The Cold War: A Very Short Introduction by Robert J. McMahon is an excellent, well-researched, cheap and concise book that covers the period from the end of WWII to the fragmentation of the Soviet Union. In it there is a lot of information on the US and USSR's comparative nuclear capability. It was blatantly apparent to both sides that for the majority of the Cold War, the US's nuclear capability far outstretched (in both power and coverage) the Soviet's. If I recall correctly, it was only in the late 1960's/early 1970's when Mutually Assured Destruction became a possibility.

Certainly, around the time of the Cuban crisis, the US's nuclear capability was far greater. Which is perhaps why the appearance of these missiles was such a challenge: it did have the potential to suddenly diminish this superiority significantly. (Derail over.)

galanter wrote:Vockins,

Well that's why the US bartered away (secretly) the Turkish sites, right?

It's certainly a part of it. They were completely unneccesary.

But I may be learning something here, which is good. I'll have to look into this more, but I have the strong impression that the US at the time had a sincere (but mistaken) overestimation of the USSR's nuclear capability.

The Kennedy Administration was completely informed about the capabilities of the Soviet nuclear program.

I could post some links if you'd like, or you can perform the research yourself and eliminate the possibility that I am directing you away from other sources. The information is pretty easy to find, and it's not from any Marxist/Leninist websites or anything.

Also, if (3) is true and the USSR subs were bad platforms for launching nuclear missiles, then wouldn't that mean that land based missiles in Cuba were indeed a significant improvement for the USSR in terms of close placement? And thus destabilizing?

If you consider the event out of the context of:

1. U.S. missile placement that was even closer to the USSR's borders than the Soviet missiles in Cuba
2. The increase in nuclear testing by the U.S.
3. Kennedy was willing for D.C. to be obliterated over totally redundant missile installations
4. That the U.S. had nuclear warheads in multiple locations outside its borders

then, yes, I guess it was destabilizing. But the event, like all others, didn't occur in a vacuum. The USSR wasn't the first to act, it's responses weren't to the scale of the United States's actions, and their capabilities couldn't match the US capabilities.

I can declare with confidence that the crisis never would have happened if the installations in Turkey were removed or, better yet, never installed.

And getting back to the original point, don't you think that during the Cuban Missile Crisis that things got very close to a nuclear exchange? That was my main point, although I did try to say it wasn't entirely our fault. I guess I should alter that and say it was half our fault.

The United States was absolutely close to a nuclear exchange, but I am of the opinion that Kennedy is to blame for that, and I believe the documents from the time support my opinion.

Good stuff. If you have some links that are easy for you to find I'd appreciate them. I'll do some snooping around on my own as well.

One subtextual observation, though, is this.

It's a relatively recent way of thinking (and still far from universally accepted) that the standard should be for country A to more or less match country B in terms of arms or (in time of war) military response. For 100's or 1000's of years the goal was to outnumber and overwhelm by as large a margin as possible.

(e.g. Even now in the recent war the accusation that Israel's defense was "disproportionate" seems bizzare to many. For them "disproportionate" is exactly what is needed to rebuff an attack quicky.)

In the 60's I doubt many thought "oh good. the USSR is evening the balance. As it should be".

The reaction would have been more like "this is bad news. Now we will have to build up even more to maintain our edge".

Relative to knee-jerk escalation, forcing Cuba to disarm could be seen as a relatively progressive response! At least it was in the direction of building down rather than up.

galanter wrote:I'm pointing out that there is a difference between saying:

"The administration is trying to manipulate us with fear by banning liquids on airplanes when they know such a move is unnesessary"

and

"The administration is being ineffective by banning liquids on airplanes. They think such a move will improve safety, but they are mistaken".

Mr G. I am going to assume that you accept that powerful people have in the past (and continue in the present) to engineer and manipulate events to consolidate their power.
I am also going to assume that you accept that when they do this they always (with no exceptions that I can think of) arrange their engineering/manipulation in secret and cloud the public manifestations of it in lies and misinformation.

Maybe not all powerful people engineer/manipulate but it does happen?

I am assuming you agree because if you don't then you really are weird.

Anyways, assuming the above do you accept that either of your above suggestions are possible?
I, personally, have not said anywhere (soberly at least) that I absolutely think that the first of your two possibilities above is the case. But I think it is certainly possible. I am inclined to think probable (your notion that they didn't know they were making shit up re: WMDs is just silly. The stuff that they made up was often highlighted but deliberately ignored in the run up to the war (I am thinking Student theses as, what's the phrase, Causa Belli? Mobile missile launchers - 45 minutes to chemical/biological weapon deployment (in Britain at least) - they knew these things were lies. If not how did they ever gather enough wits about them to win/steal their respective elections? Pressure was applied on intelligence services to 'find' this shit so they knew they were stretching things.
I'll put it another way. At least some in both admins (yours and ours) knew it was all bullshit. even if Bush and Blair didn't (and you'd have to be pretty gullible to think they didn't in my opinion)))

wow 3 brackets in one go.

Also, there is a third possible. Governments may be aware that there is an actual small threat but deliberately engineer its exaggeration to create fear etc etc
I am inclined to think this third is the most likely possibility.

And a final question - you do accept that many important decisions by powerful people are taken behind closed doors, in secret, and are never recorded - don't you?

This leads to there being no hard evidence -which leads to, amongst other things, conspiracy theories - which leads to me saying 'stop making such important fucking decisions behind closed doors, in secret and unrecorded!'

'motherfuckers!'

vockins wrote:The Kennedy Administration was completely informed about the capabilities of the Soviet nuclear program.

Is this not why Curtis (mad as a fucking fruit nut tree) Le May was itching to nail the Soviets with nooks as soon as possible cause he knew the yanks'd win 'with limited civilian casualties - 10 -20 million tops - er - dependin' on the breaks.'?

Earwicker, have you ever played tennis where it's you on one side, and five guys with 5 balls are on the other?

I'll try to respond to your many question marks. If I miss your point please don't assume I'm trying to dodge it. I have trouble parsing some of your posts.

Anywho, there really are posts on this board where folks seem to be literally saying that the government publicizes threats falsely to instill fear. That is all I am taking issue with. I just don't think that happens.

Now maybe some government types overreact. Or are paranoid. Or get outraged by things they shouldn't. Or have no sense of proportion.

But on the basic question of lying to cause fear, put me in the skeptical column. I think the Bush folks think these threats are real, unjust, and their looking for public support is sincere. I see no reason to believe otherwise. They may be wrong (that's another topic), but they're sincerely wrong. That's all I'm saying here.

Is it logically possible (as in not a logical contradiction) that either of these

"The administration is trying to manipulate us with fear by banning liquids on airplanes when they know such a move is unnesessary"

and

"The administration is being ineffective by banning liquids on airplanes. They think such a move will improve safety, but they are mistaken".

could be possible? Well sure. But that's not saying much. But when I see Bush talking about terrorists as a real threat, terrorists wanting to subvert democracy and plunge Islamic states into a new dark ages, and so on, I'm convinced that he believes this at a core value level.

This should be important even to people who absolutely oppose everything he's done. If the war is the effect it's critical to understand the cause. Those who think the cause is corporate profits or scaring the public to keep them docile are going to present arguments that just won't be heard by the other side...or even many of those somewhere in the middle.

(This will be similar to the anti-liberal screeds that choke the American radio waves. They excite those on the right, and bounce off those on the left. Nothing is accomplished).

The only way democracy can work is if people are honest in what they say, and if they take the other side at their word. If both sides (as if there is always only two) assume the other side doesn't mean what they say, and their proscriptions are motivated by hidden agendas mostly about greed, there is really no hope of a good faith process.

Good faith in disputes is the fuel that democracy runs on.

Are there people who, in fact, don't proceed in good faith? Of course there are. But I don't think the folks in the current administration are among them.

For better or worse, they really do mean what they say. Those who oppose what they want to do would be better served by taking what they say seriously rather than simply dismissing them as poker players who are bluffing so they can steal the pot.

galanter wrote:Are there people who, in fact, don't proceed in good faith? Of course there are. But I don't think the folks in the current administration are among them.

For better or worse, they really do mean what they say.

After six years of nearly constant deception about every issue imaginable, how can anyone cling to the idea that the Bush White House is acting in good faith?

The president said, in making the case for war, that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Later on, Paul Wolfowitz admitted: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

If they had seen hard-hitting evidence of Saddam’s WMD, why would they have had to “settle” on WMD as the case-building issue? Wouldn’t it have been unanimous from the get-go? Settling means some people thought WMD was the top issue, others thought other issues were stronger. But they couldn’t make up their minds, so they settled on WMD.

These are people who deliberately exploited fear of terrorist attacks to create support for a war they knew they couldn't otherwise sell. This is hardly acting in good faith. It's the opposite.

You all seriously use some of the worst analogies I've ever read to make a political point.

Mr G,

I am of the view that governments and powerful people generally have one primary purpose – to hold on to and consolidate their power.
I hold this view after studying (personally and, for a brief stint, academically) history. It would be possible to trawl through the last hundred years (not to mention the thousand before that) and find dozens of examples of powerful men deliberately lying and deceiving to hold on to power.
This applies to recent America as well - there is hard evidence that Nixon lied (if you take voice recordings as ‘hard’ anyway) and there is pretty conclusive hard evidence that at least the 2000 election that put the current administration into power was fixed.

Besides America the last hundred years saw dozens of attempted genocides by powerful people, not just Hitler (and as far as I am aware he never signed any documents relating to the Final Solution so there is no real ‘hard’ evidence linking him to that), Stalin killed so many they lost count, 50 million is mentioned often. You know all this – what’s my point?

My point is America has - knowingly – been involved in atrocities over the last hundred years and continues to be supportive of regimes that commit appalling acts of brutality (Uzbekistan being the first that jumps to mind). You shouldn’t be able to easily dismiss the actions of Stalin and Hitler because they were ‘monsters’. The deaths and misery they caused were a result of their power before (or at least as much as) their monstrosity.

They have that power in common with other powerful men.

Stalin said something along the lines of ‘one death is a tragedy a million deaths is a statistic’ I will stick my neck out and say that all powerful men (and women) see things that way.
Most economists see things that way.

Maybe they have to but that in itself is a reason why they should be treated with suspicion.

The current American administration, funded by other hugely wealthy and powerful men, has passed laws and directed policy that benefits the wealthy suppliers of funds to their coffers. This isn’t much of a surprise but it has happened. You do accept that don’t you? Do you really need (or even expect) them to admit it publicly? It is self evident. Or do you honestly think it is just a coincidence?

All powerful men should be regarded with suspicion. I feel even the founders of your nation even accepted that.

Why do you think they are not lying and deceiving?

They have shown past willingness to do so (and incidentally the PNAC document signed by members of the current administration could be seen as hard evidence of intent regarding attacking Iraq for its resources – couldn’t it?
And after three years of war in Iraq who has benefited most? You can point at polls that rock around half and half as to whether the population are glad America got rid of Saddam but can you honestly say the Iraqis have benefited most from the invasion?
Of course they haven’t – the biggest beneficiaries are the defence contractors and the oil men who just happen to be either a/ in the administration or b/ are massive funders of it (more coincidence?). It is therefore not at all unreasonable to see that invasion as being undertaken for the benefit of the already wealthy and not for the Iraqi population who soon will be blamed for their own civil war despite it being we who created the conditions for it.
If Iraq was all a big fuck up how come no-one high up has resigned or been sacked for it?
The answer to that could be that they don’t want to admit their mistake but they have admitted their mistakes – yet still no sacking/resignations.
My conclusion - things have gone according to plan.)

I don’t think any of the above shows the mind of a conspiracy theorist at work. It’s a reasonable analysis of the situation and explanation for why I hold the suspicious position that I do.
I cannot understand why you or anyone would hold such a trusting position.

Re: terrorist threats – again ‘they’ have lied numerous times about the level of threat. Al Quaida doesn’t even exist as a controllable organisation and the intelligence services have to know this. They made up the idea in the first place!! Dozens of people have been arrested in both our countries with plans to commit terrorist acts since 9/11. Some have been tortured. How many have been actually guilty of what they were accused? Remarkably few – disturbingly few (I know in Britain, before 7/7 last year and the arrest of the attempted bombers a few weeks later the answer was a big fat zero)

Now, a glance over history shows that an effective way of increasing and holding onto your power is to instil fear in your subjects (even small town gangsters know this – and pause before you start saying politicians aren’t like small town gangsters – they are from the same mould. Trumped up little Napoleans who for some disturbed reason feel it is their right to have power over others)

It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the powerful people ‘above’ us might be lying (or exaggerating) to instil fear to maintain that control. They always have done this so why would they change now?

Given – well – all of human history, do you not see that it is, at least, plausible?

Those on this board who presume that it is all lies should maybe be a little cautious about their insistence but in my view their suspicion is justified by history – both ancient and recent. It is more justified than a sheep like belief in what we are being fed.

The question for me isn’t - why would you believe that we might be being deceived? Though I’ve just tried to give an answer. The question for me is - why wouldn’t you?





PS – here’s the conspiracy minded suspicion coming in. If your purpose was just to scare people why not go on about the impending ecological destruction that we are hastening on with ever increasing speed?
Easy, going on about that would mean you’d have to do something about the massive industrial behemoths that are the primary causes – who funds the creators of the policies that could do something about that?

Using terrorists as your tool means you have to do something about them, so loads of money for intelligence and defence contractors – who funds the creators of the policies that could do something about that?

In my opinion those of you who think this kind of thinking is ‘whacky’ and ‘crazy’ have switched off your critical faculties.

Anyhow’s, I’ve rambled on enough. Forgive me for lack of clarity I’ve just splurged this.

lars wrote:

galanter wrote:Are there people who, in fact, don't proceed in good faith? Of course there are. But I don't think the folks in the current administration are among them.

For better or worse, they really do mean what they say.

After six years of nearly constant deception about every issue imaginable, how can anyone cling to the idea that the Bush White House is acting in good faith?

The president said, in making the case for war, that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Later on, Paul Wolfowitz admitted: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

If they had seen hard-hitting evidence of Saddam’s WMD, why would they have had to “settle” on WMD as the case-building issue? Wouldn’t it have been unanimous from the get-go? Settling means some people thought WMD was the top issue, others thought other issues were stronger. But they couldn’t make up their minds, so they settled on WMD.

These are people who deliberately exploited fear of terrorist attacks to create support for a war they knew they couldn't otherwise sell. This is hardly acting in good faith. It's the opposite.

Lars, you are misinterpreting what Wolfowitz said. Further, there is a difference between citing a legitimate fear that one truly believes, and making up a fear one doesn't believe in a cynical attempt to manipulate the public. The former is not dishonest, the latter is.

Wolfowitz is saying what I already touched on this directly with you.

I noted:

I'll just summarize by saying that the decision to take out Saddam is justifiable in *my* mind due to a number of motivations that, taken individually, might not justify military action. These included the threat of WMD development/use/distribution, a history of attacking 3 neighboring countries, funding Hammas suicide bombers, using chemical weapons against his own people and others, daily attacks on aircraft enforcing the no fly zones protecting those in the north and the south who had already been the victims of mass slaughter, and ultimately being responsible for the deaths of more Moslems than anyone in the history of the world...estimates hover around 1 million.

For reasons of international law the UN debates centered on the WMD question, and that became highlighted in the days before the war. But all of these wrongs were in the air as well. After 9/11 it became clear that waiting for the next atrocity was not good enough anymore, and it was time to remove Saddam from the scene and give the Iraqis a chance to democratically sort themselves out.

There were *lots* of reasons to take out Saddam. They decided to focus on WMD's because that is what would work best in a UN debate. The UN had already taken Saddam to task on the WMD issue some 17 times and he was still non-compliant.

Given a multitude of reasons to take out Saddam, focusing on one is not dishonest.

I personally think it would have been better if they hadn't overly focused on WMD's when talking to the American people. It would have been better to keep laying out all the wrongs of Saddam.

But focusing on WMD's in the UN was not an unreasonable thing to do, and it certainly wasn't dishonest. Lot's of countries agreed with the American assessment. Including virtually all of Europe. There was only disagreement on what to do about it, not the threat itself.