Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Empchild wrote:...and as I recall they did get something out of it but not the bases in Turkey... we still hold those

We still have joint use status at several installations in Turkey, but none of those installations contain nuclear missiles.

The agreement between Kruschev and Kennedy stipulated that the Soviet Union would remove all nuclear missiles from Cuba in exchange for the removal of all US missiles from Italy, and Turkey. The missiles being discussed during the Cuban Missile Crisis were obsolete at the time, and are no longer deployed.

There are nuclear weapons of US origin in Turkey, but they are under Turkish control. There may also be US controlled tactical and strategic warheads stored at Incirlik, but they would not be of the sort that is attached to a ballistic missile.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Empchild: From what I could gather, Kennedy made a secret pact to remove the Missiles in Turkey some months after the crisis abated. In that way, he could save face and claim a victory, while actually giving in.

Why do you believe that there were still US Missile Bases in Turkey afterwards?

ooo simple really.. because they are still there it's not a secret.

Empchild wrote:
ooo simple really.. because they are still there it's not a secret.

There are two Air Force bases located in Turkey: Izmir, and Incirlik. Neither of those facilities house ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.

Empchild wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Empchild: From what I could gather, Kennedy made a secret pact to remove the Missiles in Turkey some months after the crisis abated. In that way, he could save face and claim a victory, while actually giving in.

Why do you believe that there were still US Missile Bases in Turkey afterwards?

ooo simple really.. because they are still there it's not a secret.

A secret that only your best friends friends girlfriend is privy to, eh?

Ok. Pardon For my lack of understanding.

But didn't this happen like 40 years ago? Why is it still such a hot topic?

Shadowbrand wrote:Ok. Pardon For my lack of understanding.

But didn't this happen like 40 years ago? Why is it still such a hot topic?

If things had gone poorly they could have blown up the world.

sebster wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:Ok. Pardon For my lack of understanding.

But didn't this happen like 40 years ago? Why is it still such a hot topic?

If things had gone poorly they could have blown up the world.

Yep

Proper finger on button stuff, and remember that war planners actually envisioned localised and limited use of nuclear weapons without wars going global. The US talk about developing new nuclear bunker busters that could be used in a conventional theater.

Is it still relevant? well, yes, take a look at the middle east, Wars between India and Pakistan, tension between India and China, and the crackpots in charge of North Korea, you think they give a crap about the use of Nukes? they let their own people starve they wouldn't think twice about them being immolated.

Mr. Burning wrote:

sebster wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:Ok. Pardon For my lack of understanding.

But didn't this happen like 40 years ago? Why is it still such a hot topic?

If things had gone poorly they could have blown up the world.

Yep

Proper finger on button stuff, and remember that war planners actually envisioned localised and limited use of nuclear weapons without wars going global. The US talk about developing new nuclear bunker busters that could be used in a conventional theater.

Is it still relevant? well, yes, take a look at the middle east, Wars between India and Pakistan, tension between India and China, and the crackpots in charge of North Korea, you think they give a crap about the use of Nukes? they let their own people starve they wouldn't think twice about them being immolated.

Events like that matter,imagine what would happened if USA and USSR got embroiled in war.Cold war would become Hot war and billons would be screwed,millons if nukes weren't used.
Cold war and ideological differences have major consequences today,like the division of Korea,Space race etc...
Besides EF needs to pass that history subject,EM how much classes do you have in high schools in Australia,four,three in some schools?

dogma wrote:

Empchild wrote:
ooo simple really.. because they are still there it's not a secret.

There are two Air Force bases located in Turkey: Izmir, and Incirlik. Neither of those facilities house ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.

you are correct niether of those bases do, the U.S has made no hidden agenda or secret squirell about our missile bases still in Turkey. They have freely admitted to them.

The Cuban Missile crisis was a analgamation of tensions basically due to the Soviets wish to create a perminant power base in South America and the Americans wish to keep Communism and all it entailed away from America.

JFK at the time was hailed as a man of peace when the Cuban Missile Crisis came round he was mainly surrounded by advisors that were Hawks they kept on telling and drilling into him that if the Soviets were able to establish a perminent presence in Cuba then that would mean that the Soviets would be able to through Fidel Castro dictate policy in South America basically that the American nation would be besieged by Communist interests in both Europe and South America also that if the Soviets managed to build a missile base in Cuba they would be well within range of Americas Southern states such as Florida and Miami possibly even further.

A situation that NATO could ill afford plus the United States was engaged in a full scale proxy war called Vietnam at the time yet again backed and financed by the Soviet Union they already had boots on the ground there it mortified the United States to think they had Soviet boots on Cuban Soil so pressed for everything they had short of Nuclear War

Thus they started the blockade/embargo to see how far the Soviet Union would go if pushed it was certainly a move provoked by the Americans who believed that if intimidated by starvation the Cubans would ask the Soviets to go home but didint really count on a Cuba goaded on by the Soviet Union thus the situation drew out...

Adventually Khruschev and Kennedy came to a compromise the Soviets left Cuba and the shaky status quo was restored the world moved back from the brink I seriously believe that these were the main factors that led to Kennedys assassination that or his numerous Mafia dealings but it definately effected his time in office after.

In short a lot and I mean a LOT of American saber rattling was involved but how could they sit by and do nothing.....would have you??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:

sebster wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:Ok. Pardon For my lack of understanding.

But didn't this happen like 40 years ago? Why is it still such a hot topic?

If things had gone poorly they could have blown up the world.

Yep

Proper finger on button stuff, and remember that war planners actually envisioned localised and limited use of nuclear weapons without wars going global. The US talk about developing new nuclear bunker busters that could be used in a conventional theater.

Is it still relevant? well, yes, take a look at the middle east, Wars between India and Pakistan, tension between India and China, and the crackpots in charge of North Korea, you think they give a crap about the use of Nukes? they let their own people starve they wouldn't think twice about them being immolated.

Lately the thought of states that would indiscrimately use Nuclear Weapons as part of ORBAT scares me to death at least in the late 40's till 86 we had the Cold War huge game of dare and double dare.

Empchild wrote:
you are correct niether of those bases do, the U.S has made no hidden agenda or secret squirell about our missile bases still in Turkey. They have freely admitted to them.

Those are the only US bases on Turkish soil. All other installations with US personnel fall under the defense cooperation agreement, and so are not considered US installations.

Simply put, we do not have nuclear missiles on Turkish soil, at least not as a matter of public record as you claim. The only publicly acknowledged, US controlled, nuclear weapons located in Europe are Tomahawk cruise missiles, and B61 gravity bombs; with 3rd party estimates placing only the B61s in Turkey.

I think you're confusing bases which once supported nuclear missiles with active installations. Simply because a base is still operational it does not follow that it is still a missile base.

I highly doubt the American military wants foriegn nations to know it may or may not have missiles sitting on their doorstep. America backed away from the defense shield it proposed to build in Poland that was directly sitting on Russia's doorstep. Russia objected and America backed away, pissing off a good chunk of Eastern Europe, especially Poland.

What touched off the Cuban Missile Crisis was the fact that we discovered Cuba had missiles being imported to their country. Imagine if definitive proof of Israeli nuclear weapons ever surfaced rather than broad assumptions? The Middle East would be buzzing like a hornet's nest in a mad grab for nukes (in the most extreme scenario).

Demonslayer82 wrote:JFK at the time was hailed as a man of peace when the Cuban Missile Crisis came round he was mainly surrounded by advisors that were Hawks they kept on telling and drilling into him that if the Soviets were able to establish a perminent presence in Cuba then that would mean that the Soviets would be able to through Fidel Castro dictate policy in South America basically that the American nation would be besieged by Communist interests in both Europe and South America also that if the Soviets managed to build a missile base in Cuba they would be well within range of Americas Southern states such as Florida and Miami possibly even further.

You also have to look at this from a Cuban perspective - they'd already been invaded by the US once. Or you can look at it from a Soviet perspective, the West had already taken direct action against it, sponsoring the whites in the civil war. Russia was also very alone at this point, relations with China has largely collapsed.

With US missiles in Turkey, why wouldn't the Soviets look to put equivalent weapons into Cuba?

A situation that NATO could ill afford plus the United States was engaged in a full scale proxy war called Vietnam at the time yet again backed and financed by the Soviet Union they already had boots on the ground there it mortified the United States to think they had Soviet boots on Cuban Soil so pressed for everything they had short of Nuclear War

You might want to check your timeline, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis there was less than 10,000 US troops in Vietnam, and this wouldn't increase much until the Gulf of Tonkin incident in '64.

Adventually Khruschev and Kennedy came to a compromise the Soviets left Cuba and the shaky status quo was restored the world moved back from the brink I seriously believe that these were the main factors that led to Kennedys assassination that or his numerous Mafia dealings but it definately effected his time in office after.

So the theory goes.

In short a lot and I mean a LOT of American saber rattling was involved but how could they sit by and do nothing.....would have you??

Which is very much the point. Everyone involved acted to maintain their power base, and we almost blew up the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:I highly doubt the American military wants foriegn nations to know it may or may not have missiles sitting on their doorstep. America backed away from the defense shield it proposed to build in Poland that was directly sitting on Russia's doorstep. Russia objected and America backed away, pissing off a good chunk of Eastern Europe, especially Poland.

What touched off the Cuban Missile Crisis was the fact that we discovered Cuba had missiles being imported to their country. Imagine if definitive proof of Israeli nuclear weapons ever surfaced rather than broad assumptions? The Middle East would be buzzing like a hornet's nest in a mad grab for nukes (in the most extreme scenario).

Dude, it's known. Nothing is done about it because, well, what could the Middle Eastern nations do about it? Egypt and Saudi Arabia are American client states, and Jordan isn't far behind. That leaves Syria and Iran, both of whom can look very angry and maybe sponsor some proxies... which is more or less what's happening now.

WarOne wrote:I highly doubt the American military wants foriegn nations to know it may or may not have missiles sitting on their doorstep.

Well, as part of SORT negotiations, both the US an Russia declared broad locations for their nuclear stockpiles. Though not necessarily specific concentrations.

WarOne wrote:
Imagine if definitive proof of Israeli nuclear weapons ever surfaced rather than broad assumptions? The Middle East would be buzzing like a hornet's nest in a mad grab for nukes (in the most extreme scenario).

It already is, more or less. Syria continues to seek clearance to develop its nuclear energy; with Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE not far behind. Though the latter two are unlikely to weaponize.

@dogma- A question of timeframes. At this time, Israel denies having weapons, but it is an open secret. People suspect them to have it, but Israel neither confirms nor denies it. Because of research into uranium deposits within their borders coupled with agreements for nuclear plants with Western powers (specifically France), Israel has the capacity to produce nuclear weapons but we don't know if they have done so. The likely scenario given their history and mutual resentment in the area, they have the weapons, but have not been pushed hard enough to warrant using them. The closest Israel came to destruction in the nuclear age was back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war. Despite being caught flatfooted in their intelligence and military departments, Israel did not option the bomb if they had it.

Now given the current situation in the Middle East, Israel has no need to use weapons of mass destruction. Iran for all it's posturing is more intent on playing a diplomatic war with Western powers, consolidating it's national security and obtaining the facilities to enrich uranium than discover if Israel really has a bomb or not. They know Israeli bombers can devestate their country. They know Israel has superior technological capabilities and a pragmatic approach to war.

What they don't know is certainty about Israel's capabilities. Quite honestly, no one knows Israel's true capabilities. Even America, who supplies Israel with a great deal of international and material support, cannot say for sure what Israel could do.

If Israel was to lose their secret with definitive proof that was undeniable (which is hard in and of itself), it would harden neighboring Islamic countries. Harden meaning their stance versus Israel would become icy and in time hostile, especially when these states obtain nuclear weapons of their own AND an event such as a civil war occurs. We should thank our lucky stars Pakistan has weathered a good deal of their political instability. If their country became torn by civil war, their relationship with India could quickly slip into hot war and possibly a limited nuclear exchange.

WarOne wrote:@dogma- A question of timeframes. At this time, Israel denies having weapons, but it is an open secret. People suspect them to have it, but Israel neither confirms nor denies it.

Dude, there is nothing to suspect, it is known. The French has been quite explicit in detailing their support of French weapons development. The provision of restricted materials by the British, including chemicals to weaponise uranium, is a matter of public record. The plutonium seperation facility at Dimona, only useful for producing weapons grade plutonium, is a matter of public record. The acquisition of uranium ore by Mossad through an Italian front company is a matter of public record. An Israeli nuclear technician came out and spoke openly on the nuclear capabilitie of Israel (Mossad kidnapped him, he was given a secret trial and then kept in solitary detention for more than a decade).

@sebster

I am aware of Israel's wide ranging involvement of obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction of the nuclear and chemical kind, from the French connection to America's own estimation of Israeli capabilites to the probable make and model of each warhead and estimated ability of delivery. I acknowledge that Israel has the capacity to have these weapons.

Israel itself has not said it. They maintain ambiguity. I believe that was my point.

Israel does not want the world to know it's true limits. Doing so would mean enemies of Israel would exploit these shortcomings to their advantage. Conversely, they also do not want to test the potential response of a counter attack. It would take a truly dedicated group of people to plan an attack on Israel capable of making that country launch a theoretical nuclear offensive.

Ergo, the best weapon Israel employs is the clout and mystique of what vengeance an angered Israel could produce.

WarOne wrote:@sebster

I am aware of Israel's wide ranging involvement of obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction of the nuclear and chemical kind, from the French connection to America's own estimation of Israeli capabilites to the probable make and model of each warhead and estimated ability of delivery. I acknowledge that Israel has the capacity to have these weapons.

Israel itself has not said it. They maintain ambiguity. I believe that was my point.

Israel does not want the world to know it's true limits. Doing so would mean enemies of Israel would exploit these shortcomings to their advantage. Conversely, they also do not want to test the potential response of a counter attack. It would take a truly dedicated group of people to plan an attack on Israel capable of making that country launch a theoretical nuclear offensive.

Ergo, the best weapon Israel employs is the clout and mystique of what vengeance an angered Israel could produce.

Nah, it's the politics of having weapons vs the politics of talking about your weapons. Israel could come out tomorrow and announce that just like everyone already knows they have a small number of warheads. There'd be no new facts, but people would interpret intent behind the statements. You build nuclear weapons to defend yourself, you make your nuclear weapons known to the world to become a bigger player in international politics.

I'm not sure what you mean when you're talking about a truly dedicated number of people forcing an Israeli nuclear response. There's no shortage of dedicated people wanting to do Israel harm, what's lacking is the capability. There is no conceivable operation outside of something from Clancy novel that could force an Israeli nuclear response - the nations of the middle east that fought the Israelis have since been brought on-side or militarily crippled.

Have thought of looking at the Cuban point of view? They did have a say in the matter.

Ironhide wrote:Have thought of looking at the Cuban point of view? They did have a say in the matter.

Actually, no.

The crisis was resolved without a significant input from the Cubans. Suffice to say, Castro was not pleased. He wanted to protect Cuba, and the Soviets backed down from protecting Cuba. In effect, it may seem the Soviets betrayed the Cubans and ergo any Cubans with a strong nationalistic or communistic pride would of been hurt by the course of events.

EDIT: Read Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba's Struggle with the Superpowers after the Missile Crisis.

I really want to play Tropico now.

MY PINEAPPLE EMPIRE WILL CRUSH YOU!

WarOne wrote:

Ironhide wrote:Have thought of looking at the Cuban point of view? They did have a say in the matter.

Actually, no.

The crisis was resolved without a significant input from the Cubans. Suffice to say, Castro was not pleased. He wanted to protect Cuba, and the Soviets backed down from protecting Cuba. In effect, it may seem the Soviets betrayed the Cubans and ergo any Cubans with a strong nationalistic or communistic pride would of been hurt by the course of events.

Sort of, being used as a proxy missile base probably made sense in the wake of the Bay of Pigs, but being used as a missile base was only going to increase the chance of invasion. Afterwards Soviet aid kept flowing into Cuba, so it's hard to say they should feel too bitter about it.

sebster wrote:Sort of, being used as a proxy missile base probably made sense in the wake of the Bay of Pigs, but being used as a missile base was only going to increase the chance of invasion. Afterwards Soviet aid kept flowing into Cuba, so it's hard to say they should feel too bitter about it.

Castro was willing to sacrifice Cuba in defense of Cuba. Russia had nuclear warheads capable of defending Cuba at the time on Cuba and Castro would of been inclined to use them if America invaded in force.

Point aside:
The missile crisis did initially inflate Cuba to a crescendo of joy that they have a major world power backing them. The aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis was probably looked upon by the Cubans with lukewarm feelings. Having someone come to your rescue from a mugger, see the mugger packing a rocket launcher, and then walking away muttering about it not being worth their time would probabky be a reasonable analogy to how the Soviets attempted to help Cuba against America. Would you feel any different?

WarOne wrote:Point aside:
The missile crisis did initially inflate Cuba to a crescendo of joy that they have a major world power backing them. The aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis was probably looked upon by the Cubans with lukewarm feelings. Having someone come to your rescue from a mugger, see the mugger packing a rocket launcher, and then walking away muttering about it not being worth their time would probabky be a reasonable analogy to how the Soviets attempted to help Cuba against America. Would you feel any different?

At the time I'd have one opinion, but year's later if the mugging never happened, while the almost saviour kept sending me money to help improve my life I'd likely have another.

@ sebster

Well, you did pique my interest. I would want to know how Cubans really felt when the Soviets continued giving them $$$ in order to prop up a regime that became based on fighting off American imperialism.

Moolah probably did assuage the feelings of Cubans for Soviets, but then agian, would you forget being betrayed like that?

WarOne wrote:@ sebster

Well, you did pique my interest. I would want to know how Cubans really felt when the Soviets continued giving them $$$ in order to prop up a regime that became based on fighting off American imperialism.

Moolah probably did assuage the feelings of Cubans for Soviets, but then agian, would you forget being betrayed like that?

Now that Im thinking about the issue a little more, I realise I was only considering how I felt from a purely practical, long term view. I do wonder what the opinion was among the Cuban population at the time.

WarOne wrote:@dogma- A question of timeframes. At this time, Israel denies having weapons, but it is an open secret.

Israel doesn't deny that they possess nuclear weapons, they simply don't openly discuss any possible possession. When they were first provided with nuclear technology it was decided that announcing that fact would have:
1. Galvanized Arab opposition to the Jewish state.
2. Attracted the attention of the USSR, such that the weapons could become a bargaining chip as in the case of Turkey and Italy.

Now, there is simply nothing to gain in confirming what is essentially an accepted fact. Its something to save as a token of defiance in the event that another Middle Eastern state becomes nuclear. Well, another Middle Eastern state that isn't Turkey.

WarOne wrote:
People suspect them to have it, but Israel neither confirms nor denies it. Because of research into uranium deposits within their borders coupled with agreements for nuclear plants with Western powers (specifically France), Israel has the capacity to produce nuclear weapons but we don't know if they have done so.

The British were also significant supporters. Indeed, it is their shipment provision of restricted materials (primarily used in refinement) which supports much of the recent speculation surrounding Israeli possession.

WarOne wrote:
The likely scenario given their history and mutual resentment in the area, they have the weapons, but have not been pushed hard enough to warrant using them. The closest Israel came to destruction in the nuclear age was back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war. Despite being caught flatfooted in their intelligence and military departments, Israel did not option the bomb if they had it.

Its worth remembering that, at the time, the Arab states were tightly associated with the Soviet Union. So the risk extended beyond Israeli sovereignty.

WarOne wrote:
If Israel was to lose their secret with definitive proof that was undeniable (which is hard in and of itself), it would harden neighboring Islamic countries.

That's doubtful. Iran may step up its rhetorical pressure, but its hard to imagine a way they could actually push the asymmetric issue with any more fervency. Syria lacks the power, and internal security; plus relations between the two states have softened of late. Jordan isn't a threat, and Egypt is cooperative partner against Islamist terrorists.

WarOne wrote:
Harden meaning their stance versus Israel would become icy and in time hostile, especially when these states obtain nuclear weapons of their own AND an event such as a civil war occurs. We should thank our lucky stars Pakistan has weathered a good deal of their political instability. If their country became torn by civil war, their relationship with India could quickly slip into hot war and possibly a limited nuclear exchange.

Pakistan is far more worrisome than the Middle East insofar as a nuclear exchange is concerned. Indeed, I think you have the chain of hostility backwards. The Islamic nations are not the primary threat to stability in the region. Israel is; particularly in its more paranoiac moods.

Demonslayer82 wrote:

JFK at the time was hailed as a man of peace when the Cuban Missile Crisis came round

I find this hard to swallow, it being Kennedy who approved the Bay of Pigs attack without a second thought. That guy was obsessed with killing Castro.

Speaking of which, Castro has an epic survival rate. C'mon, the guy is attacked with exploding cigars, a beard-killing drug and an ex-lover assassin? AND he's well into his 80's?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Demonslayer82 wrote:

JFK at the time was hailed as a man of peace when the Cuban Missile Crisis came round

I find this hard to swallow, it being Kennedy who approved the Bay of Pigs attack without a second thought. That guy was obsessed with killing Castro.

Speaking of which, Castro has an epic survival rate. C'mon, the guy is attacked with exploding cigars, a beard-killing drug and an ex-lover assassin? AND he's well into his 80's?

Kennedy was only in office three months when the Bay of Pigs launched, the operation was started by Eisenhower.

Anyhow, the goofy assassination attempts make for fun reading, but you should read about Operation Northwoods, that'll blow your mind.

At any point, the Cubans could have seized the missiles from the Russians. So saying the Cubans didn't have much of a choice in the matter is kinda naive. If Che had gotten his way, that is exactly what would have happened.