Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Skilless on January 03, 2006, 01:49:47 PM
-
I was watching a program this morning on the History Channel about the Cuban Missile Crisis and they were talking about how if Kennedy had listened to his military advisors there would have been a full scale attack on Cuba. What they didn't know was that the Soviets had mobile missile launchers set up on the beach and in the event of an attack they would have taken out the entire eastern seaboard of the United States. On a tape you can plainly hear McNamara saying he thought a blockade was a bad idea and he was in favor of invasion. I was wondering what our Russian friend's take on this event was?
-
I was stationed in Key West, Fl. from June 1962 to June 1963 and remember the Crisis clearly. I was attached to CVSG 50 as part of HS 1 a Sikorsky Helocopter squadron. I was immediately transfered to the USS Noa DD-841 a Gearing Class Destroyer. We did picket duty in the Florida straights for the entire time of the crisis. After Kruschev agreed to remove the missles from Cuba in return for an agreement not to invade Cuba ( We had no plans to anyway) and removing missles based in Turkey, over the ensueing years, I learned that the main reason the missles where removed was that Che Guevara had told Castro that having control of the missles would give Cuba " Parity with the Yankees". This was not what Kruschev had in mind. The missles where placed there for the main purpose of using them as a bargaining chip for the missles we had in western Europe. We will remove the missles from Cuba if you remove yours from Eastern Europe, a smart political move. But Che ruined his plans by getting Control of a few missles. This coupled with President Kennedys declaration on National television that any strike launched from Cuba against the United States would be considered an attack by the USSR and a full retaliatory strike would be launched against the USSR. I can only imagine the horror Kruschev must have felt with the knowledge that a hot tempered Cuban revolutionary could very easily bring a rain of thermonuclear warheads down on the Soviet Union. Dooms Day because of a Cuban Moron. It was no accident that Che was ushered off to Bolivia deep in the back country where he could be wacked by the KGB. After his death Che was honored in most of the banana republics with large billboards depicting him as the champion of all oppressed people. Which was fine with Castro and the Soviets, billboards can't start nuclear wars.
-
Funny thing, apparently Kennedy had already ordered the missiles removed from Turkey but the process was dragging on so slowly, it didn't look like we were serious. Kennedy was pissed about the slow removal and actually wanted them out faster, but once the Soviets demanded their removal, he couldn't speed up the process because it would appear as though the US was bowing to Soviet demands.
Of course, that's only one small part of the story according to my sources ;)
-
Originally posted by eagl
Funny thing, apparently Kennedy had already ordered the missiles removed from Turkey but the process was dragging on so slowly, it didn't look like we were serious. Kennedy was pissed about the slow removal and actually wanted them out faster, but once the Soviets demanded their removal, he couldn't speed up the process because it would appear as though the US was bowing to Soviet demands.
Of course, that's only one small part of the story according to my sources ;)
You are right about Kennedy removing the missles from Turkey, but they where added as a sweetner to the deal to allow Kruschev to save face. He was in trouble in the Soviet Union because of his miscalculation. He didn't miscalculate Kennedy, he miscalculated the power he had over Cuba. Would you like to have had Che Guevara with the power of life and death over Millions of people in the Soviet Union? The problem with the History of the Cuba missle crisis is historians putting the Crisis as a test of wills between Kruschev and Kennedy, and Kruschev blinked. While there may be some truth in that, the real fear from both sides was the knowledge that an unstable group of bearded revolutionaries were now sitting poised to start a war neither the U.S or the Soviets wanted.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Funny thing, apparently Kennedy had already ordered the missiles removed from Turkey but the process was dragging on so slowly, it didn't look like we were serious. Kennedy was pissed about the slow removal and actually wanted them out faster, but once the Soviets demanded their removal, he couldn't speed up the process because it would appear as though the US was bowing to Soviet demands.
Of course, that's only one small part of the story according to my sources ;)
By the time they were ordered to be removed, those liquid propelled rockets were already yesterdays technology, no problem in removing them. Boeing was already building the Minute Man 1 system.
-
The new revelation to me was the Russians claiming that they had portable ballistics set up on the beach in Cuba that could take out the entire eastern United States in the case of an invasion which McNamara is on tape as saying he was in favor of.
-
My dad watched the line in the Fulda Gap during this time. I came very close to not existing.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
... the real fear from both sides was the knowledge that an unstable group of bearded revolutionaries were now sitting poised to start a war neither the U.S or the Soviets wanted.
After that, one must wonder why they would sell nuclear technology to Iran...
-
Originally posted by Skilless
The new revelation to me was the Russians claiming that they had portable ballistics set up on the beach in Cuba that could take out the entire eastern United States in the case of an invasion which McNamara is on tape as saying he was in favor of.
AFAIK SS-4 wasn't portable, so it must have been another type of a missile?
-
In "Fog of War" McNamara said that when he met with Castro decades later he asked Castro if he would've ever recommended to Kruschev to launch those missles from cuba. He said that Castro replied "not only would I have recommended, I did request that the missles be launched.
-
Originally posted by soda72
After that, one must wonder why they would sell nuclear technology to Iran...
Any missle fired from Cuba would have triggered a massive retaliatory strike from the U.S. They could care less about the Iranians.
-
Originally posted by Suave
In "Fog of War" McNamara said that when he met with Castro decades later he asked Castro if he would've ever recommended to Kruschev to launch those missles from cuba. He said that Castro replied "not only would I have recommended, I did request that the missles be launched.
I don't doubt that McNamara said that, but it sure wouldn't make any sense. That would imply that Castro was ready to commit National suicide. Castro like all dictators only had one over riding concern, Gain power and stay in power permanately. Also Kruschev was only using Cuba for a bargaining chip. Cuba became a thorn in the Soviets side for years after the crisis. They were even paying far above market prices for sugar in an attempt to prop up the Cuban economy. Of course we all know that Fidel would never bluster about something like that...right.
-
Originally posted by mora
AFAIK SS-4 wasn't portable, so it must have been another type of a missile?
They said what they were, but I was still a little groggy this morning when I saw it. I do recall them saying they would reach New York City and Miami and Tampa would be toast in a matter of minutes.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
.... triggered a massive retaliatory strike...
Maybe certain countries wouldn't sell such technology if they knew that would be a consequence.
-
Originally posted by soda72
Maybe certain countries wouldn't sell such technology if they knew that would be a consequence.
That would be an excellent deterrant...well, except for the massive shriek and whine from every passivist on the face of the globe, and there's a lot of them. They prefer that instead of deterring rouge states from aquiring the weapons we wait until they do. Then we wait until a real piece of work such as the new Iranian President Abdulla whats his face actually uses one, say against Isreal which has their own. Then the problem of a nuclear armed Iran will be solved....No more Iran.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
You are right about Kennedy removing the missles from Turkey, but they where added as a sweetner to the deal to allow Kruschev to save face.
Well, how do you think of an offer "to save face" followed by the requirement not to disclose the agreement about missiles in Turkey?...
Anecdotal things about Carribean crisis (here it's called "Carribean crisis"):
1) When K. visited Bulgaria, he was taken to Turkish border and shown where US missiles are based. He, as usually, went nuts, pulled out a map and said that an equal threat will be sending missiles to Cuba. I don't know if that US missiles were in European Turkey, but for a mere-mind like K it was enough to understand that Turkey is very-very close to us.
2) It all happened during a K's "missile bluff". People old enough should remember that after Sputnik K declared that R-7 missiles are on conwayor "like sausages", and US leaders believed it. It ended up in SAC bombers on CAP 24/7 over Europe with megatons on board, while we could burn down only a few US areas in a retaliation strike. I don't know exactly how many R-7 launch facilities we had in 1962, but I think we still use all of them for space launches. Also, please, note that US plans of total war against USSR were not a secret.
3) A "missile deal" was a great success of the USSR. As usual, we lost in propaganda field, but we removed a deadly threat to Ukraine and our allies in Eastern Europe. We didn't have a full-scale ABM system even in development by that time, only experiments (like US NMD programm now). OTOH - PVO system was already quite capable, and B-52s invading Soviet airspace could meet some unpleasant surprises. With estimated 50% loss ratio for nuclear bombers projected in early-50s without knowing true PVO capabilities it could mean that B-52s could be nothing more then easy targets. First SAM victory in history happened in October 1959 over China, and US didn't know anything about Soviet SAMs until May Day 1961.
So, we lost an opportunity to retaliate against US attack, but OTOH we removed a vital threat to our cities and guaranteed independance of Cuba, still using it as an "unsinkable carrier" and radio observation base until late-90s.
Some personal things: During that time my Mother's family was on a vacation in GDR, Grandfather was immediately returned to duty, he was a commander of a "portable rocket-technical base". His unit stored nuclear warheads and fuel for operational-tactial missiles (something like "Scud"), he served in Germany in 1957-66 IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
By the time they were ordered to be removed, those liquid propelled rockets were already yesterdays technology, no problem in removing them. Boeing was already building the Minute Man 1 system.
In late-60s a Minuteman felt on Cuba (!!!) during a test-launch. When the wreck was delivered to USSR - Soviet engineers literally laughed their tulips off, all they could say was "stone age", IIRC they didn't even use printed circuits.
I have to say that I sell this story for the same price I bought it for. Maybe I have to include it into some kind of "standard disclaimer one"? ;) My Uncle told it to me, since early-70s he served in Priozersk, Kazakhstan, on Soviet ABM systems. He retired in 1990, colonel, commander of "combat software department".
-
Originally posted by Suave
In "Fog of War" McNamara said that when he met with Castro decades later he asked Castro if he would've ever recommended to Kruschev to launch those missles from cuba. He said that Castro replied "not only would I have recommended, I did request that the missles be launched.
I saw that film on Russian TV several weeks ago. Both McNamara and Castro probably aren't the best source for the details. How can you expect Soviet leadership letting some "bearded guerillas" to make such decisions? I am 100% sure that Soviet crews had orders to destroy the missiles in case of any attempt to gain control over them, not even speaking about launch codes and targeting information.
-
you guys really captured better germans then we did.
But our germans were pretty good! No?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
you guys really captured better germans then we did.
But our germans were pretty good! No?
Saturn-V was a revolutionary design, but it was impossible to do anything like that in USSR at the same time due to technological limitations.
We didn't capture any Germans from nazi missile programm, only blueprints, and it's not a secret that R-1 was an exact copy of V-2.
Sergey Korolev was a genius, he combined railway automation from 1920s, bearing skin from US 1930s airplane industry and German jet engine ideas from 1940s to make a rocket that still remains cheapest and most reliable. Russian art of engineering... If we had your money and production culture - we could wave Red Banner from Mars 20 years ago.
BTW, I have heard that US buys Soviet engines from stock prepared for N-1 launch vehicle in the 70s. I know that you buy some Russian engines, but I don't know if what I said above is true, frankly speaking I doubt it. Sounds like Japanese buying Soviet TV sets in 1970s only because of wooden cases :)
-
Ill be danged....I thought for sure yyou guys captured some super germans and put em to good use.
We got that VonBraun fellow and immediately started him working on rockets. He got us to the moon! and stuff like that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ill be danged....I thought for sure yyou guys captured some super germans and put em to good use.
We got that VonBraun fellow and immediately started him working on rockets. He got us to the moon! and stuff like that.
Von Braun probably told you that Russians are "untermenschen" unable to do anything, didn't he?
Sputnik was a huge kick for the West, and IIRC you started your space programm only after we already hit the Moon in 1958.
Now von Braun is dead, and your manned space programm is grounded, while we still fly, isn't it strange for your logics?
-
Kinda a side point.. the Russians had short range tactical nukes, and local battlefield commanders in Cuba had a green light to use 'em on an invasion fleet. It was a very, very good thing that Kennedy clamped down on the military's plan for invasion.. it would have certainly resulted in WWIII.
I suspect that those days in October were the closest this country ever came to a military coup.. followed by nuclear armegeddon. It was very very close run thing.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I suspect that those days in October were the closest this country ever came to a military coup.. followed by nuclear armegeddon. It was very very close run thing.
Hmm, I never thought about a possibility of "military coup" in the US, maybe only from "7 days in May" or how was that book called? Frankly speaking I almost forgot what it was about :(
-
wile russia was busting butt to put up a little ball that only went beep-beep-beep, the USA was about to launch a real satellite that actually did something.
-
Boroda,
If I recall correctly, the US and possibly even ESA is currently using a modified russian engine design for numerous applications. Because that engine is considered "man rated", it's may also be considered for future US manned designs. I don't think the modifications in use are all that significant though, because the engine is already relatively easy to manufacture and quite reliable.
At least that's what I remember from various random Aviation Week articles.
-
Originally posted by john9001
wile russia was busting butt to put up a little ball that only went beep-beep-beep, the USA was about to launch a real satellite that actually did something.
Little ball that went beep-beep-beep was 10 times heavier (90kg vs. 8kg) and on a higher orbit then US "Explorer" (or was it "Discovery"? I don't remember).
By the time you launched your 8kg toy - we already had a 3500kg sattelite orbiting.
-
Now von Braun is dead, and your manned space programm is grounded, while we still fly, isn't it strange for your logics?
====
von Braun is dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Nooooooo!
:cry
Can we borrow some of your germans?
:aok
-
Originally posted by eagl
At least that's what I remember from various random Aviation Week articles.
What I heard on TV in some "defence propaganda" programm was that it's an engine from N-1, that is definetly a... let me call it "exaggeration" ;) Always fun to catch them on such things ;)
Unfortunately I don't read Aviation Week since my Father retired in 1987. I still have an issue from 1987 with "international aircraft specifications".
-
all your germans are belong to us?
:noid
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Kinda a side point.. the Russians had short range tactical nukes, and local battlefield commanders in Cuba had a green light to use 'em on an invasion fleet. It was a very, very good thing that Kennedy clamped down on the military's plan for invasion.. it would have certainly resulted in WWIII.
I suspect that those days in October were the closest this country ever came to a military coup.. followed by nuclear armegeddon. It was very very close run thing.
Not really hangtime. At the time we had a major nuclear superiority over the Soviets and we where aware of the advantage. Removing missles from Turkey was no big deal, as long as we had them in western Europe. Why do you think they went to all the trouble of installing a nuclear capability in Cuba? To have some missles moved from Turkey? Hardly,it was to negotiate the removal of the missles from Western Europe. Kruschev came to realize that there would be no negotiation. The no attack on Cuba and removal of missles from Turkey where no concessions at all. As far as Borodas claim of gaining an unsinkable carrier, to do what? Without nukes they are going to use it to fight a conventional war against a Super power 90 miles away? That would be real bright. Imagine trying to fight a conventioal war with the US from Cuba...The logistics would be real fun. Sorry guys no ammo or spare parts you gotta fight with what you got.
-
Yeager, they set us up the shuttle!
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Not really hangtime. At the time we had a major nuclear superiority over the Soviets and we where aware of the advantage. Removing missles from Turkey was no big deal, as long as we had them in western Europe. Why do you think they went to all the trouble of installing a nuclear capability in Cuba? To have some missles moved from Turkey? Hardly,it was to negotiate the removal of the missles from Western Europe. Kruschev came to realize that there would be no negotiation. The no attack on Cuba and removal of missles from Turkey where no concessions at all. As far as Borodas claim of gaining an unsinkable carrier, to do what? Without nukes they are going to use it to fight a conventional war against a Super power 90 miles away? That would be real bright. Imagine trying to fight a conventioal war with the US from Cuba...The logistics would be real fun. Sorry guys no ammo or spare parts you gotta fight with what you got.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the UK dispersed the entire V-Force (Vulcan, Victor and Valiant strategic bombers that would launch standoff nukes) all over the British Isles. The Thor ballistic missiles were also on emergency standby.
A recent programme on Discovery (reviewing recent declassified documents) mentioned that the USSR were also very concerned at the mobile nuclear arsenal within the UK (the Thor's were provided by the USA) especially since there were so many dispersed sites. Been quite awhile since I saw the programme so I'm a little vague although there is also a book about the subject too.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Dooms Day because of a Cuban Moron.
[smart alec mode]Actually Ernesto "Che" Guevara was an Argentinian moron[/smart alec mode] :)
-
They had tactical nukes the US didn't know about in Cuba, and if we had invaded they absolutey would have used 'em to destroy the invasion force and fleet.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that wouldn't have percipitated WWIII.
'
" It was only much later, when Western
researchers began sifting through Soviet
government and Communist Party
archives after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, that the full story of the tactical
nukes began to emerge.
Two recent books -- One Hell of a
Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy,
1958-1964 byTimothy Naftali, a Cold War
historian at Yale University, and Russian
historian Aleksandr Fursenko, and Gribkov's
Operation Anadyr -- put the number of
tactical warheads deployed in Cuba at
between 98 and 104.
Click to enlarge
The world has long known about Moscow's
deployment in Cuba of SS4 and SS5 missiles.
With that one stroke, Khrushchev hoped to
double the number of Soviet missiles capable
of hitting theU.S. heartland, while extending
his nuclear defensive umbrella to Cuba.
But right from the June 10, 1962, meeting
at which Khrushchev decided to secretly
send long-range missiles to Cuba in the
code-named Operation Anadyr, tactical
nukes were on the Havana shipping list.
They included 80 FKR cruise missiles
armed with 12-kiloton warheads. The FKR
was essentially a scaled-down, pilotless
version of a MiG jet, with a target guidance
system good out to 100 miles, although
it could fly much farther. It was designed to
defend the Cuban coastline and the land
around the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo
Bay from any U.S. invasion attempt.
More tactical warheads
But when Kennedy made thinly veiled
complaints about the Soviets' growing
military deployment in Cuba that August,
Khrushchev decided on Sept. 7 to add two
more types of tactical nukes to the list,
apparently hoping to bolster Cuba's defenses
against a U.S. land invasion:
12 Luna ground-to-ground rockets, with a
range of 30 miles, with 2-kiloton warheads.
They were to be attached to Soviet motorized
infantry regiments around Havana and
Guantanamo.
Six 12-kiloton bombs for Il-28 bombers, with
a range of 750 miles and based near the
central Cuban city of Santa Clara.
``This shows that Khrushchev had his
finger on the trigger, and really had decided
to use tactical nuclear weapons if Cuba was
invaded,'' Naftali said.
The Soviet freighter Indigirka, carrying
45 SS4 and SS5 warheads, 36 of the FKR
warheads and all of the Luna and Il-28
nuclear warheads, left the Soviet Union
on Sept. 15 and arrived in the Cuban
port of Mariel on Oct. 4, three weeks before
the crisis erupted.
The Aleksandrovsk, carrying 24 strategic
warheads and 44 FKR warheads were detected at
the port of La Isabela on Oct. 23 --
the day before the U.S. blockade of Cuba's
shipping lanes went into effect.
click to enlarge
A U.S. miscalculation
CIA analysts spotted the 30-foot Luna
rockets in Cuba but concluded they
were armed with conventional warheads,
Naftali said. Washington never learned
anything about the smaller FKRs or the
Il-28 bombs until much later.
``Up to this point, Khrushchev had been
able to send 41,902 men, including 10,000
combat troops, and about 100 tactical
nuclear weapons toCuba [but] U.S.
intelligence had not found any of these
smaller nuclear devices and assumed
that all the Soviets on the island were
support personnel for the ballistic
missile regiments,'' Naftali and
Fursenko wrote.
The hot part of the crisis essentially
ended that Oct. 28 when Khrushchev
agreed to withdraw the SS4s and SS5s
in exchange for a public Kennedy promise
not to invade Cuba and a secret vow to
remove U.S. nuclear missiles from Turkey.
The Aleksandrovsk left Cuba on Nov. 5,
carrying all the strategic nuclear warheads.
U.S. spy planes snapped photos of all Soviet
freighters departing the island to verify
the numbers of missiles and warheads leaving.
The aftermath of the crisis was the
disposition of the Il-28 bombers, which the
Americans wanted out of Cuba because
they were capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
Khrushchev agreed on Nov. 19, in exchange
for a Kennedy promise to immediately lift
the naval blockade and move to the back
burner a demand for on-site inspections
of Soviet warehouses in Cuba to ensure
they were empty.
Issue of inspections
Had Kennedy known that tactical
nuclear warheads remained in Cuba,
he would have strongly insisted on the
on-site inspections, said Ray Gartoff,
a Cuban missile crisis expert at the
Brookings Institution, a Washington
think tank.
``Good thing the CIA did not know
any better,because the Soviets would
have looked like liars--they had sworn
that all the warheads were gone
--and the crisis would have gone on,''
Gartoff said.
As tensions wound down after the Il-28
agreement,Defense Minister Rodion
Malinovsky ordered Soviet troops in
Cuba to begin training Cuban military
units in the use of the Lunas and FKRs
and their nuclear warheads.
Castro, who had earlier stridently
opposed removing the long-range
missiles and Il-28s, made a strong pitch
to keep the tactical weapons in Cuba
during a Nov. 22 meeting in Havana
with Anastas Mikoyan, the Soviet
Communist Partyofficial who handled
most Cuba-USSR relations.
``Wouldn't it be impossible to keep the
atomic weapons in Cuba under Soviet
control without turning them over to the
Cubans?'' Mikoyan quoted Castro as
asking, in a Russian-language report on
the meeting that he sent to Moscow and
that was later found by Naftali and Fursenko.
Mikoyan reported that he quickly told
Castro, on his own initiative, that such a
deal was impossible. Khrushchev had
already made the same decision, apparently
believing that Castro could not be trusted
with such weapons."
NSA Archive, Missile Crisis (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/conference.htm)
-
That was in Fog of War as well...Castro said they had a large number of nukes already in cuba ready to go..
Tronsky
-
My friends dad was stationed on the DEW line in N. Canada with the RCAF in October 1962, he said they watched wave after wave of SAC bombers go to the edge of their flight paths and await the recall. Said it was downright scary...
...and a 50 percent loss rate would have been perfectly acceptable, since each B-52 carried a pair of 10 megaton bombs.
Not that I ever hoped such a thing would have ever happened, I doubt I would be here either, since I was born in 1964.
Lets hope it never does.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
They had tactical nukes the US didn't know about in Cuba, and if we had invaded they absolutey would have used 'em to destroy the invasion force and fleet.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that wouldn't have percipitated WWIII.
'
" It was only much later, when Western
researchers began sifting through Soviet
government and Communist Party
archives after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, that the full story of the tactical
nukes began to emerge.
Two recent books -- One Hell of a
Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy,
1958-1964 byTimothy Naftali, a Cold War
historian at Yale University, and Russian
historian Aleksandr Fursenko, and Gribkov's
Operation Anadyr -- put the number of
tactical warheads deployed in Cuba at
between 98 and 104.
Click to enlarge
The world has long known about Moscow's
deployment in Cuba of SS4 and SS5 missiles.
With that one stroke, Khrushchev hoped to
double the number of Soviet missiles capable
of hitting theU.S. heartland, while extending
his nuclear defensive umbrella to Cuba.
But right from the June 10, 1962, meeting
at which Khrushchev decided to secretly
send long-range missiles to Cuba in the
code-named Operation Anadyr, tactical
nukes were on the Havana shipping list.
They included 80 FKR cruise missiles
armed with 12-kiloton warheads. The FKR
was essentially a scaled-down, pilotless
version of a MiG jet, with a target guidance
system good out to 100 miles, although
it could fly much farther. It was designed to
defend the Cuban coastline and the land
around the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo
Bay from any U.S. invasion attempt.
More tactical warheads
But when Kennedy made thinly veiled
complaints about the Soviets' growing
military deployment in Cuba that August,
Khrushchev decided on Sept. 7 to add two
more types of tactical nukes to the list,
apparently hoping to bolster Cuba's defenses
against a U.S. land invasion:
12 Luna ground-to-ground rockets, with a
range of 30 miles, with 2-kiloton warheads.
They were to be attached to Soviet motorized
infantry regiments around Havana and
Guantanamo.
Six 12-kiloton bombs for Il-28 bombers, with
a range of 750 miles and based near the
central Cuban city of Santa Clara.
``This shows that Khrushchev had his
finger on the trigger, and really had decided
to use tactical nuclear weapons if Cuba was
invaded,'' Naftali said.
The Soviet freighter Indigirka, carrying
45 SS4 and SS5 warheads, 36 of the FKR
warheads and all of the Luna and Il-28
nuclear warheads, left the Soviet Union
on Sept. 15 and arrived in the Cuban
port of Mariel on Oct. 4, three weeks before
the crisis erupted.
The Aleksandrovsk, carrying 24 strategic
warheads and 44 FKR warheads were detected at
the port of La Isabela on Oct. 23 --
the day before the U.S. blockade of Cuba's
shipping lanes went into effect.
click to enlarge
A U.S. miscalculation
CIA analysts spotted the 30-foot Luna
rockets in Cuba but concluded they
were armed with conventional warheads,
Naftali said. Washington never learned
anything about the smaller FKRs or the
Il-28 bombs until much later.
``Up to this point, Khrushchev had been
able to send 41,902 men, including 10,000
combat troops, and about 100 tactical
nuclear weapons toCuba [but] U.S.
intelligence had not found any of these
smaller nuclear devices and assumed
that all the Soviets on the island were
support personnel for the ballistic
missile regiments,'' Naftali and
Fursenko wrote.
The hot part of the crisis essentially
ended that Oct. 28 when Khrushchev
agreed to withdraw the SS4s and SS5s
in exchange for a public Kennedy promise
not to invade Cuba and a secret vow to
remove U.S. nuclear missiles from Turkey.
The Aleksandrovsk left Cuba on Nov. 5,
carrying all the strategic nuclear warheads.
U.S. spy planes snapped photos of all Soviet
freighters departing the island to verify
the numbers of missiles and warheads leaving.
The aftermath of the crisis was the
disposition of the Il-28 bombers, which the
Americans wanted out of Cuba because
they were capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
Khrushchev agreed on Nov. 19, in exchange
for a Kennedy promise to immediately lift
the naval blockade and move to the back
burner a demand for on-site inspections
of Soviet warehouses in Cuba to ensure
they were empty.
Issue of inspections
Had Kennedy known that tactical
nuclear warheads remained in Cuba,
he would have strongly insisted on the
on-site inspections, said Ray Gartoff,
a Cuban missile crisis expert at the
Brookings Institution, a Washington
think tank.
``Good thing the CIA did not know
any better,because the Soviets would
have looked like liars--they had sworn
that all the warheads were gone
--and the crisis would have gone on,''
Gartoff said.
As tensions wound down after the Il-28
agreement,Defense Minister Rodion
Malinovsky ordered Soviet troops in
Cuba to begin training Cuban military
units in the use of the Lunas and FKRs
and their nuclear warheads.
Castro, who had earlier stridently
opposed removing the long-range
missiles and Il-28s, made a strong pitch
to keep the tactical weapons in Cuba
during a Nov. 22 meeting in Havana
with Anastas Mikoyan, the Soviet
Communist Partyofficial who handled
most Cuba-USSR relations.
``Wouldn't it be impossible to keep the
atomic weapons in Cuba under Soviet
control without turning them over to the
Cubans?'' Mikoyan quoted Castro as
asking, in a Russian-language report on
the meeting that he sent to Moscow and
that was later found by Naftali and Fursenko.
Mikoyan reported that he quickly told
Castro, on his own initiative, that such a
deal was impossible. Khrushchev had
already made the same decision, apparently
believing that Castro could not be trusted
with such weapons."
NSA Archive, Missile Crisis (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/conference.htm)
If Kruschev had his finger on the trigger so to speak, then what was his reason for removing the missles? Fear of Kennedy?
Khrushchev had already made the same decision, apparently
believing that Castro could not be trusted with such weapons."
I think you answered the question.
-
so... if it wasn't any secret...
How come nobody told me we had plans to invade russia?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so... if it wasn't any secret...
How come nobody told me we had plans to invade russia?
lazs
Not only to invade, but to start a war, with estimated defeat in no more then 6 months, regardless to nuclear bombings of Soviet cities. IIRC first stage meant killing 10 million Soviet people in two weeks.
You can find detailed descriptions with American sources in a book "CIA target: USSR" by Nikolay Yakovlev. It was printed in English in 1980, and you still can find a second-hand copy on the Internet.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Not only to invade, but to start a war, with estimated defeat in no more then 6 months, regardless to nuclear bombings of Soviet cities. IIRC first stage meant killing 10 million Soviet people in two weeks.
You can find detailed descriptions with American sources in a book "CIA target: USSR" by Nikolay Yakovlev. It was printed in English in 1980, and you still can find a second-hand copy on the Internet.
I think if we invaded it would definately have started a war, any war plan to invade would only have been for pre-emptive purposes. All miltiarized countries have plans to invade other militarized countries. I believe I read one plan for the invasion of England. Nikolay Yakovlev is a Chess Grand Master, any book he wrote on the matter of an invasion would have been speculative, not based on actual plans.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I think if we invaded it would definately have started a war, any war plan to invade would only have been for pre-emptive purposes. All miltiarized countries have plans to invade other militarized countries. I believe I read one plan for the invasion of England. Nikolay Yakovlev is a Chess Grand Master, any book he wrote on the matter of an invasion would have been speculative, not based on actual plans.
Well, Yakovlev was a brilliant propaganda writer, "CIA target: USSR" has to be taken with a grain of salt (just as any propaganda book), but I doubt that he manipulated facts in a book that was widely distributed in English.
He quotes US government and Congress documents that were de-classified, as well as US studies of the de-classified "defence" plans.
He is also an author of a brilliant book about Pearl-Harbour (probably best ever published in Russian) and an outrageously anti-Soviet "August, 1st, 1914", where he literally praises the Empire and makes a conclusion that February Revolution was a crime.
-
can russian space tech even be compared to USA's?
we have a shuttle...which carries mich bigger payloads then any russian rocket ...correct?
It has carried thousands of pounds more of space cargo to orbit then russians correct?
I dont really care ..if not..just taking one look at russain history of Research and Development..in the case of nuclear submarines is enuff for me to be very proud of Western Technology and safety
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, Yakovlev was a brilliant propaganda writer, "CIA target: USSR" has to be taken with a grain of salt (just as any propaganda book), but I doubt that he manipulated facts in a book that was widely distributed in English.
He quotes US government and Congress documents that were de-classified, as well as US studies of the de-classified "defence" plans.
He is also an author of a brilliant book about Pearl-Harbour (probably best ever published in Russian) and an outrageously anti-Soviet "August, 1st, 1914", where he literally praises the Empire and makes a conclusion that February Revolution was a crime.
I don't doubt his intelligence, after all he is a grand master you don't earn that by being dense. Any invasion plans would still be held top secret. I believe most of the war games where always played out as the Soviets as the attacking force. If i'm not mistaken they had a large numerical advantage in both armor and personel (infantry). If western Europe where attacked I don't see anything short of tactical nuclear weapons stopping them.
I notice you use the term propaganda alot. If something is written that is not based on cold hard facts it may be speculative and not necessarily propaganda. If you write something that you know to be false for the purpose of deceiving your own people or the enemy thats propaganda.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
can russian space tech even be compared to USA's?
we have a shuttle...which carries mich bigger payloads then any russian rocket ...correct?
It has carried thousands of pounds more of space cargo to orbit then russians correct?
I dont really care ..if not..just taking one look at russain history of Research and Development..in the case of nuclear submarines is enuff for me to be very proud of Western Technology and safety
Skylab lasted how long? What about Sputnik?
The bulk of space cargo is still boosted to orbit on rockets. The Shuttle is just too expensive, and has lost 2 vehicles with no survivors. We're not exactly all that much safer when it comes to space exploration.
Wouldn't ride in anything short of a i688 or Seawolf as far as subs go though :)
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I don't doubt his intelligence, after all he is a grand master you don't earn that by being dense. Any invasion plans would still be held top secret.
Well, Yakovlev wrote about possible reasons to disclose US plans off _attack_, and he argues with American author of the Drop Shot plan study. He comes to a conclusion that the only reason was to show that they simply don't care...
Originally posted by weaselsan
I believe most of the war games where always played out as the Soviets as the attacking force. If i'm not mistaken they had a large numerical advantage in both armor and personel (infantry). If western Europe where attacked I don't see anything short of tactical nuclear weapons stopping them.
Plans written when they didn't know USSR already has a bomb estimated that in no more then 6 months Soviet Army will control whole Europe, Mediterranian and Middle East including Gulf. With several nuclear bombs after that USSR could easily destroy NATO air force bases in UK and reach victory conditions. All this regardless to nuclear bombing of Soviet cities...
Originally posted by weaselsan
I notice you use the term propaganda alot. If something is written that is not based on cold hard facts it may be speculative and not necessarily propaganda. If you write something that you know to be false for the purpose of deceiving your own people or the enemy thats propaganda.
What I mean probably includes reasonings like I mentioned above about disclosing war plans. This is propaganda at it's best: making conclusions based on facts, when conclusions probably don't correspond with real intentions of the other side, but sound true and serve to form a nessessary public opinion. It was a way of Soviet propaganda, no obvious lies like "evil Soviet regime (tm) killed 50 million people only because it was evil".
-
Nuclear Weapons aside, the Soviet Union never had the ability to project power. It is a common misconception that they did. If you look at all of their advances throughout time, you'd see that each one had a huge defensive advantage.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Nuclear Weapons aside, the Soviet Union never had the ability to project power. It is a common misconception that they did. If you look at all of their advances throughout time, you'd see that each one had a huge defensive advantage.
Well, US occupied half of Europe, and presence of NATO forces on our border was the biggest "projection of power". We had a direct threat that US never experienced. I mean - after US Civil war.
As for "ability to project power" - Russia waged war in Manchuria 100 years ago, then in 1945 we transferred great military power to Far East and finished Japanese Kwantun army in 2 weeks loosing only 9000 soldiers. We have enough problems on our borders so we don't have to project power to Antarctic or Madagaskar (oh, in fact we had huge military power at Madagaskar once ;)). If you look at the borders of Russian Empire - you'll see that we advanced to "natural borders" that protected us better then military power. When we advanced further - we never were so successfull, look at Russo-Japanese war. We projected power, look at Second Pacific Task-force journey from Baltics to Far East, but it really seems that it was a bad idea...
-
If the Russians pulled an armored advance thru Europe of the 60's and 70's they would have been met at the French border with French nukes, or a French surrender. Should be noted that by this time, France was no longer participating in NATO armament, command, commonality or military exercises.
Should also be noted that as far as I'm aware, not ONE 'Reforger' exercise was 'won' by the US. Every single time we ran this massive all-out 'wargame' exercise with the West Germans in the 'soviet' role we had our tulips handed to us. The west german military of the time was far and away the most motivated and effective modern 'kill the enemy's armor' force on the planet. Those guys really knew how to kill tanks.
The enitre West German force was well suited to fighting a defensive war on it's own soil.. and if faced with a soviet invasion they would have fought like lions, knowing full well that US/NATO policy would have forced the use of defensive tactical nukes on west german soil if the west german army failed to contain the soviet advance. They would not have been 'pushovers'... they were extremely motivated; knowing that their homes, familys, cities and land would be a nuclear battlefield in a soviet/NATO confrontation if they were unable to stop a soviet advance via conventional means.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If you look at the borders of Russian Empire - you'll see that we advanced to "natural borders" that protected us better then military power.
sorry, i can't seem to find any "russian empire", maybe you had better update your maps Mr USSR.
-
Originally posted by john9001
sorry, i can't seem to find any "russian empire", maybe you had better update your maps Mr USSR.
Soo years 1700-1917 are out of your historical knowledge?
USSR = Russian Empire (1914 borders) minus Poland and Finland plus Eastern Prussia (Kaliningrad) and Tuva.
Main borders in Asia were drawn in 1870s-1880s. An attempt to spread influence into Manchuria in 1895-1905 failed, and it was the last "leap" outside of natural borders.
I use a term "natural" because you can see what goes on Tajik border and other Central-Asian "republics" now.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Soo years 1700-1917 are out of your historical knowledge?
USSR = Russian Empire (1914 borders) minus Poland and Finland plus Eastern Prussia (Kaliningrad) and Tuva.
Main borders in Asia were drawn in 1870s-1880s. An attempt to spread influence into Manchuria in 1895-1905 failed, and it was the last "leap" outside of natural borders.
I use a term "natural" because you can see what goes on Tajik border and other Central-Asian "republics" now.
1700-1917 Russian history is not out of historical knowledge...but is out of historical relevance. Since most of that era was a Monarchy, nothing of that time except for possibly Russian History students will have much of a bearing on todays issues, political or other wise.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Soo years 1700-1917 are out of your historical knowledge?
USSR = Russian Empire (1914 borders) minus Poland and Finland plus Eastern Prussia (Kaliningrad) and Tuva.
Main borders in Asia were drawn in 1870s-1880s. An attempt to spread influence into Manchuria in 1895-1905 failed, and it was the last "leap" outside of natural borders.
I use a term "natural" because you can see what goes on Tajik border and other Central-Asian "republics" now.
i repeat, time to update your maps, you have no "empire"
-
Originally posted by john9001
i repeat, time to update your maps, you have no "empire"
Whom did you say it to? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
1700-1917 Russian history is not out of historical knowledge...but is out of historical relevance. Since most of that era was a Monarchy, nothing of that time except for possibly Russian History students will have much of a bearing on todays issues, political or other wise.
Political system doesn't matter much, it's only a way of organisation for Russian "super-ethnos".
My historical approach isn't based on Marxist "historical materialism", it's more like Lev Gumilev's "ethnogenesis".
From Great Principate of Moscow we spread all over Eurasia, finished around 1880 and finally had one Emperor who didn't wage wars (Alexander III). He said that Russia has only two allies, it's Army and Navy. Now we can add Strategic Missile Corps to this short list...
-
anyone who really want to learn about how the russian missle crisis in cuba and in general was resolved, should read the book. "The Spy who saved the World"
About a russian colonel Oleg Penchovsky, who literally saved the world.
This man decided that the russian goverment was evil and would cause a war. passed secrets to the US and to Kennedy that the russians could not deliver a warhead accurately.
this led to Kennedy sticking to his guns and standing firm( before that he was considered weak by the russions)
this led to the famous "wink" in the kitchen between kruschev and kennedy, Kennedy called his bluff and winked at Kruschev, because he knew that the russian targeting and delivery systems in thier rockets didnt work. At that time, Kruschev knew that his secret was out and that the US knew he couldnt aim the missiles, he had to back down but he also had to save face, so they picked the missiles in turkey to allow Kruschev to claim some victory.
-
WOLVERINES!
-
Explains how the Soviets backed down (http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/charlie/cuban_missile_crisis.htm)
The Americans were prepared for war. Soviet ships bound for Cuba turned back and the premier of the Soviet Union agreed to remove the missiles and dismantle the missile sites because they did not want to go to war against the U.S.
Cuban Missile Crisis photos (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/photos.htm)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
WOLVERINES!
Lea Thompson and Jennifer Grey were kinda hot in that.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Political system doesn't matter much, it's only a way of organisation for Russian "super-ethnos".
My historical approach isn't based on Marxist "historical materialism", it's more like Lev Gumilev's "ethnogenesis".
From Great Principate of Moscow we spread all over Eurasia, finished around 1880 and finally had one Emperor who didn't wage wars (Alexander III). He said that Russia has only two allies, it's Army and Navy. Now we can add Strategic Missile Corps to this short list...
I was referring to John 9001's reply about the change on the map. He is pointing out the Fall of the Soviet Union. You are talking about the Historical Russian Empire. I thought that was Ivan the Terrible, He was the one that built a Russian Navy on par with European Navy's. We'll maybe not Great Britians but most of Europe.
-
Originally posted by mydavis
anyone who really want to learn about how the russian missle crisis in cuba and in general was resolved, should read the book. "The Spy who saved the World"
About a russian colonel Oleg Penchovsky, who literally saved the world.
This man decided that the russian goverment was evil and would cause a war. passed secrets to the US and to Kennedy that the russians could not deliver a warhead accurately.
Pen'kovskiy was a traitor, a sad example of a miserable idiot. He seriously believed that UK will send a submarine to rescue him...
In fact he's partially responsible for a situation when a world could blow up :(
My Grandmother told me that he was an officer's club director in a unit where Grandfather served before he was transferred to GDR. He was a specialist in vodka, girls and sauna for generals. Maybe he thought that a Soviet system (that let him make a brilliant carreer) was evil, but he worked for money and "presents".
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I was referring to John 9001's reply about the change on the map. He is pointing out the Fall of the Soviet Union. You are talking about the Historical Russian Empire. I thought that was Ivan the Terrible, He was the one that built a Russian Navy on par with European Navy's. We'll maybe not Great Britians but most of Europe.
What I mean is that the Empire formally disappeared, but politically, culturally, economically and ethnically it still exists.
What really surprises me is that regardless to traditional administration policy of non-interference into local affairs and administration - the bonds between the nations of the Empire are so strong. Russia and Moscow are still a center of gravity for ex-USSR, and it doesn't matter what political orientation local bosses choose.
Ivan the Terrible was the first Czar, before him the country was called "Great Principate of Moscow", and he formally called himself a leader of all Russians. About navy - it was an idea of Peter the Great to make a European-style army and navy. BTW, long time before Ivan IV or Peter I Novgorod was a Hansa trading city, so they knew how to sail and navigate.
-
Man, Red Dawn is great. Blatant models of SU-25s in the airfield attack scent though.
lol @ one taking off vertically.