USSR v.s. U.S.A Cuban Missile Crises

1. Sometimes. When a certain weapon is in its experimental or development stage, it is still being tested, improved on, and studied. Its effects and abilities aren't certain and therefore isn't mass produced. The R-13 is a submarine launched ballistic missile, not an ABM system capable of taking out incoming nuclear threats, it was simply another delivery system and the U. S. already had this ability as well during the Cuban Missile Crises. The U. S. could have used their own nuclear launched nuclear weapons as well as their own deterrence rather than placing nuclear missiles in Turkey Yes it is true that neither side had effective methods to prevent nuclear attacks such as incoming rockets, but before the U. S. placed nuclear weapons in Turkey both sides had the same amount of time to react to incoming nuclear strikes if one side launched rockets or bombers from their own territory at the other. When the U. S. placed Jupiter missiles in Turkey within minutes of striking the USSR, that balance of power was tipped too far in favor of the U. S. According to your own source Jupiter rockets placed in Turkey had the ability to strike Moscow along with other major Russian cities and every target between Moscow and Turkey with a 1.44 Megaton nuclear warhead each. To put this in perspective the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima was at most 18 Kilotons as oppose to 1440 kilotons of the Jupiter missile, much more powerful. The reason the Jupiter missiles had so much significance was that they had the ability to be launched before hostilities opened up and despite a time consuming launch procedure, could be launched before the Russians knew how to react. It would have only taken a matter of minutes in the single digit range for a Jupiter missile to hit Russia, and if it was a surprise attack, which everyone feared and prepared for, the fact that Jupiter missiles had lengthy time procedures and were vulnerable to attack would be irrelevant if the U. S. decided to open up hostilities after the Jupiter missiles first entered Russian airspace. The U. S. put 15 such missiles in Turkey according to your sources by 1961, who says they wouldn't have put more if the USSR hadn't retaliated by sending arms to Cuba? 2. Yes the UK had the right to attempt to crush the rebellion in the colonies before they won their independence Yes the USSR had the right to crush the revolts in the Eastern Bloc before the Slavic nations received their independence Yes the U. S. had the right to aid in the destruction of the communist revolution before they succeeded as well. What all of those instances have in common is that the movement being crushed or destroyed by the powers of the USSR, UK and the U. S. , all won in the end What the difference is is that the USSR and the UK never went back after the fact to re correct their mistakes and ignite further conflicts, the U. S. did. After the U. S. , India, Poland, East Germany, etc all became sovereign nations, the powers that used to have control or influence over them, have no right to intervene again militarily. What you are saying by suggesting that the Bay of Pigs was justified because the U. S. used to have control over Cuba and lost, is that the UK has the right to launch an invasion on the U. S. and India because the UK used to have control over the U. S. and India, and the USSR has the right to take back the former Bloc nations by force if need be because they used to control those nations and powers as well, simply because the nations they used to control of moved on, became sovereign nations, does not mean they won't be attacked again. The CIA fact book also states, "The Treaty of Paris established Cuban independence from the US in 1902 after which the island experienced a string of governments mostly dominated by the military and corrupt politicians. " . https://www.cia.gov... You will see it halfway through the Introduction on Cuba was independent since 1902, the country, before the revolution succeeded, was run by Batista, U. S. backed, but runned the country without the U. S. legally in control due to the Treaty of Paris effectively establishing Cuba independent from the U. S. Cuba was a sovereign nation before and after the communist revolution and was able to successfully defeat the CIA planned Bay of Pigs invasion, the fact of the matter is is that Cuba was an independent nation before the revolution, during the revolution, and after the revolution. The U. S. has launched an attack on Cuba just 1 year before and like any other rational nation would do, Cuba had a legitimate reason to fear a future U. S. attack and got aid from their ally, the USSR. 2. According to the CIA World Fact Book (link above) the US granted Cuba independence in 1902 under the Treaty of Paris. The U. S. had already granted Cuba independence in 1902 under the Treaty of Paris, the Platt Amendment which my opponent quoted from which states, "The Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence", was in 1901. The Platt Amendment was abrogated in 1934 according to these sources (. http://www.u-s-history.com...) (. http://www.loc.gov...) (. http://www.fordham.edu...) The U. S. granted Cuba independence in 1902 and the Platt amendment that allowed for U. S. military intervention was eliminated in 1934, well before the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Cuba was absolutely a sovereign nation free from unwanted foreign intervention during the Bay of Pigs, and because they were such they had every right to call upon foreign aid for support against the very likely threat of future attacks. 3. I refuted this above but I'll explain further. The fact that the Jupiter missile was slow to launch and vulnerable would have been irrelevant in the instance the U. S. decided to launch rockets at Russia which could hit Russia in a quick matter of time in the event of a very likely surprise attack, Russia wouldn't have been able to know if the missiles were being prepared to fire, only after they were fired. If you were to go to states in the Northern and unpopulated states of the U. S. such as Montana and North Dakota, you would notice that there are many nuclear missile silos there. This is for two reasons, one, if those silos were targeted by missiles themselves, there would be very few civilian losses, and two, missiles launched from the North would hit Russia quicker then missiles launched from the South when they travel over the North Pole, the quickest route. The USSR followed this very same logic and many of their missile silos were placed in unpopulated northern areas, not near Russian cities. Many missile silos in Northern Russia were considered military targets. Now hold that thought. The U. S. developed the Polaris missile in 1960, launched from submarines, with variants of the Polaris able to hit targets 2800 miles away. . http://www.britannica.com... With a range of 2800 miles the submarine would not have had to been nearby at all to hit Russian cities, military installations and missile silos. Use this map and measure out 2800 miles and you can realize how much potential these had to strike targets in Russia . http://www.daftlogic.com... A sub off the coast of Greenland or Spain could launch rockets at Moscow, Russia being landlocked is irrelevant. A sub off the coast of Norway could strike at missile silos all over Northern Russia.