Thedelldays Posted 22 October, 2012 Share Posted 22 October, 2012 The world almost went to war... Cuban missile crisis Mental really reading about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svetigpung Posted 22 October, 2012 Share Posted 22 October, 2012 so the ruskies wanted to put some big-dont fook with me-weapons right next to the US and A. Shock horror this was provocation. War! At the same time... USand A were placing hundreds of their big nasty weapons all around western europe, along the soviets border. And that was okay. just to keep the peace. Double standards from the US who think they have a right to do whatever they like, where ever they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 October, 2012 Author Share Posted 22 October, 2012 so the ruskies wanted to put some big-dont fook with me-weapons right next to the US and A. Shock horror this was provocation. War! At the same time... USand A were placing hundreds of their big nasty weapons all around western europe, along the soviets border. And that was okay. just to keep the peace. Double standards from the US who think they have a right to do whatever they like, where ever they like. Or,double standards from Russia...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 October, 2012 Share Posted 22 October, 2012 so the ruskies wanted to put some big-dont fook with me-weapons right next to the US and A. Shock horror this was provocation. War! At the same time... USand A were placing hundreds of their big nasty weapons all around western europe, along the soviets border. And that was okay. just to keep the peace. Double standards from the US who think they have a right to do whatever they like, where ever they like. Yes, I was also astounded by the rank hypocrisy of this the first time I read about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svetigpung Posted 24 October, 2012 Share Posted 24 October, 2012 Or,double standards from Russia...? not really , they were surely just responding to the US deployment of missiles. It was okay for the conflict to happen in and around europe BUT not near the coast of america. God forbid. Its the same argument nowdays. The west (ok the US) decides whos allowed a nuclear program. Isreal Yes-they are a nice, friendly peacefull nation. N.Korea, Iran NO-they are the bad guys. Whos says that they get to decide? Makes you wonder how can Pakistan and India be with the in-crowd on this matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 24 October, 2012 Share Posted 24 October, 2012 I was in the 1st year at Barton Peveril at the time and remember some lad who went home for lunch and listened to the news coming back and saying that a war was about to start and we'd all be dead by teatime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 24 October, 2012 Share Posted 24 October, 2012 not really , they were surely just responding to the US deployment of missiles. It was okay for the conflict to happen in and around europe BUT not near the coast of america. God forbid. Its the same argument nowdays. The west (ok the US) decides whos allowed a nuclear program. Isreal Yes-they are a nice, friendly peacefull nation. N.Korea, Iran NO-they are the bad guys. Whos says that they get to decide? Makes you wonder how can Pakistan and India be with the in-crowd on this matter? They just ignored the UN and people that go around checking your nuclear power stations until they had developed the bombs then said we also have nuclear capability so there. then they got invited to the big boys table. Not much different to what Iran is doing at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 24 October, 2012 Share Posted 24 October, 2012 There's an excellent book called "The Secret State" by Professor Peter Hennessy which relates in detail the UK's defence planning during the Cold War. When the planners learnt about the "Football" that always accompanied the US President and contained the launch codes for the missiles, they raised the question of what would happen if there was a surprise attack and the PM was in his official car and could not be reached. The only nationwide radio network at the time was run by the AA, so they installed a receiver in the PM's car which received AA messages. They could then use this to alert the PM to a surprise attack. The idea was that the driver would then find a phone so that the PM could get in touch and authorize retaliation. They also ensured that all the PM's drivers carried sufficient change so the the PM could use a call box if necessary. They also realised by 1968 that the various bunkers dotted about the country were essentially useless in terms of protecting the nations leadership as the Russians knew where they were and a direct or very close hit would destroy them. So they adopted the Python concept which was dispersing small groups of ministers + the royal family to remote locations and then re-assemble them after the conflict ended, although whether there would be anything left to govern was another question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 24 October, 2012 Share Posted 24 October, 2012 The only nationwide radio network at the time was run by the AA, so they installed a receiver in the PM's car which received AA messages. They could then use this to alert the PM to a surprise attack. The idea was that the driver would then find a phone so that the PM could get in touch and authorize retaliation. They also ensured that all the PM's drivers carried sufficient change so the the PM could use a call box if necessary. There was a piece about this on tv recently, possibly the One Show. Only in Britain could we be so amateurish, it would make an ideal plot for an Ealing comedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 24 October, 2012 Share Posted 24 October, 2012 I was in the 1st year at Barton Peveril at the time and remember some lad who went home for lunch and listened to the news coming back and saying that a war was about to start and we'd all be dead by teatime. I used to go to school on a bus and, I recollect, we were all youthfully exhuberant about the situation. However I remember a cartoon in one of the dailies showing a family cowering behind the sofa when News at Ten each night came on as the crisis reached fever pitch Ironically, where we lived, the main concern in our childhood years, was Fawley Refinery 'exploding' and we would all be wiped out!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 24 October, 2012 Share Posted 24 October, 2012 not really , they were surely just responding to the US deployment of missiles. It was okay for the conflict to happen in and around europe BUT not near the coast of america. God forbid. Its the same argument nowdays. The west (ok the US) decides whos allowed a nuclear program. Isreal Yes-they are a nice, friendly peacefull nation. N.Korea, Iran NO-they are the bad guys. Whos says that they get to decide? Makes you wonder how can Pakistan and India be with the in-crowd on this matter? Yes. But there is an extra element at work here. The US has always considered ALL of North and South America (including the Caribbean) as its sphere of influence. It has never tolerated communist governments within that sphere. Thus, the continuing embargo against Cuba. They invaded Grenada when Maurice Bishop (a Marxist) took over. They engaged in a long covert war (funding and training the "contras") against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. They also covertly toppled the elected governnent in Chile because Allende was a Marxist. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a double whammy - inside the zone the US considered "its own" (cold-war thinking) AND being pushed by Castro (a Marxist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svetigpung Posted 25 October, 2012 Share Posted 25 October, 2012 Yes. But there is an extra element at work here. The US has always considered ALL of North and South America (including the Caribbean) as its sphere of influence. It has never tolerated communist governments within that sphere. Thus, the continuing embargo against Cuba. They invaded Grenada when Maurice Bishop (a Marxist) took over. They engaged in a long covert war (funding and training the "contras") against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. They also covertly toppled the elected governnent in Chile because Allende was a Marxist. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a double whammy - inside the zone the US considered "its own" (cold-war thinking) AND being pushed by Castro (a Marxist). exactly...if the US had its "sphere of influence" then surely the yanks deployment in western europe was right next door to the ruskies and within their "influence" zone. But that was okay. Reagan even amitted the threat of nuclear weapons would confine the next war within europe as both sides would not really want to have a go at each other. So goodbye europe and "everyones a winner". The amount of gorilla wars they caused and funded inside their zone is pure and simply criminal. But hej, were the US, we do what we want. Otherwise your on the side of terror, apparently. All "empires" come to an end eventually. Interesting to see how they handle the rise of China and their future world dominance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now