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

1. ABM systems were just in their development stage at the time of the Cuban Missile Crises and were simply experimental. Hence they were not very effective nor was there immediate reassurance in their ability to effectively eliminate a nuclear strike. The first true Anti-air missile was the Wasserfall built in Nazi Germany, did it eliminate the bombings conducted by the allies, of course not. The same reason it wasn't effective was because it was in the experimental stage, hence it was not totally effective, hence they weren't mass produced to make a difference. To say that Russia had ABM's therefore they could eliminate a nuclear attack from Turkey is just like claiming that simply because Nazi Germany built the Wasserfall they could eliminate the allied bombing threat. http://www.ucsusa.org... The truth is is that neither side had effective ABM methods during the Cuban Missile Crises. The U.S. also had sub launched missiles and could launch counter strikes. During the 1960's the U.S. Air Force was mass deploying B-52 Stratofortress bombers (seen in my icon), which were stationed at air bases all over the world and were capable of traveling large distances, strike with multiple nuclear arms, and fly back to safety. The USSR did not have such a capability as most of their bombers had shorter ranges and had smaller payloads. All in all, the U.S. out matched the USSR in striking capabilities not counting the fact that the U.S. placed nuclear missiles in Turkey that could strike the USSR in the same amount of time a missle from Cuba could strike the U.S. Russia did not make a fuss over it. They simply sent ships carrying arms to Cuba, it was the United States that initiated the blockade and was preparing for an invasion from Florida. 2. None of those counter rebellions were justified. The country you are arguing for was established by rebels who saw it as unjust to be ruled by foreign powers that impose a form of government you don't agree with. The colonists did not want to be run by England and their government therefore they were justified in breaking away. The slavs did not want to be run by the USSR and their government so they were justified in revolting. The cubans did not want to be controlled by the U.S. in the 60's so they broke away. All of the rebellions above were acts against outright imperialism and the 1. The Monroe Doctrine is not international law, simply a rule the U.S. created and follows. To put this in perspective the USSR had the stated goal to "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State" (https://www.mi5.gov.uk...) Therefore by your logic the USSR was following their obligation to use all available methods to overthrough the bourgeoisie by suppling Cuba. 2. The UK also lost money and resources when the U.S. and India broke away. Does that mean that the UK has the right to raise an army and launch an attack on the U.S. and India now that all is said and done? Of course not. The USSR lost large sums of treasure when half of the continent of Europe was granted independence. Russia can't go back and take it. A lot of what makes an independence movement justified is whether you win or lose to set the precedent. When you lose a territory you can't go back laterr to take it by means of military force. For instance if th South had won the U.S. Civil War back in the 1860's, it would be ludicrous for the Northern U.S. to attack the Southern U.S. igniting a second war in the year 2000 because they couldn't get their objectives accomplished the first time. Cuba won fair and square and was an independent nation. We attempted to aid the Bastista regime but the revolutionaries won. It was ridiculous to send thousands of men to their deaths in the Bay of Pigs invasion to re-correct the mistakes we made in the past. Cuba won their independence as a nation and were able to defend that precedent. 3. The U.S. had the alternative of not installing nuclear missiles in Turkey to begin with. Again the U.S. had long range bombers with larger payloads stationed at airbases all over the globe. The U.S. had submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles as well. The U.S. had installed nuclear missiles in Turkey capable of striking Russia in the same amount of time a missile from Cuba could strike the U.S. The USSR had submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles as well, what the Russians did not have were large numbers of long range heavy bombers or nuclear missiles capable of striking the U.S. in a matter of a few minutes. The USSR didn't bring the globe to the brink of war when the U.S. planted nuclear missiles right next to them, the U.S. did.