What's this about Norm Retiring.

Soggy responds:

>> No, not really. Reagan was probably the kind of guy you'd
>love to spend time
>> with, bullshit a bit, and realize he was dapper, fun and
>lived off lines
>> written by others.
>
>Funny how many falsehoods take hold and seem so real...I
>guess because the teller likes the message and truth be
>damned. For much of Reagan's radio/TV career he wrote much
>of his own material.

Sure he did. B movie actors ALL wrote their own material.

Where'd you dig this one up?

Charlie Self
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or
not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn

Radio/TV Charlie. Looks like prejudice trumps even your eyes.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> >Funny how many falsehoods take hold and seem so real...I
> >guess because the teller likes the message and truth be
> >damned. For much of Reagan's radio/TV career he wrote much
> >of his own material.
>
> Sure he did. B movie actors ALL wrote their own material.
>
> Where'd you dig this one up?
>

Charlie Self wrote:

> Soggy responds:
>
>>> No, not really. Reagan was probably the kind of guy you'd
>>love to spend time
>>> with, bullshit a bit, and realize he was dapper, fun and
>>lived off lines
>>> written by others.
>>
>>Funny how many falsehoods take hold and seem so real...I
>>guess because the teller likes the message and truth be
>>damned. For much of Reagan's radio/TV career he wrote much
>>of his own material.
>
> Sure he did. B movie actors ALL wrote their own material.
>
> Where'd you dig this one up?

Read what he wrote. Radio and TV are not "B movies".
>
> Charlie Self
> "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists
> or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest
> Benn

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:

> Where'd you dig this one up?

Aksurly, I saw an interview of someone on some show (BookTV/cspan or
maybe Charlie Rose)... The interviewee held up copies of Reagan's
speeches in which Reagan crossed out entire sections and pages and hand
wrote his own words in their place. He routinely took an active role and
made major contributions to the speeches. Damn. I wish I could recall
where I saw this program. I'm not a Reagan fan but it was certainly
interesting.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>

Gerry writes:

>I simply found these buffoons to be at least as stupid as any of our
>prime ministers and we're hard to beat on this one. Don't ever mistake
>craftiness, slickness, or glibness at delivering speeches *scripted*
>*by* *others* as anything remotely close to intelligence. Nobody with
>any real intelligence /or/ /morality/ would ever spend several millions
>of their own and others' money to secure a $150 000/year job.

Fair enough. I've listened to a few Canadian PMs over the years.

By the way, or MBA master gets 400K a year (USD, too). I'm not exactly sure he
needs, but any little bit helps.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

In article <[email protected]>, dave in fairfax
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I was thinking more along the line of: "We know you aren't cut out
> for this, but it comes down to you. Take my old advisors, read
> what they write and do what they say. TRY to be quiet other than
> that, and get that b@stard Saddam for me."
> OK, I'm done with the politics now.

I think you may be closer to the truth than anyone there wants to admit.

Gerry

Dave in Fairfax responds:

>GW strikes me as a good
>old boy who'd do just fine running the town garage and going
>fishing and hunting whenever the fit took him. I suspect that I'd
>be happy to wet a line, or a whistle with him, or go chasing down
>bunnies or deer. It's just sad to see a person out of their
>element through no fault of their own. Sorta going back to the
>puppeteer theory this started up on.

Sort of like our own Manchurian Candidate? And somebody has already activate
him, so he's bankrupting the country?

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

Charlie Self wrote:
> Sort of like our own Manchurian Candidate? And somebody has already activate
> him, so he's bankrupting the country?

I was thinking more along the line of: "We know you aren't cut out
for this, but it comes down to you. Take my old advisors, read
what they write and do what they say. TRY to be quiet other than
that, and get that b@stard Saddam for me."
OK, I'm done with the politics now.
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/

In article <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:

> stupidity of politicians

Isn't that redundant, sort of like the old line about committing
suicide in Buffalo? ;-)

Gerry

MG responds:

>But he wasn't elected president was he? He was appointed after Spiro Agnew
>resigned.

Ah, dear ol' Corkscrew Agnew. The man who disproved my minor faith in humanity.
I recall telling my then mother-in-law that he couldn't be guilty. No
politician at his level would be stupid enough to sell out for 80 grand.

Oops. I keep underestimating the stupidity of politicians.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

Wes notes:

>Actually, I think that when he was elected Vice President, he *was*
>elected to the presidency. It is not an appointed office. The line
>of succession is quite clear and the electorate should remember that
>they may be, in fact, electing their next president when they make
>their vice presidential choice. "Choice" being a euphemism for
>"Picking the lesser of evils."

That's called chopping logic, I think. Still, I'd joyfully accept Mr. Ford over
several of his successors.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

On 30 Jun 2004 23:42:31 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

|Wes notes:
|
|>Actually, I think that when he was elected Vice President, he *was*
|>elected to the presidency. It is not an appointed office. The line
|>of succession is quite clear and the electorate should remember that
|>they may be, in fact, electing their next president when they make
|>their vice presidential choice. "Choice" being a euphemism for
|>"Picking the lesser of evils."
|
|That's called chopping logic, I think.

I dunno. I'm hard pressed to find a "definite" definition for it.
Based on context I'd say it's most often used in describing religious
discourse, that being a bigger waste of time than discussing politics.

As a fellow Tucsonan, the late author Ed Abbey once said, "Zen: the
sound of the ax chopping. Chopping logic."

There, I'm mentioned a WWing tool.


Wes

Dave Hinz responds:

>> Impeached, but not convicted. Amazing, ain't it?
>> But, then, how many Reagan regime co-conspirators were unindicted? I cna
>never
>> recall whether it was 118 or 138.
>
>Right, and Dennis Rich and the whole laundry list of Clinton's cronies who
>got last-day pardons. "this other guy did stuff I disagree with" doesn't
>excuse anyone's own actions.

No, it doesn't. But, in fact, Clinton was not convicted. Nor were these who
weren't indicted. So it's time to let it all go, place its weary head on a
pillow and let it drop off. But, of course, no one will and neoconservatives
(does that explain neocon--and yes, it is an insult, right up there with
"liberal" which I am and am proud of being) will be yanking on Clinton's pecker
for years to come.

Charlie Self
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or
not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn

Gary writes:

>Charlie, Charlie, Charlie. You're in denial. It happened, and the events
>of the day were significantly influenced by the sitting American leadership,
>as they always are. I admit, I was sort of kidding about defeating
>Communism, although befriending Gorbachev and wife certainly had some impact
>on the outcome.

A fact, a fact, a kingdom, more or less, for a fact. "It happened" says almost
what Doug said a psot earlier. Nothing.

>
>"almost annihilated" When did you learn of things such as civil defense,
>bomb shelters advertised on the front of public buildings, home fallout
>shelters, nuclear attack drills for school children? I'd say that's when
>we're about as close to face annihilation as anytime in the history of this
>country. Present time included.


When did I learn of such things? Early '50s. Late '40s. What was JFK doing
then? Recovering from back problems caused by PT 109 and getting ready for
politics. He wasn't getting us almost annihilated. Just because Civil Defense
was still touted in '60 doesn't put the cause in JFK's pocket. It was a decade
or 2 old by then, as a result of a lot of intrigue over atomic secrets and a
lot of residual fright over WWII. You want to blame Ike? More went on under his
adminstration than under JFK's. Maybe we can go back to Truman, under whose
admin most of it began?

Do you recall the atomic clock? How many minutes we were from midnight. Do you
think that came on board during JFK's watch?

Read back a few years. You may have lived it, but it sounds like you were too
young to pay attention.


Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

Gary writes:




>LRod, LRod, LRod. (this starting to be fun) Yes, the cold war started in
>the 50's but I remember the threat being at its highest in 1963. as
>http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=48&category=life puts it:
>
> "Testing the mettle of the new and youthful President John F. Kennedy,
>Soviet Premier Nikita Krushschev demanded that NATO troops leave Berlin,
>emphasizing his point with a scary shoe-banging tantrum at the United
>Nations.

And Nikita's shoe-banging, of course, was the Democrat's fault. Blame it on
JFK.

> A year later, the Cuban Missile Crisis would shove the world to the
>brink for 13 agonizing days. Newspaper headlines blared warnings of
>impending annihilation. "Highest Urgency, Kennedy Reports," "Invasion
>Possible, Air, Sea and Ground Forces Ordered Out for Maneuvers," they
>cried."

Ah, yes. The liberal press. You neocons dislike the press so much, I'm
surprised you'll even quote from anything but Fox and Limbaugh.

Thirteen whole days, while Krushchev really had no intention of invading, and
Kennedy was reasonably sure of that. He had no real choice, anyway, but to call
the bluff.

Amazing. Newspaper warnings of impending annihilation and that's you're grounds
for saying we were nearer annihilation at that point than at any other? Maybe
so, in your opinion and in the opinion of some newspapers. Historically, one
has to wonder.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

J. Clarke wrote:

> Three (Bronx) cheers for the Press. Anything to stir up a crisis and sell
> newspapers. My Dad was in command of a naval base in Florida at the time,
> and he wasn't particularly worried. Simple fact is that Kruschev was just
> finding out how much he could get away with and nobody who had a clue what
> was going on thought that he was going to start a nuclear war over it.

I have a feeling that your father was a vert disciplined militarty
man
and didn't let you in on how tense things were "at work". During
that
almost two week period there were U-2 planes taking off and landing
at Albrook Air Force Base in the Canal Zone (Panama Canal that is) -
several times a day. I know because they came over Balboa High
School
at less than 300 feet and even closer if you were at the
football/baseball
practice field near the end of the runway. Quarry Heights, the HQ of
USARCARIB, had more general per square yard than the Pentagon and
I went to school with several of their sons and daughters. THEY
were
"concerned", and not because any yellow journalism was "stirring
things up" - the english radio and TV were controlled by the US
government - AFRTS - Armed Forces Radio and Television Service.

Living within a mile of what was surely a primary target for nuclear
missiles made the tension of those days palpable.

That's my perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

There have been several documentaries done recently (in the last
2-3 years) that interviewed high ranking officials in both the
Kennedy AND Kruschev administrations as well as high ranking
military men from both sides directly involved in the crisis. They
all described how frighteningly close we came to a large "nuclear
exchange" and how easily it could have gone that way. It wasn't
media hype - we in fact nearly went MAD - Mutually Assured
Destruction - the ultimate national security policy that both
sides believed in.


charlie b

J. Clarke wrote:

snip

>
> Was Kruschev going to give the order? No. He says himself that he was just
> pushing to see how far he could get and that he was quite surprised at how
> much he got away with. He wasn't expecting to be allowed to keep missiles
> in Cuba, but what the hey, might get away with it so worth a shot. Was
> Kennedy going to give the order? I don't think he was that crazy. So how
> did we come close to a large nuclear exchange? Was Castro going to push
> the button? Kruschev didn't give him one. Was somebody else going to do
> it? Not in Russia--_they_ shoot people without trial for that sort of
> thing. And in the US if the President is alive then nobody else is
> authorized to give the order.
>
You seem to be under the assumption that there was literally only
one "button" on each side and that only Kennedy and/or Kruschev
could push it. In fact, every nuclear sub commander, every SAC
B-52 pilot with nuclear bombs, every pair of guys in nuclear
ICBMs silos had the ability to start the ball rolling - towards
major
devistation. Both sides had military officers who wanted to
annihilate the other side once and for all and have their nation
fulfill it's destiny as they saw it. Some felt that such decisions
should not be in the hands of civilians, especially politicians.
There were also very influential civilians who were what later were
called Hawks who were itching to wipe out the other side and were
convinced it could be done with "acceptable levels of casualties".

There is a balancing act for the military - train and arm your
personnel to destroy the enemy any where at any time AND give
them the discipline to stand down OR start WW III when ordered to.
A warrior can not stay ready for imminent battle for very long -
he'll either implode or explode. During the Cuban Missile Crisis
both militaries where cranked up even higher than normal
for battle - and an all out war at that.

Now add the weak link in the command and control equation -
communication. We didn't always have cell phones and
satelite communications and even today, we have no way
to communicate with deeply submerged submarines - each
with enough nuclead "devices" to devastate major portions
of the planet's land masses. There was no CNN, no live
coverage, no 24 hour news, no see and disseminate, no
"inbeds". It took time to develop film, miles of it,
analyze the pictures, not digital images, no digital image
analysis software/hardware, and type up, not word
process, a report, with carbon copies (the cc in a memo),
and fly the report to the White House. It could be 8 to
10 hours from "incident" to "decision makers" and then
it took time to get the orders out. In 10 -12 hours a lot
could have happened.

So you've got a destroyer captain confronting a submarine
escort of ships carrying ICBMS to Cuba and each captain
knows that the best defense is offense and knows that his
opponent has the same view. Neither would hesitate to
give their lives and the lives of their men to protect
their homeland yet niether would willingly allow their
enemy to destroy them without a fight. They've trained
most of their adult lives for this moment of engagement.

Thankfully they stood down. But it could easily have gone
the other way.

> Think about it, what would it gain Kruschev to launch a nuclear attack on
> the US? He had no way to follow it up. All he'd do is reduce the Soviet
> Union to rubble that the Finns could then take over at their leisure,
> assuming they wanted it and the United States to the same that Canada or
> Mexico could take over at their leisure if they wanted it.
>

Get the context - Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the U.S.
a moral dilema It ended The War but we'd let the genie
out of the bottle. Then the Korean "Police Action" and
the "truce" - seen by others as indicating our unwillingness
to use nuclear weapons, even when faced with "losing
face" in a part of the world where "losing face" was
unthinkable..

Now add to that, Joe McCarthy and the devastation he did
to the State Department. Men who knew "the other side"
better than anyone on "our side" were suspect because
of their connections with "the other side" - a necessity
of their profession. Hell, by the time we got into Viet
Nam, we didn't have anyone who knew much about the
area or the country. Had experienced hands been available
and listened to we surely would not have installed a
Catholic to lead a Buddhist country -or more accurately,
the southern portion of a country. For that matter, we
might not have backed Chiang Kai Chek (sp?) either despite
opposition from US military advisors who'd worked with
Mao during WW II and knew Chiang was no "general" and
certainly no warrior. How we could continually shoot
ourselves in the foot and still be able to step in shit
over and over again is a mystery to me.

So when the Cuban Missile Crisis came up the Soviet
Union had reason to believe that if they could hit us
first and hit us hard we'd fold. Unlike the Soviets, we'd not
lived through repeated invasions over hundreds of years.
Hell, the last major conflict on our shores was nearly
a hundred years gone by. We'd never lost 20 MILLION
of our citizens - just in the most recent war.

It amazes me that WW III didn't start off of Cuba.

> Think about it, what would it gain Kruschev to launch a nuclear attack on
> the US? He had no way to follow it up. All he'd do is reduce the Soviet
> Union to rubble that the Finns could then take over at their leisure,
> assuming they wanted it and the United States to the same that Canada or
> Mexico could take over at their leisure if they wanted it.

Do you have any idea of the size of the nuclear arsenals on
both sides at the time? Do you have any idea of the
devastation - for hundreds and hundreds of years - world
wide - that a full nuclear exchange would have caused?
There wouldn't have been any Finns or Canadians or
Mexicans to take over anything - for a long, long, long,
long time. Forget the radiation - think BIG - nuclear
winter - probable Ice Age.

You clearly do not understand the magnitude of what
almost happened, the consequences or how close we
came to the unthinkable.

Oppenheimer understood better than anyone what
nuclear weapons meant. On the first successful detonation
of a thermonuclear device his reaction was to quote the
Bahgvaghita (s?) "I am Shiva, the Come Death, Destroyer
of Worlds.".

Those who do not learn from history are condemed to
relive it., perhaps with a much less desirable outcome.
I personally have no desire to live through anything like
the Cuban Missile Crisis again.

charlie b

to: J. Clarke
from: charlie b
subject: We got a lot closer than you think - with references

I'm probably spiitting in the wind but here goes...
Below are some references which you might find worth
looking into further. Please note the first paragraph
of the Svetlana Sarvanskaya's "second point" and the
following paragraphs that support the statement.

The following excerpt from
http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/forum_cmc_021006.html

CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
James Blight, Philip Brenner, Julia Sweig, Svetlana Savranskaya, Graham
Allison as moderator

John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation

October 6, 2003

SVETLANA SAVRANSKAYA
My second point, how dangerous was the crisis? I think we will return to
this question again and again and again. And more and more documents are
being declassified, and coming out now. The public has access to, in the
Soviet Union, in Cuba. And based on the reading of the newer
declassified documents, I can say that it was even more dangerous than
we thought. Even more dangerous than we thought a couple of years ago.

What about the tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba? The United States, at
the time, did not realize that the Soviet Union actually deployed
nuclear-capable bombers, cruise missiles, and short-range launchers that
could carry nuclear warheads and nuclear warheads in Cuba.

The standard procedure was that the commanders on the island could use
both the strategic and the tactical nuclear weapons, only with
authorization from the Soviet Premier. However, it was not exactly like
that on the ground. We know that the Defense Ministry in the Soviet
Union prepared draft orders to the Commander of the Soviet forces in
Cuba, pre-delegating authority to use tactical nuclear weapons in two
cases: U.S. air strikes or U.S. invasion, landing on Cuba. The order was
never signed by Khrushchev himself or by Defense Minister Myunorvsky
(?). But ...(inaudible) was informed of that order, was ...(inaudible)
so what? He did not get the final authorization.

But we also know that the U2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba without
any authorization from Moscow. And Moscow was quite unhappy with that
fact, but could do nothing about it. So based on the reading of the new
documents and on my interviews with Russian military officials-- and I
underline here, military officials, who were in Cuba at that time-- I
would say that the probability of use of tactical nuclear weapons in
case of either U.S. air strikes or land invasion of Cuba was very, very
high.

And here's a list of URLs on the subject

From the JFK Library - with minutes of meetings during the crisis
http://www.jfklibrary.org/cmc_intro.html
http://www.jfklibrary.org/cmc_excomm_meetings.html#October20_250pm
*****
****NOTE: General Taylor for immediate air strikes and possible use of
nukes
****

A Russian persepective from Soviet's archives
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/archive/khrushchev/1962/10/23.htm

CNN's series on the subject with interviews of two key
participants
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/interviews/sorensen/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/interviews/dobrynin/

from George Washington University
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/brenner.htm#8

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/annals.htm


library of congress sovieat archives
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/coldwar.html

National Security Administration
www.nsa.gov/cuba/index.cfm

Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
http://www.cubanmissilecrisis.org/

A list of Links to info on the Cuban Missile Crisis
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/cubanmissile/

THIS ONE'S OF PARTICULAR INTEREST SINCE IT NOTES
THAT THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS WAS NOT - REPEAT -
NOT - A GAME OF CHICKEN
http://plus.maths.org/issue13/features/brams/
game theory and the CMC

TIM WEINER, "Word for Word: The Cuban Missile Crisis," New York Times,
October 5, 1997
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/baytape.htm

Jim Lehrer Report
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec97/cuba_10-16.html

US Naval History site
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq90-2.htm

NOTE THIS ONE - still looking into the source - all one line
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=495&id=1133662002
Soviet Sub commander nearly fired nuclear torpedo*********

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa103197.htm
personal recollections\

From The Atlantic Monthly
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/missilecrisis.htm

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> I'm curious--why is this matter of such huge importance to you that you'll
> waste a lot of your time looking up references on the topic?
>

Several reasons

The "learn from history or relive it" thing requires that the history
one is to learn from is factual There is a point after a significant
historical event where the written history of the event can be
updated to include new information that becomes available. The
Cuban Missile Crisis WAS a significant historical event and enough
time has gone by for most of the primary parties to have died or
are at a point in their lives when getting out what really happened
is important to them. The fact that some of the records of the
event in the Soviet Union have become available provides a unique
opportunity to see what the "other side" was thinking and why.

In time the facts can become distorted and the history of the event
may be watered down to reduce the actual seriousness and significance
of the event. Once that starts to happen the learning value of the
history starts to drop off - or worse yet, can be rewritten and
used erronesously to justify current decisions and actions. THAT
concerns me.

When one lives through a significant historical event, especially
if one was living in a Primary Target very close to the launch
point of nuclear missiles (the Panama Canal), one has clear and
distinct memories of the event.

I lived through, and was an eye witness to, another historical
event a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - The 1964
Flag Pole Incident that took place in Panama/Canal Zone. Being
awakened by the sound of a tank outside my bedroom window
and looking through the blinds, seeing the end of the underside
of a tank barrel sort of sticks with you. The reports of the
incident, even by the Christian Science Monitor - possibly
the most objective and accurate newspaper at the time, were
almost a hundred and eighty degrees off of what I saw and
heard during the critical hour before and after the triggering
incident at the flagpole in front of my high school

You presented a view of the event which was significantly
different from my recollections. To see if you perhaps
had a more accurate view of the event I looked into what
is out there now. Took maybe an hour and the time was
well spent - learned a lot. I've subsequently read the
"history" of this event that's in Panama's version of
history. The description of the initial hours of the incident
are significantly different from what I personally saw
and heard. What thy learn from their version of
history won't IMHO, serve them ery well.

Does that answer your question?

charlie b

I take it your eyes are brown?

Where did you learn about positive control, in the movies?

"charlie b" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You seem to be under the assumption that there was literally only
> one "button" on each side and that only Kennedy and/or Kruschev
> could push it. In fact, every nuclear sub commander, every SAC
> B-52 pilot with nuclear bombs, every pair of guys in nuclear
> ICBMs silos had the ability to start the ball rolling - towards
> major
> devistation.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:30:26 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ah yes, in 1963 it was moved back to 12 minutes to midnight. But
>> immediately prior to that it had been 7 minutes to midnight ever since 1960
>> (3 years) and 2 minutes to midnight from 1953 to 1960.
>> 1953 | Two minutes to midnight
>> The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within
>> nine months of one another.
>> 1960 | Seven minutes to midnight
>> The clock moves in response to the growing public understanding that nuclear
>> weapons made war between the major powers irrational. International
>> scientific cooperation and efforts to aid poor nations are cited.
>> 1963 | Twelve minutes to midnight
>> The U.S. and Soviet signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty "provides the
>> first tangible confirmation of what has been the Bulletin's conviction in
>> recent years-that a new cohesive force has entered the interplay of forces
>> shaping the fate of mankind."
>>
>> http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html
>>
>> One thing I do know, I as 13 year old in October 1962, was scared shitless
>> thinking the world was coming to an end any day. So were a heck of a lot of
>> other Americans.
>
>Gary, Gary, Gary (a little tardy but I'll be damned if I'm gonna forfeit
>my turn) - You credit Reagan with his stance against the Soviets and
>criticize JFK for the closeness he took us to "annhilation." If you look
>at The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists link you posted of the Doomsday
>Clock you'll see that during Reagan's terms we were the closest to
>midnight of any time period since 1953. And at that, '53 was two minutes
>to twelve whereas '84 brought us three minutes to twelve. The closest
>the '60's got was 7 minutes - which is equivalent to where the clock is
>set today.

Everybody here is making the assumption that the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists was/is an impartial and objective entity. They too had an
agenda and bought into the idea that the Soviet Union was a given and that
the best thing for the US was to roll over like a cowed puppy and urinate
on ourselves rather than confront them and make them mad. Thus, when
Reagan actually stood up to the Soviets, the BAS had a cow and thus set the
clock forward. Remember also that the clock setting was pretty much an
arbitrary setting based upon the feelings of a group of people who really
did not have any insight into actual Soviet doctrine or inside Soviet
political machinations. However, the BAS could use that clock setting to
influence American and Western opinion.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:39:52 -0700, charlie b wrote:


> That's my perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
>
> There have been several documentaries done recently (in the last 2-3
> years) that interviewed high ranking officials in both the Kennedy
> AND Kruschev administrations as well as high ranking military men
> from both sides directly involved in the crisis. They all described
> how frighteningly close we came to a large "nuclear exchange" and how
> easily it could have gone that way. It wasn't media hype - we in
> fact nearly went MAD - Mutually Assured
> Destruction - the ultimate national security policy that both
> sides believed in.

Thank you, Charlie, for stating what I remember and countering the
revisionists around here.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

Charlie Self wrote:

> Gary writes:
>
>
>
>
>>LRod, LRod, LRod. (this starting to be fun) Yes, the cold war started in
>>the 50's but I remember the threat being at its highest in 1963. as
>>http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=48&category=life puts
>>it:
>>
>> "Testing the mettle of the new and youthful President John F. Kennedy,
>>Soviet Premier Nikita Krushschev demanded that NATO troops leave Berlin,
>>emphasizing his point with a scary shoe-banging tantrum at the United
>>Nations.
>
> And Nikita's shoe-banging, of course, was the Democrat's fault. Blame it
> on JFK.
>
>> A year later, the Cuban Missile Crisis would shove the world to the
>>brink for 13 agonizing days. Newspaper headlines blared warnings of
>>impending annihilation. "Highest Urgency, Kennedy Reports," "Invasion
>>Possible, Air, Sea and Ground Forces Ordered Out for Maneuvers," they
>>cried."
>
> Ah, yes. The liberal press. You neocons dislike the press so much, I'm
> surprised you'll even quote from anything but Fox and Limbaugh.
>
> Thirteen whole days, while Krushchev really had no intention of invading,
> and Kennedy was reasonably sure of that. He had no real choice, anyway,
> but to call the bluff.
>
> Amazing. Newspaper warnings of impending annihilation and that's you're
> grounds for saying we were nearer annihilation at that point than at any
> other? Maybe so, in your opinion and in the opinion of some newspapers.
> Historically, one has to wonder.

FWIW, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (whose staff has a remarkable
paucity of atomic scientists by the way) set the Doomsday Clock back to 12
minutes to midnight in 1963, from the 7 that it had been earlier. The
farthest it has ever been from midnight is seventeen minutes to midnight in
1991, and the closest two in 1953. If those professional Chicken Littles
thought that things improved in 1963 then there's little support for the
contention that there was "'that's when we're about as close to face
annihilation as anytime in the history of this country".


>
> Charlie Self
> "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended
> from man."
> H. L. Mencken

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > Gary writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>LRod, LRod, LRod. (this starting to be fun) Yes, the cold war started
in
> >>the 50's but I remember the threat being at its highest in 1963. as
> >>http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=48&category=life puts
> >>it:
> >>
> >> "Testing the mettle of the new and youthful President John F. Kennedy,
> >>Soviet Premier Nikita Krushschev demanded that NATO troops leave Berlin,
> >>emphasizing his point with a scary shoe-banging tantrum at the United
> >>Nations.
> >
> > And Nikita's shoe-banging, of course, was the Democrat's fault. Blame it
> > on JFK.
> >
> >> A year later, the Cuban Missile Crisis would shove the world to the
> >>brink for 13 agonizing days. Newspaper headlines blared warnings of
> >>impending annihilation. "Highest Urgency, Kennedy Reports," "Invasion
> >>Possible, Air, Sea and Ground Forces Ordered Out for Maneuvers," they
> >>cried."
> >
> > Ah, yes. The liberal press. You neocons dislike the press so much, I'm
> > surprised you'll even quote from anything but Fox and Limbaugh.
> >
> > Thirteen whole days, while Krushchev really had no intention of
invading,
> > and Kennedy was reasonably sure of that. He had no real choice, anyway,
> > but to call the bluff.
> >
> > Amazing. Newspaper warnings of impending annihilation and that's you're
> > grounds for saying we were nearer annihilation at that point than at any
> > other? Maybe so, in your opinion and in the opinion of some newspapers.
> > Historically, one has to wonder.
>
> FWIW, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (whose staff has a remarkable
> paucity of atomic scientists by the way) set the Doomsday Clock back to 12
> minutes to midnight in 1963, from the 7 that it had been earlier. The
> farthest it has ever been from midnight is seventeen minutes to midnight
in
> 1991, and the closest two in 1953. If those professional Chicken Littles
> thought that things improved in 1963 then there's little support for the
> contention that there was "'that's when we're about as close to face
> annihilation as anytime in the history of this country".
>
>
> >
> > Charlie Self
> > "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended
> > from man."
> > H. L. Mencken
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ah yes, in 1963 it was moved back to 12 minutes to midnight. But
immediately prior to that it had been 7 minutes to midnight ever since 1960
(3 years) and 2 minutes to midnight from 1953 to 1960.
1953 | Two minutes to midnight
The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within
nine months of one another.
1960 | Seven minutes to midnight
The clock moves in response to the growing public understanding that nuclear
weapons made war between the major powers irrational. International
scientific cooperation and efforts to aid poor nations are cited.
1963 | Twelve minutes to midnight
The U.S. and Soviet signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty "provides the
first tangible confirmation of what has been the Bulletin's conviction in
recent years-that a new cohesive force has entered the interplay of forces
shaping the fate of mankind."

http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html

One thing I do know, I as 13 year old in October 1962, was scared shitless
thinking the world was coming to an end any day. So were a heck of a lot of
other Americans.

Gary wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>> > Gary writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>LRod, LRod, LRod. (this starting to be fun) Yes, the cold war started
> in
>> >>the 50's but I remember the threat being at its highest in 1963. as
>> >>http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=48&category=life
>> >>puts it:
>> >>
>> >> "Testing the mettle of the new and youthful President John F.
>> >> Kennedy,
>> >>Soviet Premier Nikita Krushschev demanded that NATO troops leave
>> >>Berlin, emphasizing his point with a scary shoe-banging tantrum at the
>> >>United Nations.
>> >
>> > And Nikita's shoe-banging, of course, was the Democrat's fault. Blame
>> > it on JFK.
>> >
>> >> A year later, the Cuban Missile Crisis would shove the world to the
>> >>brink for 13 agonizing days. Newspaper headlines blared warnings of
>> >>impending annihilation. "Highest Urgency, Kennedy Reports," "Invasion
>> >>Possible, Air, Sea and Ground Forces Ordered Out for Maneuvers," they
>> >>cried."
>> >
>> > Ah, yes. The liberal press. You neocons dislike the press so much, I'm
>> > surprised you'll even quote from anything but Fox and Limbaugh.
>> >
>> > Thirteen whole days, while Krushchev really had no intention of
> invading,
>> > and Kennedy was reasonably sure of that. He had no real choice, anyway,
>> > but to call the bluff.
>> >
>> > Amazing. Newspaper warnings of impending annihilation and that's you're
>> > grounds for saying we were nearer annihilation at that point than at
>> > any other? Maybe so, in your opinion and in the opinion of some
>> > newspapers. Historically, one has to wonder.
>>
>> FWIW, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (whose staff has a remarkable
>> paucity of atomic scientists by the way) set the Doomsday Clock back to
>> 12
>> minutes to midnight in 1963, from the 7 that it had been earlier. The
>> farthest it has ever been from midnight is seventeen minutes to midnight
> in
>> 1991, and the closest two in 1953. If those professional Chicken Littles
>> thought that things improved in 1963 then there's little support for the
>> contention that there was "'that's when we're about as close to face
>> annihilation as anytime in the history of this country".
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Charlie Self
>> > "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended
>> > from man."
>> > H. L. Mencken
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> Ah yes, in 1963 it was moved back to 12 minutes to midnight. But
> immediately prior to that it had been 7 minutes to midnight ever since
> 1960 (3 years) and 2 minutes to midnight from 1953 to 1960.
> 1953 | Two minutes to midnight
> The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within
> nine months of one another.
> 1960 | Seven minutes to midnight
> The clock moves in response to the growing public understanding that
> nuclear weapons made war between the major powers irrational.
> International scientific cooperation and efforts to aid poor nations are
> cited. 1963 | Twelve minutes to midnight
> The U.S. and Soviet signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty "provides the
> first tangible confirmation of what has been the Bulletin's conviction in
> recent years-that a new cohesive force has entered the interplay of forces
> shaping the fate of mankind."
>
> http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html
>
> One thing I do know, I as 13 year old in October 1962, was scared shitless
> thinking the world was coming to an end any day. So were a heck of a lot
> of other Americans.

Three (Bronx) cheers for the Press. Anything to stir up a crisis and sell
newspapers. My Dad was in command of a naval base in Florida at the time,
and he wasn't particularly worried. Simple fact is that Kruschev was just
finding out how much he could get away with and nobody who had a clue what
was going on thought that he was going to start a nuclear war over it.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

charlie b wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Three (Bronx) cheers for the Press. Anything to stir up a crisis and
>> sell
>> newspapers. My Dad was in command of a naval base in Florida at the
>> time,
>> and he wasn't particularly worried. Simple fact is that Kruschev was
>> just finding out how much he could get away with and nobody who had a
>> clue what was going on thought that he was going to start a nuclear war
>> over it.
>
> I have a feeling that your father was a vert disciplined militarty
> man
> and didn't let you in on how tense things were "at work".

Hardly. He was mainly pissed off that Kennedy had let Kruschev get that
far.

> During that
> almost two week period there were U-2 planes taking off and landing
> at Albrook Air Force Base in the Canal Zone (Panama Canal that is) -
> several times a day.

So? U-2s were taking off and landing on Okinawa regularly during much of
the Vietnam war, SR-71s as well once Johnson admitted that they existed.
Does that mean that Vietnam was about to launch a nuclear attack?
Monitoring a developing situation does not mean that nuclear war is
imminent.

> I know because they came over Balboa High
> School
> at less than 300 feet and even closer if you were at the
> football/baseball
> practice field near the end of the runway. Quarry Heights, the HQ of
> USARCARIB, had more general per square yard than the Pentagon and
> I went to school with several of their sons and daughters. THEY
> were
> "concerned", and not because any yellow journalism was "stirring
> things up" - the english radio and TV were controlled by the US
> government - AFRTS - Armed Forces Radio and Television Service.
>
> Living within a mile of what was surely a primary target for nuclear
> missiles made the tension of those days palpable.
>
> That's my perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
>
> There have been several documentaries done recently (in the last
> 2-3 years) that interviewed high ranking officials in both the
> Kennedy AND Kruschev administrations as well as high ranking
> military men from both sides directly involved in the crisis. They
> all described how frighteningly close we came to a large "nuclear
> exchange" and how easily it could have gone that way. It wasn't
> media hype - we in fact nearly went MAD - Mutually Assured
> Destruction - the ultimate national security policy that both
> sides believed in.

Was Kruschev going to give the order? No. He says himself that he was just
pushing to see how far he could get and that he was quite surprised at how
much he got away with. He wasn't expecting to be allowed to keep missiles
in Cuba, but what they hey, might get away with it so worth a shot. Was
Kennedy going to give the order? I don't think he was that crazy. So how
did we come close to a large nuclear exchange? Was Castro going to push
the button? Kruschev didn't give him one. Was somebody else going to do
it? Not in Russia--_they_ shoot people without trial for that sort of
thing. And in the US if the President is alive then nobody else is
authorized to give the order.

Think about it, what would it gain Kruschev to launch a nuclear attack on
the US? He had no way to follow it up. All he'd do is reduce the Soviet
Union to rubble that the Finns could then take over at their leisure,
assuming they wanted it and the United States to the same that Canada or
Mexico could take over at their leisure if they wanted it.

> charlie b

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

charlie b wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>
>> Was Kruschev going to give the order? No. He says himself that he was
>> just pushing to see how far he could get and that he was quite surprised
>> at how
>> much he got away with. He wasn't expecting to be allowed to keep
>> missiles
>> in Cuba, but what the hey, might get away with it so worth a shot. Was
>> Kennedy going to give the order? I don't think he was that crazy. So
>> how
>> did we come close to a large nuclear exchange? Was Castro going to push
>> the button? Kruschev didn't give him one. Was somebody else going to do
>> it? Not in Russia--_they_ shoot people without trial for that sort of
>> thing. And in the US if the President is alive then nobody else is
>> authorized to give the order.
>>
> You seem to be under the assumption that there was literally only
> one "button" on each side and that only Kennedy and/or Kruschev
> could push it. In fact, every nuclear sub commander,

In point of fact three officers have to agree to launch.

And there is in fact no "button". What there is is a briefcase full of
codes.

> every SAC
> B-52 pilot with nuclear bombs,

One B-52 is unlikely to get very far into Soviet airspace. Especially when
if he goes every other B-52 in his squadron is going to be doing their
damndest to stop him or bring him down.

> every pair of guys in nuclear
> ICBMs silos had the ability to start the ball rolling - towards major
> devistation.

Are you _sure_ that the two guys can launch without an authorization? Seems
to me that there's also a code involved.

> Both sides had military officers who wanted to
> annihilate the other side once and for all and have their nation
> fulfill it's destiny as they saw it. Some felt that such decisions
> should not be in the hands of civilians, especially politicians.
> There were also very influential civilians who were what later were
> called Hawks who were itching to wipe out the other side and were
> convinced it could be done with "acceptable levels of casualties".

Which is why a system was put in place so that such people could not launch
an attack.

Now, what does any of this have to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis? If
there is a risk that some nutcase in the military is going to go bugfuck
and starting a nuclear war, the risk is not dependent on there being a
"missile crisis" but on their being a nutcase. Such a person is liable to
go off for any reason or for no reason at any time. And there are still
Hawks who want to nuke everybody in sight. So what? "Influential
civilians" do not have the authority to order a nuclear attack.

> There is a balancing act for the military - train and arm your
> personnel to destroy the enemy any where at any time AND give
> them the discipline to stand down OR start WW III when ordered to.
> A warrior can not stay ready for imminent battle for very long -
> he'll either implode or explode. During the Cuban Missile Crisis
> both militaries where cranked up even higher than normal
> for battle - and an all out war at that.

There is only one kind of nuclear war. "all out".

> Now add the weak link in the command and control equation -
> communication. We didn't always have cell phones and
> satelite communications and even today,

So what? The US had no trouble communicating with its forces during WWII.
What changed between then and 1962 to remove that capability? You don't
need satellites and cell phones to communicate. Shortwave worked fine for
a long time. There were also moonbounce, tropo scatter, and all kinds of
other methods.

> we have no way
> to communicate with deeply submerged submarines

You mean that somebody dug up the ELF antennas while I wasn't looking?
Dang, take your eye off 'em for one minute . . .

> - each
> with enough nuclead "devices" to devastate major portions
> of the planet's land masses.

So what? If you can't send the order then they don't fire. This is a
problem how? Or are you concerned that without getting orders ever five
minutes a submarine crew will just out of sheer boredom decide for the Hell
of it to launch a nuclear strike?

> There was no CNN, no live
> coverage, no 24 hour news, no see and disseminate, no
> "inbeds".

So what?

> It took time to develop film, miles of it,
> analyze the pictures, not digital images, no digital image
> analysis software/hardware, and type up, not word
> process, a report, with carbon copies (the cc in a memo),
> and fly the report to the White House. It could be 8 to
> 10 hours from "incident" to "decision makers" and then
> it took time to get the orders out. In 10 -12 hours a lot
> could have happened.

So what?

> So you've got a destroyer captain confronting a submarine
> escort of ships carrying ICBMS to Cuba and each captain
> knows that the best defense is offense and knows that his
> opponent has the same view.

If the destroyer is _confronting_ a submarine then I fail to see how CNN,
live coverage, 24 hour news, "see and disseminate", "inbeds" (that's
actually "embeddeds" by the way), digital images, ditgital image analysis,
etc have any relevance. They guy on the destroyer can _see_ the effing
thing or has sonar contact with it. None of that stuff that you mention is
going to show a submerged submarine.

> Neither would hesitate to
> give their lives and the lives of their men to protect
> their homeland yet niether would willingly allow their
> enemy to destroy them without a fight. They've trained
> most of their adult lives for this moment of engagement.

So what?

> Thankfully they stood down.

Thankfully? Just how incompetent do you think our military officers to be?
The commander of that destroyer wasn't _about_ to fire on the Soviet Navy
without an order to do so. The _danger_ there was not that he'd do
something irresponsible but that some event would occur that led him to
believe that the Russian had fired on him and that he had to shoot back to
defend his ship.

The _real_ concern though was that if the Soviets didn't back down then he
_would_ have to be ordered to fire on them and nobody knew where that would
go.

> But it could easily have gone the other way.

Only if somebody had ordered it to.

>> Think about it, what would it gain Kruschev to launch a nuclear attack on
>> the US? He had no way to follow it up. All he'd do is reduce the Soviet
>> Union to rubble that the Finns could then take over at their leisure,
>> assuming they wanted it and the United States to the same that Canada or
>> Mexico could take over at their leisure if they wanted it.
>>
>
> Get the context - Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the U.S.
> a moral dilema It ended The War but we'd let the genie
> out of the bottle.

Trinity let the genie out of the bottle.

> Then the Korean "Police Action" and
> the "truce" - seen by others as indicating our unwillingness
> to use nuclear weapons, even when faced with "losing
> face" in a part of the world where "losing face" was
> unthinkable..

So?

> Now add to that, Joe McCarthy and the devastation he did
> to the State Department. Men who knew "the other side"
> better than anyone on "our side" were suspect because
> of their connections with "the other side" - a necessity
> of their profession.

The State Department does not control nuclear weapons, so what do they have
to do with anything except to the extent that they might screw up badly
enough that military action was the only option?

> Hell, by the time we got into Viet
> Nam, we didn't have anyone who knew much about the
> area or the country. Had experienced hands been available
> and listened to we surely would not have installed a
> Catholic to lead a Buddhist country -or more accurately,
> the southern portion of a country. For that matter, we
> might not have backed Chiang Kai Chek (sp?)

Chiang Kai-Shek--my mother had a lovely cloth-of-gold coat that was a gift
from Chiang. That was before my time though--I never met him myself.

> either despite
> opposition from US military advisors who'd worked with
> Mao during WW II and knew Chiang was no "general" and
> certainly no warrior. How we could continually shoot
> ourselves in the foot and still be able to step in shit
> over and over again is a mystery to me.

Can't really comment on the China situation other than to say that that was
more of the "anti-communism" crap--instead of worring about "isms" they
should have been worrying about what the particular movements were really
all about. With Vietnam the real blown opportunity was when Ho came to the
US asking for aid and got none. That's another mess the bloody French got
us into.

> So when the Cuban Missile Crisis came up the Soviet
> Union had reason to believe that if they could hit us
> first and hit us hard we'd fold.

The major concern about the missiles in Cuba was that the flight time was
short enough that they could take out the US chain of command before the
launch order could be given. If it was just a matter of "hit us hard and
we'd fold" they didn't need to put missiles in Cuba.

Regardless, the cost of guessing wrong in that kind of endeavor is such that
nobody in his right mind would take the risk.

In any case, the belief they could hit us first and hit us hard we'd fold
appears to have been a figment of the imaginations of advocates of the use
of nuclear weapons in Korea. Do you know of any credible testimony from
anybody in a position of authority in the Soviet military or governent that
would support that viewpoint? Kruschev says over and over again that the
Russians did not want war.

> Unlike the Soviets, we'd not
> lived through repeated invasions over hundreds of years.
> Hell, the last major conflict on our shores was nearly
> a hundred years gone by. We'd never lost 20 MILLION
> of our citizens - just in the most recent war.

So what? You think that the Russians _wanted_ to lose another 20 million
plus all their military forces plus all their industrial capacity plus have
the whole place turned into a radioactive wasteland? Just how stupid do
you believe the Russians are? If you're this afraid what makes you think
that they aren't?

> It amazes me that WW III didn't start off of Cuba.

Then you're far too easily amazed.

>> Think about it, what would it gain Kruschev to launch a nuclear attack on
>> the US? He had no way to follow it up. All he'd do is reduce the Soviet
>> Union to rubble that the Finns could then take over at their leisure,
>> assuming they wanted it and the United States to the same that Canada or
>> Mexico could take over at their leisure if they wanted it.
>
> Do you have any idea of the size of the nuclear arsenals on
> both sides at the time? Do you have any idea of the
> devastation - for hundreds and hundreds of years - world
> wide - that a full nuclear exchange would have caused?

Do you? Or do you just have worst-case guesses? This is something that
nobody is going to _know_ until it actually happens. And perhaps it might
occur to you that Kruschev and Kennedy both had a hell of a lot more
information in that regard than you do, and were as much aware of the
risks.

> There wouldn't have been any Finns or Canadians or
> Mexicans to take over anything - for a long, long, long,
> long time.

And why is that? Fallout? Fallout doesn't fall everywhere uniformly, it
falls downwind of the explosion. Do the prevailing winds go from Finland
to Russia or from Russia to Finland? Do they go from the US to Mexico or
Mexico to the US?

> Forget the radiation - think BIG - nuclear
> winter - probable Ice Age.

Uh huh. You mean like the ice age that Saddam lighting the oil fields
caused? Remember, the same model that predicted "nuclear winter" from a
nuclear exchange also predicted that that would bring about "nuclear
winter". It didn't. Maybe it would with a real nuclear exchange, maybe it
wouldn't. Nobody knows for sure, however current thinking is that to end
the current interglacial (we're _in_ an Ice Age--right now we're just
experiencing a warm spell, and we're due for the next glaciation unless the
whole thing is winding down and going back to the "endless summer" that is
the normal state of the planet) would require a shift in ocean currents in
the North Atlantic and "nuclear winter" doesn't have a mechanism to cause
this.

> You clearly do not understand the magnitude of what
> almost happened, the consequences or how close we
> came to the unthinkable.

I probably understand it better than you do. As to "how close we came to
the unthinkable", if it was "unthinkable" then nobody would think to do it,
so cut the hyperbole.

> Oppenheimer understood better than anyone what
> nuclear weapons meant. On the first successful detonation
> of a thermonuclear device his reaction was to quote the
> Bahgvaghita (s?) "I am Shiva, the Come Death, Destroyer
> of Worlds.".

Nope, that was the first succesful detonation of a nuclear device.
Thermonuclear came later and was Teller's baby. And what he actually said
was "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds".

> Those who do not learn from history are condemed to
> relive it., perhaps with a much less desirable outcome.
> I personally have no desire to live through anything like
> the Cuban Missile Crisis again.

I have no desire to live through the entire Cold War again, but if there is
a history lesson there is it not that no nation of superpower status is
going to be stupid enough to start a nuclear war.

I'm going to leave you with this:

"Cuba was 11,000 kilometers from the Soviet Union. Our sea and air
communications with Cuba were so precarious that an attack against the US
was unthinkable." Not my words. Kruschev himself said that.
> charlie b

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

charlie b wrote:

> to: J. Clarke
> from: charlie b
> subject: We got a lot closer than you think - with references
>
> I'm probably spiitting in the wind but here goes...
> Below are some references which you might find worth
> looking into further. Please note the first paragraph
> of the Svetlana Sarvanskaya's "second point" and the
> following paragraphs that support the statement.
>
> The following excerpt from
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/forum_cmc_021006.html


I'm curious--why is this matter of such huge importance to you that you'll
waste a lot of your time looking up references on the topic?

> CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
> James Blight, Philip Brenner, Julia Sweig, Svetlana Savranskaya, Graham
> Allison as moderator
>
> John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation
>
> October 6, 2003
>
> SVETLANA SAVRANSKAYA
> My second point, how dangerous was the crisis? I think we will return to
> this question again and again and again. And more and more documents are
> being declassified, and coming out now. The public has access to, in the
> Soviet Union, in Cuba. And based on the reading of the newer
> declassified documents, I can say that it was even more dangerous than
> we thought. Even more dangerous than we thought a couple of years ago.
>
> What about the tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba? The United States, at
> the time, did not realize that the Soviet Union actually deployed
> nuclear-capable bombers, cruise missiles, and short-range launchers that
> could carry nuclear warheads and nuclear warheads in Cuba.
>
> The standard procedure was that the commanders on the island could use
> both the strategic and the tactical nuclear weapons, only with
> authorization from the Soviet Premier. However, it was not exactly like
> that on the ground. We know that the Defense Ministry in the Soviet
> Union prepared draft orders to the Commander of the Soviet forces in
> Cuba, pre-delegating authority to use tactical nuclear weapons in two
> cases: U.S. air strikes or U.S. invasion, landing on Cuba. The order was
> never signed by Khrushchev himself or by Defense Minister Myunorvsky
> (?). But ...(inaudible) was informed of that order, was ...(inaudible)
> so what? He did not get the final authorization.
>
> But we also know that the U2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba without
> any authorization from Moscow. And Moscow was quite unhappy with that
> fact, but could do nothing about it. So based on the reading of the new
> documents and on my interviews with Russian military officials-- and I
> underline here, military officials, who were in Cuba at that time-- I
> would say that the probability of use of tactical nuclear weapons in
> case of either U.S. air strikes or land invasion of Cuba was very, very
> high.
>
> And here's a list of URLs on the subject
>
> From the JFK Library - with minutes of meetings during the crisis
> http://www.jfklibrary.org/cmc_intro.html
> http://www.jfklibrary.org/cmc_excomm_meetings.html#October20_250pm
> *****
> ****NOTE: General Taylor for immediate air strikes and possible use of
> nukes
> ****
>
> A Russian persepective from Soviet's archives
> http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/archive/khrushchev/1962/10/23.htm
>
> CNN's series on the subject with interviews of two key
> participants
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/interviews/sorensen/
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/10/interviews/dobrynin/
>
> from George Washington University
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/brenner.htm#8
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/annals.htm
>
>
> library of congress sovieat archives
> http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/coldwar.html
>
> National Security Administration
> www.nsa.gov/cuba/index.cfm
>
> Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
> http://www.cubanmissilecrisis.org/
>
> A list of Links to info on the Cuban Missile Crisis
> http://history1900s.about.com/cs/cubanmissile/
>
> THIS ONE'S OF PARTICULAR INTEREST SINCE IT NOTES
> THAT THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS WAS NOT - REPEAT -
> NOT - A GAME OF CHICKEN
> http://plus.maths.org/issue13/features/brams/
> game theory and the CMC
>
> TIM WEINER, "Word for Word: The Cuban Missile Crisis," New York Times,
> October 5, 1997
> http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/baytape.htm
>
> Jim Lehrer Report
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec97/cuba_10-16.html
>
> US Naval History site
> http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq90-2.htm
>
> NOTE THIS ONE - still looking into the source - all one line
> http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=495&id=1133662002
> Soviet Sub commander nearly fired nuclear torpedo*********
>
> http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa103197.htm
> personal recollections\
>
> From The Atlantic Monthly
> http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/missilecrisis.htm

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

charlie b wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> I'm curious--why is this matter of such huge importance to you that
>> you'll waste a lot of your time looking up references on the topic?
>>
>
> Several reasons
>
> The "learn from history or relive it" thing requires that the history
> one is to learn from is factual There is a point after a significant
> historical event where the written history of the event can be
> updated to include new information that becomes available. The
> Cuban Missile Crisis WAS a significant historical event and enough
> time has gone by for most of the primary parties to have died or
> are at a point in their lives when getting out what really happened
> is important to them. The fact that some of the records of the
> event in the Soviet Union have become available provides a unique
> opportunity to see what the "other side" was thinking and why.
>
> In time the facts can become distorted and the history of the event
> may be watered down to reduce the actual seriousness and significance
> of the event. Once that starts to happen the learning value of the
> history starts to drop off - or worse yet, can be rewritten and
> used erronesously to justify current decisions and actions. THAT
> concerns me.
>
> When one lives through a significant historical event, especially
> if one was living in a Primary Target very close to the launch
> point of nuclear missiles (the Panama Canal), one has clear and
> distinct memories of the event.
>
> I lived through, and was an eye witness to, another historical
> event a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - The 1964
> Flag Pole Incident that took place in Panama/Canal Zone. Being
> awakened by the sound of a tank outside my bedroom window
> and looking through the blinds, seeing the end of the underside
> of a tank barrel sort of sticks with you. The reports of the
> incident, even by the Christian Science Monitor - possibly
> the most objective and accurate newspaper at the time, were
> almost a hundred and eighty degrees off of what I saw and
> heard during the critical hour before and after the triggering
> incident at the flagpole in front of my high school
>
> You presented a view of the event which was significantly
> different from my recollections. To see if you perhaps
> had a more accurate view of the event I looked into what
> is out there now. Took maybe an hour and the time was
> well spent - learned a lot. I've subsequently read the
> "history" of this event that's in Panama's version of
> history. The description of the initial hours of the incident
> are significantly different from what I personally saw
> and heard. What thy learn from their version of
> history won't IMHO, serve them ery well.
>
> Does that answer your question?

Not really. The simple fact is that my recollections (and I was pretty
damned close to a prime target too, about half as far from Cuba as any
point in Panama) are different from yours. Just as Kruschev's were
different from Kennedy's, and so on. As for repeating history, I doubt
that I am ever going to be in a position that gives me any power with
regard to the launching or withholding launch of nuclear weapons, so
convincing me that your view is right, even is you are successful, would
seem to me to be a total waste of your time.

Yes, it was a dangerous even in a dangerous time. Was it so much more
dangerous than the rest of that dangerous time as to justify all the media
attention and hand wringing and doomsaying? I don't think so, you do,
that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.




>
> charlie b

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Gary writes:
>
> ...
> > A year later, the Cuban Missile Crisis would shove the world to the
> >brink for 13 agonizing days. Newspaper headlines blared warnings of
> >impending annihilation. "Highest Urgency, Kennedy Reports," "Invasion
> >Possible, Air, Sea and Ground Forces Ordered Out for Maneuvers," they
> >cried."
>
> Ah, yes. The liberal press. You neocons dislike the press so much, I'm
> surprised you'll even quote from anything but Fox and Limbaugh.
>
> Thirteen whole days, while Krushchev really had no intention of invading
> ...

Uh, the invasion referred to in "Invasion Possible" above was the US invading
Cuba, not the Krushchev invading anywhere.

--

FF

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ah yes, in 1963 it was moved back to 12 minutes to midnight. But
> immediately prior to that it had been 7 minutes to midnight ever since 1960
> (3 years) and 2 minutes to midnight from 1953 to 1960.
> 1953 | Two minutes to midnight
> The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within
> nine months of one another.
> 1960 | Seven minutes to midnight
> The clock moves in response to the growing public understanding that nuclear
> weapons made war between the major powers irrational. International
> scientific cooperation and efforts to aid poor nations are cited.
> 1963 | Twelve minutes to midnight
> The U.S. and Soviet signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty "provides the
> first tangible confirmation of what has been the Bulletin's conviction in
> recent years-that a new cohesive force has entered the interplay of forces
> shaping the fate of mankind."
>
> http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html
>
> One thing I do know, I as 13 year old in October 1962, was scared shitless
> thinking the world was coming to an end any day. So were a heck of a lot of
> other Americans.

Gary, Gary, Gary (a little tardy but I'll be damned if I'm gonna forfeit
my turn) - You credit Reagan with his stance against the Soviets and
criticize JFK for the closeness he took us to "annhilation." If you look
at The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists link you posted of the Doomsday
Clock you'll see that during Reagan's terms we were the closest to
midnight of any time period since 1953. And at that, '53 was two minutes
to twelve whereas '84 brought us three minutes to twelve. The closest
the '60's got was 7 minutes - which is equivalent to where the clock is
set today.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
<http://www.flybynightcoppercompany.com>
<http://www.easystreet.com/~onlnlowe/index.html>