YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I understand, hence I said, "you can say..."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cuban Missile Crisis II
- Thread starter Mock Turtle
- Start date
It seems the Wiki article has changed since I last looked. I do believe there was a note to the effect that it wasn't that close. But, as with yourself and most others, to me it did appear that Arkhipov was the saviour of the moment - and all this says is that we were really close to a serious confrontation and which might repeat itself - with worse consequences this time.
Glad you are so sure - it is the brinkmanship at issue here rather than anything else. Perhaps some aren't so sure though. Putin is just as unpredictable as any other.
Are we heading for a third world war?
Shooting down US missiles is 'war'
shmogie
Well-Known Member
LOL, 75% voted for him in that pure, honest Russian election, where his political opposition winds up in jail.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Wiki articles are not written by historians, but volunteers. Anything found there should be thoroughly verified. I think the story is hyped in a number of ways. Even if it did happen, the use of a tactical nuclear weapon is not the same as using a strategic one. A ship or ships would have been destroyed. Would that inevitably resulted in a strategic nuclear strike ? I don't think by us. It would have been up to the Russians as to whether to escalate the issue beyond a conventional weapons conflict that could be controlled. Most likely our subs would have begun sinking their cargo ships and protective destroyer cover. Another use of nukes by the Russians would have resulted in those of us alive having to kiss our asses goodbye as MAD kicked in.
Not sure about any of that - it was a nuclear weapon that would have been used by the Soviets apparently and that would have crossed the line surely? I can't see the Americans letting that go. As now - if any do so. Perhaps it might not have escalated beyond the region but who knows? This kind of brinkmanship is just so fragile often - Putin or Trump, which one of these would make a really bad decision?
socharlie
Active Member
why would he need to put them in jail? they had no chance anyway?
ajay0
Well-Known Member
His popularity levels have gone down a lot. He is probably still in power due to rigged elections and electoral fraud.
As opposed to what? The USA election where 55% voted against Trump?
Tom
socharlie
Active Member
I do not believe that election was rigged at all, he did a lot of good for commoners their living levels rose dramatically, much more order and less corruption. he suits the current Russian sentiment.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The Russians always have had governments where power is centered in the hands of of usually one all powerful dictator usually despotic, the tzars, the USSR leaders, putin, all the same power, the people expect nothing else. Once in place no election could ever displace them. The last Russian election was as crooked as a dogs hind leg.
Expansionism and hyper "patriotism" demanded of the people keeps their eyes off the crumbling Russian economy and other internal problems.
Russia has always seen its role as an empire and in conflict with the west, from the days of the tzars, and putin is exactly the same. It will always be the case
shmogie
Well-Known Member
A tactical nuclear weapon is small, has limited effect, and is designed for a limited purpose. A strategic nuclear weapon is designed for killing masses of people in a world wide world.
Loss of a ship to a tactical torpedo is not the same as losing a large city to a strategic missile with multiple war heads.
I don't need the technological details, thank you - being an ex-engineer - it is the precedence set that is the important bit. No such weapons have been used in anger since WWII.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
If you consider the anti-putin sentiment, censoring, curtailment of free speech and media freedom over there, you would think twice about it.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
"Where's our "Thank you America?"
Or in other words: We blew up your country. We didn't have a plan for afterward, we just sort of thought democracy would kind of maybe sort of spring from the rubble or something something gazpacho. Predictably, what we got instead was a failed state, which led directly to a terrorist state, which led to blood and chaos and horror. So we blew that up too. It's nearly 20 years later, more than a million people are dead, the country we liberated is still in ruins, the violence has spread into the surround region, we still don't have a plan or a way out or any idea of what to do next -- except blow more **** up. Thank us, you ungrateful b******s. Thank us!
Where's our thank you?
G*****n, this guy.
"Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our 'Thank you America?'"
I spent most of my adult life in the military. I was there when this current mess started -- literally there on the opening night of the war. I spent all of my professional career in the intelligence community. I've seen this over and over, up close.
Read between the lines of Trump's comment,
"Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all!"
There's no plan. That's what that means.
There's no plan. He's pulling it out of his ***.
They have to do something, those in charge of America, but they have no idea what.
There isn't an original strategist among them. The only thing they can think of is a missile strike, because that's what they ALWAYS think of. And that's what they always do. fire a salvo of missiles into the middle of a hostile land. Blow up a runway or a fertilizer factory or a bunker. Take THAT, you murderous SOB! Ha! Ha!
Hell, I was there back in the 80s when we did the same thing to Libya after Berlin AND Lockerbie. Same old, same old.
Except the people we're firing high tech million dollar missiles at are in the middle of war, up to their eye balls in chaos, destruction, blood, death, and they have been for all of their lives. Another missile? Another bomb? Big deal. They're no more impressed or impeded by our war machine than the Vietcong were by our air strikes on the Ho Chi Minh trail 50 years ago.
But we can't think of anything ELSE to do. We got a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Bang. Bang. Bang.
That's the problem with these people, they always think it's easy. A gun, a bomb, a punch in the face, they always thing that'll solve the issue.
This isn't a problem a missile can fix.
It's far, far more complicated than that.
A missile strike is only going to make things worse.
The Pentagon knows it.
The generals and the admirals, they know it.
But they have no idea what ELSE to do -- because every other military solution requires all out commitment, requires us to go in, put boots on the ground in force.
Any non-military response requires those in charge acknowledge that the situation is hideously complex and that brute force can't fix it and in point of fact, that simplistic worldview is precisely how we ended up in this situation in the first place.
And bluntly: the very last thing this administration is equipped to handle is complexity.
Don't think they don't know it.
Don't think TRUMP doesn't know how out of his depth he is.
It's right there, in his own words, "In any event...."
He attempts to distract, to shift the focus off his threatened and useless strike, off his idiotic mistake of tweeting his intention to the enemy, off his hypocrisy, to play the Great Liberator by demanding acknowledgement of some fictional victory and gratitude from a people crushed and bleeding under the horror of war and terror.
There is no plan.
They have no idea what the hell they are doing.
But, as always, that won't stop them from doing something to make it worse." - Jim Wright
socharlie
Active Member
free speech is not really censored in Russia to any significant degree. nothing like it was in the USSR. They learned their lesson to do like they do here - ignore unpleasant free speech.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Uhhhh....one word....P**** Riot.
You must be joking! Can you point to any major independent Russian news outlet?