Role of Nuclear Weapons in a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

[r3volution 3.0]

I know some non-interventionists believe that strategic nuclear weapons are sufficient to deter all foreign aggression. For this to work, however, any attack (not only a nuclear attack) would have to be met with a nuclear response. I'll use an example to show why this is problematic. Suppose (in the not so distant future) that the Chinese decide they want Hawaii. The US has no conventional military, just a strategic nuclear force. A Chinese invasion fleet is moving toward Hawaii. How does the US respond? Is it going to launch a massive nuclear strike against China? No, that would be insane, since the Chinese have nuclear weapons as well and would retaliate in kind - leading to a result much worse than losing Hawaii. Moreover, the Chinese would know this and would therefore not be deterred from attacking Hawaii in the first place. Bottom line: no sane state is going to use nuclear weapons against another nuclear-armed state unless it's facing total destruction, which means that a US bereft of conventional military forces is vulnerable to death by a thousand cuts. First Hawaii, then the California, etc, etc. As long as the Chinese keep the threat below the threshold at which it would be rational for the US to use nuclear weapons (which is an extremely high threshold), there will be no nuclear response - and so no resistance at all.

Basically, strategic nuclear weapons are only useful at bullying non-nuclear states and preventing nuclear war between nuclear states. This is why it still makes sense to think about conventional warfare. Any war between the major powers in the future will be non-nuclear, even if all parties concerned have nuclear weapons, because it makes no sense for any of them to use them.

But what about tactical nuclear weapons? Those would be smaller nuclear weapons designed to attack military forces (e.g. a Chinese fleet approaching Hawaii or Soviet army corps driving through the Fulda Gap) rather than to annihilate an entire country. These could potentially be used without generating an all-out nuclear exchange (just as it would be irrational for the US to launch an all-out nuclear attack against China in response to an invasion of Hawaii, so it would be irrational for the Chinese to launch an all-out nuclear attack against the US in response to the US blowing up that fleet that tactical nuclear weapons). Both sides developed tactical nukes during the Cold War for precisely this reason. Once it became clear that no one could possibly "win" an all-out nuclear war, they started developing tactical nukes to augment their conventional forces. NATO knew it would be outnumbered if the Soviets invaded Western Europe, hence they stationed nuclear artillery and other tactical nukes in Germany to even the odds.

My quesiton is: why were these abandoned? Was it decided, through some game-theoretic exercise, that the risk of escalation was too high (i.e. that tactical nukes would still likely generate an all-out nuclear exchange), or what? Because it seems to me that these would be an extremely cost-effective solution to national defense (and hence an attractive option from a libertarian/non-intervention point of view). Maybe that's actually the reason they were abandoned? - the MIC didn't want to put itself out of business?

Thoughts?

[Ronin Truth]

Really scary attack deterrents.

[Zippyjuan]

Which countries have nuclear weapons? How many times have they been attacked? It seems pretty successful as a deterrent. Consider India and Pakistan. They used to fight constantly. Once both went nuclear, they suddenly started getting along just fine. Some say it led to more proxy wars between the US and USSR- that rather than fight anything directly, they would fight instead for influence in different parts of the world like South America.

[r3volution 3.0]

Which countries have nuclear weapons? How many times have they been attacked? It seems pretty successful as a deterrent. Consider India and Pakistan. They used to fight constantly. Once both went nuclear, they suddenly started getting along just fine. Some say it led to more proxy wars between the US and USSR- that rather than fight anything directly, they would fight instead for influence in different parts of the world like South America.

Yes, but all those states also have conventional military forces. Think of this. Suppose India had no conventional forces, just strategic nuclear weapons. Pakistan occupies Kashmir. What's India going to do? Nuke Islamabad? And then have New Delhi nuked in reply? I don't think so.

Incidentally, tactical nukes would be less useful for a country like India or Pakistan. As immediate neighbors fighting a ground war, the line between tactical and strategic use of nukes would be blurred. As in so many other areas, the US is blessed by geography. We have huge expanses of uninhabited wasteland all around us (Atlantic and Pacific), which we could nuke to our heart's content without risking a nuclear exchange. I envision tactical nukes being useful primarily against naval assets in the ocean - where the difference between tactical and strategic attack is crisp.

If nuclear weapons could be used against surface warships in blue water without risk of escalation (or, at least, no more risk than with a conventional attack on those same vessels), that would be the end of surface warships. A single trident missile ($37 million) could annihilate anything that floats guaranteed. Hence the appeal - cheap defense.

[UWDude]

Mutually assured Destruction, as well as nuclear winter, are myths.
If the Chinese sent an invasion fleet, it would be nuked.
But yeah, you need a military, to be sure the Chinese fleet would be in defensive ranges of their own ships, clumped together to stave of counter-naval attack.

So whoever says you just need nuclear weapons does not know what they are talking about. A nation needs nuclear weapons and a strong military.

[pcosmar]

In a world gone totally insane,, Totally insane weapons are the only option.

The only reason they were ever developed in the first place was because insane psychopaths run the world.
They were developed by the insane to combat the insane.

[Ronin Truth]

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” -- Albert Einstein

[osan]

I know some non-interventionists believe that strategic nuclear weapons are sufficient to deter all foreign aggression.

Define "some".

For this to work, however, any attack (not only a nuclear attack) would have to be met with a nuclear response. I'll use an example to show why this is problematic. Suppose (in the not so distant future) that the Chinese decide they want Hawaii. The US has no conventional military, just a strategic nuclear force. A Chinese invasion fleet is moving toward Hawaii. How does the US respond? Is it going to launch a massive nuclear strike against China? No, that would be insane, since the Chinese have nuclear weapons as well and would retaliate in kind - leading to a result much worse than losing Hawaii. Moreover, the Chinese would know this and would therefore not be deterred from attacking Hawaii in the first place. Bottom line: no sane state is going to use nuclear weapons against another nuclear-armed state unless it's facing total destruction, which means that a US bereft of conventional military forces is vulnerable to death by a thousand cuts. First Hawaii, then the California, etc, etc. As long as the Chinese keep the threat below the threshold at which it would be rational for the US to use nuclear weapons (which is an extremely high threshold), there will be no nuclear response - and so no resistance at all.

The logic is superficially compelling, but flawed. Firstly, the response to such Chinese aggression does not have to be a massive attack. Diplomatically speaking, I would notify China that if that fleet did not turn around within one hour's time and make steam directly back to the mainland according to the shortest possible navigational path, we would remove some vital target from China's asset list. Perhaps Beijing or one of their vital military facilities... you get the picture.

If that failed to work, I would make good on the promise, having further notified China that if they respond with any aggression whatsoever that we would then begin picking off their assets one at a time until they found religion. Any massive response to our actions would be met in kind.

That is one way of implementing such a strategy. Another is to smuggle nukes into Chinese cities where they would be stored in highly hardened facilities such that no attack would ever yield them to the Chinese, but would only result in detonation. For this I would build really large strategic bombs - perhaps a 3-stage 100MT device similar to the Tsar Bomba. Plant the first ten in vital areas, then tell Beijing what you have done and even invite them to witness the truth of the claim. Then tell them that the first hint of aggression against America will result in the obliteration of their lands and people. Your move, $#@!s.

Secondly, you presume only sane states have nuclear weapons. Based upon what we all see here on a daily basis, do you rate America as a sane state? I do not.

Thirdly, once the first tester of American resolve becomes the latest genocide statistic, the rest of the world will come to see that we were serious about it and be given strong pause to reconsider any doubts they may have harbored.

Your analysis of China's likely success with nibbling at US territory is similarly flawed. The mere threat of taking Hawaii would bring out the big banjos. Like the Soviets, the Chinese are $#@!s, but they are not yet gone so sky-high crazy that their senses of enlightened self-interest and basic self preservation have been suspended.

Interestingly, this is a scenario I had considered as a practical strategy, as well as a plot line for a novel. Imagine a world where every foreign embassy housed a high-yield nuclear device. Who, then, is going to get stupid when any aggression risks being met with multiple nuclear detonations across one's own territories?

My quesiton is: why were these abandoned? Was it decided, through some game-theoretic exercise, that the risk of escalation was too high (i.e. that tactical nukes would still likely generate an all-out nuclear exchange), or what? Because it seems to me that these would be an extremely cost-effective solution to national defense (and hence an attractive option from a libertarian/non-intervention point of view). Maybe that's actually the reason they were abandoned? - the MIC didn't want to put itself out of business?

Thoughts?

Much of what you write presupposes that what is witnessed across this warring globe is not political theater. If you suppose otherwise, methinks most of the answers should come.

[r3volution 3.0]

Firstly, the response to such Chinese aggression does not have to be a massive attack. Diplomatically speaking, I would notify China that if that fleet did not turn around within one hour's time and make steam directly back to the mainland according to the shortest possible navigational path, we would remove some vital target from China's asset list. Perhaps Beijing or one of their vital military facilities... you get the picture.

If that failed to work, I would make good on the promise, having further notified China that if they respond with any aggression whatsoever that we would then begin picking off their assets one at a time until they found religion. Any massive response to our actions would be met in kind.

Sure, you could try that, but wouldn't attacking the Chinese homeland (even a limited attack) be more risky than just sinking the attacking fleet?

That's the idea here - to achieve our objectives with minimum risk of escalation.

That is one way of implementing such a strategy. Another is to smuggle nukes into Chinese cities where they would be stored in highly hardened facilities such that no attack would ever yield them to the Chinese, but would only result in detonation. For this I would build really large strategic bombs - perhaps a 3-stage 100MT device similar to the Tsar Bomba. Plant the first ten in vital areas, then tell Beijing what you have done and even invite them to witness the truth of the claim. Then tell them that the first hint of aggression against America will result in the obliteration of their lands and people. Your move, $#@!s.

Since every Chinese city can already be annihilated with ballistic missiles, there's no need to sneak bombs into their cities in advance (i.e. it doesn't make the threat any more credible). And, of course, if we got caught doing this that would itself be a casus belli.

Secondly, you presume only sane states have nuclear weapons. Based upon what we all see here on a daily basis, do you rate America as a sane state? I do not.

"Sane" in this context just means non-suicidal. In that sense, yes, the US government (and every other government in the world) is sane. I'm not aware of any government in history that has ever undertaken intentionally suicidal actions, except when it was already doomed (and it wanted to "go out with a bang": e.g. Hitler's "Nero Decree").

Thirdly, once the first tester of American resolve becomes the latest genocide statistic, the rest of the world will come to see that we were serious about it and be given strong pause to reconsider any doubts they may have harbored.

Or the first time we try a disproportionate response to an attack we get all out global nuclear war, and there's no one left to be impressed but the cockroaches. Counter intuitively, conventional (or tactual nuclear) forces make that outcome less likely. While a measured use of strategic weapons is possible (nuke 1 city instead of 50), that's still an awfully provocative step - much more than destroying military forces on the ocean.

[r3volution 3.0]

After I posted the OP yesterday, I did some additional reading, and what I discovered was that tactical nukes are actually making a come-back.

No so much in NATO, but in Russia.

The Russians know that their conventional forces are massively inferior to ours, and apparently they don't believe that the threat of strategic nuclear retaliation is credible deterrence, so they're increasingly relying on tactical nukes to plug that gap. They envision using tactical nukes against hostile military forces on their own territory in the event of a NATO or Chinese invasion of Russia - and they do not expect this to escalate into total nuclear war (otherwise it would be pointless).

Russia's Embrace of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, from the Cicero Foundation

The Pakistanis are doing the same thing: developing tactical nukes to give themselves an option short of all out nuclear war in the event of an attack by India's massively superior conventional forces.

And this is the same thing NATO did during the Cold War in Europe, to even the odds against the massive Soviet conventional superiority.

This sheds some light on why NATO largely abandoned tactical nukes at the end of the Cold War. It wasn't that they decided that any use of tactical nukes would necessarily escalate into all out nuclear war (obviously they did not think for all the years they had them in Germany), it's that the geopolitical situation changed, and NATO shifted from defending Europe from massive Soviet attack to offense. And offensive use of tactical nukes, on the enemy's own territory....is getting awe fully close to a strategic first strike (which obviously would generate an all out response).

[osan]

Sure, you could try that, but wouldn't attacking the Chinese homeland (even a limited attack) be more risky than just sinking the attacking fleet?

Perhaps, perhaps not. But in this case I think that sending their fleet to have brunch with Davey Jones would be far and away less effective a message than erasing a major and vital population center. It would bring the consequences very much home to the Chinese people, as well as their government. A fleet is sunk 2500 miles away in blue water... meh, it's bad, but not nearly as bad as the cell footage of Guangzhou going up in a fireball.

It is not my desire to bring harm to anyone, but if you are going to trespass upon me in such fashion, then I no longer recognize your claims to life and I will endeavor to snuff you out in toto. It is way bad $#@! to invade foreign lands, particularly when there is no justifiable basis for doing so. Such bad behavior should precipitate ultimately catastrophic consequences upon those choose it. I do not believe in measured responses where these brands of affairs are concerned. I am a firm believer in wiping one's enemies from the face of the earth. If you do not want to suffer that fate, then keep your hands off me. This is really a very simple concept to understand. That some refuse to learn it makes it clear they are either too stupid to live or too wicked. Either way, removal from the living stock of the planet is what those who do such things deserve.

That's the idea here - to achieve our objectives with minimum risk of escalation.

Saber rattling has proven about as successful as appeasement, historically speaking. But convincing your potential enemy that you are so $#@!ing crazy that you will risk global conflagration in order to make it clear that aggression will not be tolerated seems to work very well. Ca. 1960 the Soviets were unequivocal about their notions for political expansion of the communist state. During that time we adopted the MAD doctrine - Mutually Assured Destruction. Anyone at one of your bases twitches and we will send 35,000 high-yield warheads to pepper your great Soviet empire. Go ahead and test us... we dare you.

His faults notwithstanding, JFK stood his ground and basically made the soviet $#@!s blink. MAD worked with them, though only because they are rational.

Now, if we consider ISIS... whoever and whatever they REALLY are notwithstanding and assuming that, practically speaking, they are what the media et al say they are, then we might be in something of a different kettle of fish. Strategies such as mine pretty well depend upon the rationality of the players in question. Once you are dealing with psychotics, and I would submit that those to whom the media refer as "ISIS" do appear to be out for a very long lunch, the game changes in its potential because you can never quite rely upon a rationally enlightened sense of self interest to be in evidence with people willing to strap bombs onto their bodies and light them off as they seek martyrdom, their 72 virgins, and the precipitation of some apocalyptic prophecy.

So yes, I must modify my position a bit toward yours in that while the strategic approach I outlined is likely to do its job well with sane people, it hold the potential for complete breakdown once one finds those facing you from across the expanse to be barking mad.

Since every Chinese city can already be annihilated with ballistic missiles, there's no need to sneak bombs into their cities in advance (i.e. it doesn't make the threat any more credible). And, of course, if we got caught doing this that would itself be a casus belli.

Here I would differ. Establishing a bomb emplacement in the manner described could hold endless advantages, time to delivery being one of them. Rather than requiring 30 minutes to span the range, the bomb can be "delivered" in fractions of a second. So long as your enemies can be prevented from doing the same to you, a clear and very sharp strategic advantage becomes and remains yours.

"Sane" in this context just means non-suicidal. In that sense, yes, the US government (and every other government in the world) is sane. I'm not aware of any government in history that has ever undertaken intentionally suicidal actions, except when it was already doomed (and it wanted to "go out with a bang": e.g. Hitler's "Nero Decree").

One need not be explicitly suicidal in order to be EFFECTIVELY so.

Or the first time we try a disproportionate response to an attack we get all out global nuclear war, and there's no one left to be impressed but the cockroaches. Counter intuitively, conventional (or tactual nuclear) forces make that outcome less likely. While a measured use of strategic weapons is possible (nuke 1 city instead of 50), that's still an awfully provocative step - much more than destroying military forces on the ocean.

That becomes a matter of what sorts of gambling one is willing to undertake.

[r3volution 3.0]

Perhaps, perhaps not. But in this case I think that sending their fleet to have brunch with Davey Jones would be far and away less effective a message than erasing a major and vital population center. It would bring the consequences very much home to the Chinese people, as well as their government. A fleet is sunk 2500 miles away in blue water... meh, it's bad, but not nearly as bad as the cell footage of Guangzhou going up in a fireball.

That's exactly why striking the fleet is preferable, less risk of escalation - while still eliminating the threat.

While it would be nice in principle to send some kind of message to make the threat more credible next time, I don't think it's worth risking total annihilation to do so. In they aren't deterred by the sinking of the fleet, and they send another - well then you just sink that one too, and the next, and the next. Presumably they'll get the message. Even if not, though, you've still achieved your objective of protecting the country.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It is not my desire to bring harm to anyone, but if you are going to trespass upon me in such fashion, then I no longer recognize your claims to life and I will endeavor to snuff you out in toto. It is way bad $#@! to invade foreign lands, particularly when there is no justifiable basis for doing so. Such bad behavior should precipitate ultimately catastrophic consequences upon those choose it. I do not believe in measured responses where these brands of affairs are concerned. I am a firm believer in wiping one's enemies from the face of the earth. If you do not want to suffer that fate, then keep your hands off me. This is really a very simple concept to understand. That some refuse to learn it makes it clear they are either too stupid to live or too wicked. Either way, removal from the living stock of the planet is what those who do such things deserve.

The problem with that logic is that such an enemy as we're discussing is capable of doing the same to you, at any time.

Total victory is impossible.

Saber rattling has proven about as successful as appeasement, historically speaking. But convincing your potential enemy that you are so $#@!ing crazy that you will risk global conflagration in order to make it clear that aggression will not be tolerated seems to work very well.

That policy (assuring your own annihilation in response to any attack no matter how trivial) is so insane that no one would believe that you'd really do it.

Ca. 1960 the Soviets were unequivocal about their notions for political expansion of the communist state. During that time we adopted the MAD doctrine - Mutually Assured Destruction. Anyone at one of your bases twitches and we will send 35,000 high-yield warheads to pepper your great Soviet empire. Go ahead and test us... we dare you.

His faults notwithstanding, JFK stood his ground and basically made the soviet $#@!s blink. MAD worked with them, though only because they are rational.

The Soviets knew the US was bluffing. Soviet doctrine assumed that limited conventional (and/or tactical nuclear) war in Europe was possible, and they built their military forces on that assumption - i.e. they didn't believe that the US would really unleash armageddon at the slightest provocation.

Now, if we consider ISIS... whoever and whatever they REALLY are notwithstanding and assuming that, practically speaking, they are what the media et al say they are, then we might be in something of a different kettle of fish. Strategies such as mine pretty well depend upon the rationality of the players in question. Once you are dealing with psychotics, and I would submit that those to whom the media refer as "ISIS" do appear to be out for a very long lunch, the game changes in its potential because you can never quite rely upon a rationally enlightened sense of self interest to be in evidence with people willing to strap bombs onto their bodies and light them off as they seek martyrdom, their 72 virgins, and the precipitation of some apocalyptic prophecy.

Yea, for a genuinely suicidal group, there's nothing to be done but try to prevent them from getting/launching an attack in the first place. That should be relatively easy as long as nuclear weapons can only be produced by highly advanced states (as opposed to being assembled from stuff you can buy at Walmart). The other good news is that a group like ISIS is never going to have world-ending nuclear capabilities. It would be horrible but not fatal.

Here I would differ. Establishing a bomb emplacement in the manner described could hold endless advantages, time to delivery being one of them. Rather than requiring 30 minutes to span the range, the bomb can be "delivered" in fractions of a second. So long as your enemies can be prevented from doing the same to you, a clear and very sharp strategic advantage becomes and remains yours.

Assuming the enemy has a credible second-strike capability (in the form of hardened silos or SSBN, for instance), an ability to hit them before they can launch a response doesn't confer any advantage (doesn't prevent retaliation).

Anyway, good discussion. Nuclear deterrence is really a puzzling subject when you get into it.

[osan]

That's exactly why striking the fleet is preferable, less risk of escalation - while still eliminating the threat.

Point taken. I suppose Im' just getting old and cranky, or that a lifetime of creeping oppression has me in a foul disposition, but at this stage of my life I find myself in no mood to appease or in any way accommodate those whose aim it is to trespass upon me.

While it would be nice in principle to send some kind of message to make the threat more credible next time, I don't think it's worth risking total annihilation to do so. In they aren't deterred by the sinking of the fleet, and they send another - well then you just sink that one too, and the next, and the next. Presumably they'll get the message. Even if not, though, you've still achieved your objective of protecting the country.

While detonating more weapons, polluting the oceans, and so on?

The real message here is that aggression is a real loser. Moreover, the more indiscriminate and powerful the technologies, the bigger the loser it becomes.

The problem with that logic is that such an enemy as we're discussing is capable of doing the same to you, at any time.

It is not a problem if you value the sanctity of your rights above all else. These issues all turn on the most basic perspectives held by each player. Some people will sell their anuses for the illusion of safety. Others will die long before they assent to trespass.

Total victory is impossible.

Depends on how one defines "victory". For the seller of the anus, I would agree with you. For the Samurai, the answer predicates quite differently.

That policy (assuring your own annihilation in response to any attack no matter how trivial) is so insane that no one would believe that you'd really do it.

And yet it worked in the case of the Cuban missile crisis. Krushchev tucked his little commie tail and turned his $#@! right around. We can speculate all day as to how genuine those events were and it will get us nowhere. What was apparent is that the two forces faced off and one prevailed with great clarity in that particular tete-a-tete.

The Soviets knew the US was bluffing.

That does not jibe with the events of the day. Had they known, They would have left their missiles right where they were, established on the shores just off the American coast.

Anyway, good discussion. Nuclear deterrence is really a puzzling subject when you get into it.

Technologically enhanced warfare will be our undoing. IMO, if you want to make war, you should have to do it the old-fashioned way with sword in hand. When killing becomes hard work once again, I suspect we should see proportionally less of it.

The world is in the hands of madmen and I am not sure that the obvious conclusions will be avoided.

[erowe1]

My quesiton is: why were these abandoned?

Why were what abandoned?

[Ronin Truth]

Why were what abandoned?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...12.0N4ra_o-YUI

[UWDude]

While detonating more weapons, polluting the oceans, and so on?

Hundreds of nuclear weapons have already been set off in the ocean. Over 1,700 nuclear weapons have been set off above ground since 1945.

MAD and nuclear winter are both myths.

And yet it worked in the case of the Cuban missile crisis. Krushchev tucked his little commie tail and turned his $#@! right around. We can speculate all day as to how genuine those events were and it will get us nowhere. What was apparent is that the two forces faced off and one prevailed with great clarity in that particular tete-a-tete.

You sure about that? That is the US narrative. But what happened to the missiles in Turkey and Italy that started the stand off?
Better be sure to read both sides of the story.
Western Media has an annoying habit of starting the story at a point in time where they sound like the victims of aggressions.

from wiki:

In response to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, and the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey against the USSR with Moscow within range, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev decided to agree to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter future harassment of Cuba.

those jupiter ballistic missiles had nuclear warheads, by the way.

And how did the crisis end? Well, again, western version says America big winner, but what did America do?

Secretly, the US also agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Jupiter MRBMs, which were deployed in Turkey and Italy against the Soviet Union but were not known to the public.

Oh, see, different story now, isn't it?

That does not jibe with the events of the day. Had they known, They would have left their missiles right where they were, established on the shores just off the American coast.

They sure would have, and the US would have left their missiles in Turkey, and propaganda war would ensue.

The world is in the hands of madmen and I am not sure that the obvious conclusions will be avoided.

the lucky will survive.



Oh, and I don't know why some posters think tactical nuke stockpiles have been downgraded. They haven't. Not by NATO or Russia.

[osan]

MAD and nuclear winter are both myths.

I agree about the latter. The former, I am not so sure. The strategy is logical, at the very least. That does not, of course, prevent either side from making furtive efforts to gain an edge over the other. That is the fly in the ointment in these matters. Humans are what they are and they tend to develop very bad habits of thinking which, when they cross certain and often unclear boundaries, often lead to commensurately bad behavior. This was all well and good when men marched onto the fields of honor and the highest technologies available to them were the chariot, bow and arrow, and steel sword. The moment butchery crossed the line of mass mechanization, the game changed in a fundamental way and did so yet again when men decided the nuclear bomb was a good idea.

Out technologies have matured, advancing by leaps and bounds. We, OTOH and most worrisomely, have not. By and large, human beings remain frightened and eminently corruptible children with no business wielding the methods of industrial-scale destruction that have been dropped into their laps. But that genie is long out of the bottle, having high-tailed it for parts unknown and left us, a bunch of immature child-apes, holding a bag full of death and endless temptation.

You sure about that? That is the US narrative. But what happened to the missiles in Turkey and Italy that started the stand off?

The missiles in Turkey are said to have been obsolete and were slated for removal in any case, which the Soviets did not know. The story is that Kennedy tossed them this meaningless bone that they would be able to get their little commie egos back behind their zippers without the burn of having been punked before the entire world.

As I wrote previously, we could speculate all day long about who is telling the truth and who is lying. It buys us nothing because we will likely never know whether we are staring at the truth or some mangled version thereof.

And how did the crisis end? Well, again, western version says America big winner, but what did America do?

They blockaded Cuba, quite successfully.

Oh, see, different story now, isn't it?

Not really. I'm not saying we were the knight's in shining armor slaying the red commie dragon. But I am saying that we will likely never be able to discern the whole and unvarnished truth of the matter precisely because each side held vested interests in massaging accounts for what I would suppose are obvious reasons. That means it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to know who is truthing, and who is lying. This becomes trebly difficult when you consider that many of the written accounts may have issued from people who honestly believe their accounts to be faithful to the unvarnished truth.

Therefore, all we can really do is observe what happened, analyze the various accounts and speculate as to what middle-ground is most closely matching the greater truth of the matter.

They sure would have, and the US would have left their missiles in Turkey, and propaganda war would ensue.

Had I not been a young lad and had I been in Kennedy's seat, I would like to think I'd have had the oats to do as he did. To have allowed the USSR to maintain that foothold so close to one's own shores would be a political cluster-copulation for any nation. If we were not to simply hand that one over to them in a silver platter, action had to be taken. I would not want BMs 90 miles off my southmost coast, basically 10 minutes away from my office door, missile flight time.

[Slutter McGee]

I agree about the latter. The former, I am not so sure. The strategy is logical, at the very least. That does not, of course, prevent either side from making furtive efforts to gain an edge over the other.

I am going to look at some high level game theory analysis of this tomorrow when I have access to some scholarly journals. I am really curious as to what conclusions it comes too, and if those conclusions are inline with my thinking. Will follow up.

Slutter McGee