti ballistic missle systems are not nuclear weapons. Same thing, do you have some sort of substantiation of your outlandish claims?

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh, are they only anti-ballistic missiles???

Oh, sorry, in that case my point has no validity and the US would probably welcome Russia putting some in Cuba, or maybe Jamaica.

[AlanC]

A strictly defensive system? No problem. I'm sure all the Russian SAM sites in Cuba would constitute that. I believe that Russia just sold new SAM installations and training to Venazuela as well in addition to fighter aricraft and an agreement to build an arms plant there.

Exactly how do you envision Russia doing anything in Jamaica? I doubt the British governor would sign off on such a thing. :lmao:

You still haven't backed up your lame claim of the US placing nukes in Poland. Or as that just another wild baseless assertion?

[IndieVisible]

I beg to differ from both of you here.

I don't care what type of missiles Russia would like to put in Cuba, it is so NOT gonna happen.

The difference is nite and day.

For one thing, the system defense we are setting up in Europe is for ALL OF Europe against any attacks. It is NOT aimed at Russia.

If Russia puts missiles in Cuba the intent is crystal clear that the USA is the Target.

So I really don't care how Russia cries or justifies any thing. There will be NO RUSSIAN MISSILES IN CUBA OF ANY KIND, EVER!

Russia will have to deal with our missile defense in Europe, and just may be, if they behave, it will never be used against them.

Drink some more vodka Russia, you will forget all about it.

[michaelr]

And so the US started threatening Cuba (even more than it already does).

Imagine Putin lecturing the US about how this would damage relations.

Obviously such a thing would never even get of the starting blocks ha ha but if it did maybe the US would then have a very good understanding of how spectacularly hypocritical it is being.

It has placed nuclear weapons in Poland and the Russians don't like it.

Funny that.

This is exactly what we are talking about, to damn bad Americans have developed a double standard.

[IndieVisible]

Not double standards at all.

One is a defense shield for Europe.

Other is blatant obvious threat to USA.

[michaelr]

Not double standards at all.

One is a defense shield for Europe.

Other is blatant obvious threat to USA.

Take away the concept of MAD and it can and is considered a threat to the Russians.

[IndieVisible]

Take away the concept of MAD and it can and is considered a threat to the Russians.

I don't think we or Europe should revolve around what Russia may feel as a threat or not like. Not a good way to assure the safety for masses if we worry about what Russia thinks. Personally I could care less what Russia thinks.

[michaelr]

I don't think we or Europe should revolve around what Russia may feel as a threat or not like. Not a good way to assure the safety for masses if we worry about what Russia thinks. Personally I could care less what Russia thinks.

What you think here, no disrespect, is irrelevant!

[IndieVisible]

What you think here, no disrespect, is irrelevant!

I agree. I offer my personal opinion as a note.

[aaronssongs]

I don't think we or Europe should revolve around what Russia may feel as a threat or not like. Not a good way to assure the safety for masses if we worry about what Russia thinks. Personally I could care less what Russia thinks.

And I think you're prejudiced against Russians, by your statements.

[IndieVisible]

And I think you're prejudiced against Russians, by your statements.

We are all racists don't you think, some are just more honest ;)

[aaronssongs]

We are all racists don't you think, some are just more honest ;)

that doesn't mean it's justified. or don't you believe in catharsis?

[IndieVisible]

that doesn't mean it's justified. or don't you believe in catharsis?

define what *you* think it means, as the term is not really clear. Another greek word which can mean any thing.

[Defensor]

For one thing, the system defense we are setting up in Europe is for ALL OF Europe against any attacks. It is NOT aimed at Russia.

Russia offered to create a joint U.S.-Russian missile defense system. Bush refused. Of course this "missile shield" is aimed at Russia, laying the groundwork for a nuclear attack.

[Buck Laser]

Apparently none of you guys remember the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. I don't remember if it was Khruschev or Castro who came up with the idea, but it was in retaliation for the CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. I remember it well--we all felt we might be just minutes away from nuclear war.

[Defensor]

Apparently none of you guys remember the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. I don't remember if it was Khruschev or Castro who came up with the idea, but it was in retaliation for the CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. I remember it well--we all felt we might be just minutes away from nuclear war.

The Cuban missile crisis was in response to the U.S. deployment of IRBMs in Turkey 16 minutes from Moscow. The crisis ended when Kennedy agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey.

[Buck Laser]

The Cuban missile crisis was in response to the U.S. deployment of IRBMs in Turkey 16 minutes from Moscow. The crisis ended when Kennedy agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey.
In fact, you are right. I forgot about that. At the time, most of us assumed it had to do with the Bay of Pigs the year before. Sometimes it's hard for people with first-hand recollections to realize that things aren't always as they seem. That's why there will always be employment for historians.

Thank you.

[Defensor]

In fact, you are right. I forgot about that. At the time, most of us assumed it had to do with the Bay of Pigs the year before. Sometimes it's hard for people with first-hand recollections to realize that things aren't always as they seem. That's why there will always be employment for historians.

Thank you.

Well the U.S. government does have a vested interest in keeping that side of the story a secret. The U.S. couldn't possibly have been the aggressor...

[IndieVisible]

Russia offered to create a joint U.S.-Russian missile defense system. Bush refused. Of course this "missile shield" is aimed at Russia, laying the groundwork for a nuclear attack.

NOT true and we offered Russia inspection rights and they have yet to accept.

[IndieVisible]

Apparently none of you guys remember the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. I don't remember if it was Khruschev or Castro who came up with the idea, but it was in retaliation for the CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. I remember it well--we all felt we might be just minutes away from nuclear war.

I remember it! Russia went home like the pussy they are. Same will happen again if they try it.

[Defensor]

NOT true and we offered Russia inspection rights and they have yet to accept.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm

:rolleyes:

[IndieVisible]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm

:rolleyes:

May be I was not clear, forgive me, I was saying not true to our missile shield is aimed at Russia. Not Russia offering us a role in their plan. I like the idea better offering Russia a role in our plan. Why should we use inferior technology?

[brien]

"Imagine if Russia wanted to put nuclear missiles in Cuba"

I don't know if you are old enough to remember it but this was tried by the old Soviet Union. It went over like a fart in church. Perhaps you should read some history on US and Soviet Relations in the 60's.

[Wndrtch]

And so the US started threatening Cuba (even more than it already does).

Imagine Putin lecturing the US about how this would damage relations.

Obviously such a thing would never even get of the starting blocks ha ha but if it did maybe the US would then have a very good understanding of how spectacularly hypocritical it is being.

It has placed nuclear weapons in Poland and the Russians don't like it.

Funny that.

Let them try to bring misssles to Cuba, and Cuba will become the 51 state. we'll turn that place back into a paradise in 10 years.

[Wndrtch]

"Imagine if Russia wanted to put nuclear missiles in Cuba"

I don't know if you are old enough to remember it but this was tried by the old Soviet Union. It went over like a fart in church. Perhaps you should read some history on US and Soviet Relations in the 60's.

He did.

He sides with the Commies, that's all.

[G.B.]

And so the US started threatening Cuba (even more than it already does).

Imagine Putin lecturing the US about how this would damage relations.

Obviously such a thing would never even get of the starting blocks ha ha but if it did maybe the US would then have a very good understanding of how spectacularly hypocritical it is being.

It has placed nuclear weapons in Poland and the Russians don't like it.

Funny that.

What? No reference?

HORSE HOCKEY.

The system planned for Poland is strictly defensive interceptors. The Russians in typical response have threatened Poland with a possible nuclear strike if they allow defensive weapons on their soil.

Russia's Nuclear Threat to Poland (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4543744.ece)

You will note in this linked story that the Russian threat is in response to a "missile shield" being located in Poland.

If the poster would like to have a little credibility concerning the "placement of nuclear weapons" in Poland, then perhaps a link referencing the story would be in order.

[G.B.]

U.S. will offer a deal to Russia on missile shield (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/21/news/missile.php)

WASHINGTON: At the urging of European allies, the Bush administration is offering Russia a new package of incentives to drop its harsh opposition to U.S. missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, including an invitation to link American and Russian antimissile systems, according to senior administration and military officials.

The package also includes American offers to share intelligence about common threats, and to permit Russian officials to inspect the future missile bases. U.S. officials said the initiatives reflected an acknowledgment at the highest levels of the Bush administration that it had not been agile in dealing with Russia - and with some European allies - on its missile defense plans..............

This story is from 2007 so the offer was made over a year ago.

Seems to me that the Russians had their chance to go along and even benefit from the deal. In typical fashion, they refused.

Recent events show that the old Bear was never gone, but just in hibernation.

Glasnost and perestroika were just a cover and a diversion to fool the west, and the west WAS fooled............ too many Neville Chamberlains among us.

[AlanC]

The Cuban missile crisis was in response to the U.S. deployment of IRBMs in Turkey 16 minutes from Moscow. The crisis ended when Kennedy agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey.

Actually, the missles in Trukey were all short range missiles. In fact, they were obsolete because of the development of longer range weapons and due to be removed anyway. The US gave up nothing in the agreement.

Khruschev tried, got called on it and backed down. Removing the Turkish missles was a throw away that didn't matter to the US and allowed Khruschev a way to say he had won, when in fact his hand had been forced and he had to back down.

[apdst]

Russia's agression of late well justifies the reaction we're seeing from Poland and other countries.

Let's face it, no one wants Russia running the show.

[Defensor]

Actually, the missles in Trukey were all short range missiles. In fact, they were obsolete because of the development of longer range weapons and due to be removed anyway. The US gave up nothing in the agreement.

Khruschev tried, got called on it and backed down. Removing the Turkish missles was a throw away that didn't matter to the US and allowed Khruschev a way to say he had won, when in fact his hand had been forced and he had to back down.

They were medium-range missiles that could still devastate Russia as quickly as the Cuban missiles could have.

[G.B.]

Actually, the missles in Trukey were all short range missiles. In fact, they were obsolete because of the development of longer range weapons and due to be removed anyway. The US gave up nothing in the agreement.

Khruschev tried, got called on it and backed down. Removing the Turkish missles was a throw away that didn't matter to the US and allowed Khruschev a way to say he had won, when in fact his hand had been forced and he had to back down.

In fact, you are right on this one Alan. The missiles in Turkey were obselete Jupiters that were due to be phased out anyway. With the improvement in the sea-borne SLBM's carried by the Polaris submarines the IRBM's in Turkey were redundant; a liquid fueled maintenance headache, and a general PITA for the Air Force personnel that were required to maintain them.

As a matter of fact, Kennedy had called for their removal when he took office and was a bit ticked to find that they were still there. Strangely enough, their presence there gave him a "throwaway" bargaining chip....... They were gone quickly enough, and would have been anyway.

[brien]

What? No reference?

HORSE HOCKEY.

The system planned for Poland is strictly defensive interceptors. The Russians in typical response have threatened Poland with a possible nuclear strike if they allow defensive weapons on their soil.

Russia's Nuclear Threat to Poland (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4543744.ece)

You will note in this linked story that the Russian threat is in response to a "missile shield" being located in Poland.

If the poster would like to have a little credibility concerning the "placement of nuclear weapons" in Poland, then perhaps a link referencing the story would be in order.

GB;

First.. thank you for your service to our country. Your contributions here are very erudite and demonstrate a perspective that this forum sorely requires sometimes. I may not always agree with you but I will always repsect your point of view.

As for this clown dawkinsrocks, don't expect any links to his outrageous statements. I think you will find who you can rely upon for documentation around here and who is here merely parroting cottonheaded rhetoric they hear on TV or they get from dopey websites.

The deal is just about done in Poland.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-poland_aug21,0,3612786.story


By Aamer Madhani | Washington Bureau
August 21, 2008
WASHINGTON — The ongoing and increasingly sharp rhetorical exchange between Washington and Moscow escalated on Wednesday as the Bush administration moved one step closer to completing a deal to build an American missile shield in Poland, paving the way for the U.S. to set up its first missile system in a former Soviet bloc nation.

The formal signing of the agreement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart comes days after top Russian officials threatened that the Poles could face an attack if Warsaw goes through with its plan to host 10 U.S. missile interceptors.

Russian leaders are convinced that the weapons system, which would sit in northern Poland about 115 miles from its borders, would be a threat against their country despite the assurances of U.S. officials that it is a defensive system to protect Europe and parts of the United States from a potential Iranian nuclear strike.

To operate the proposed missile defense system, the U.S. military would have to base a small number of troops in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia says such a move would violate post-Cold War agreements that the U.S. would not base its troops in former Soviet bloc states.

***********************************************

The ball is in Russia's court now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404221,00.html

A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.

The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations.

Poland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, feels it is aimed at Russia's missile force.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.

At a news conference earlier Friday, Nogovitsyn had reiterated Russia's frequently stated warning that placing missile-defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic would bring an unspecified military response. But his subsequent reported statement substantially stepped up a war of words.

****************************************

Ahhh the Russian bear is growling..............