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

Pro: 1. Experimental development is still very effective. The devastation of the experimental A-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved highly effective. The first experimental satellite, Sputnik 1, successfully reached space. Are all experimental developments failures? The Wasserfall missiles were never deployed in WWII, hence how could Wasserfall missiles stop Allied bombings if it was never deployed? http://www.century-of-flight.net... The R-13 proved effective and was deployed by 1961, but it was never fired in anger. Therefore it was possible to launch nuclear armed subs and use them as deterrence. (http://www.fas.org...) In the end, both countries had ICBM missiles. According to my opponent if both countries failed to have effective ABM methods it does not matter who struck first as there are no effective methods to stop the nuclear strikes from both countries once launched. Why Russia did not make a fuss over it? Because Jupiter missiles deployed in Turkey were largely ineffective and vulnerable to Russian bombers. 2. Pro's argument has no tie with my argument. These countries were justified in crushing rebellions because the colonies violated a mutual agreement. Under the Warsaw Pact, Berlin and Hungary were under Soviet control. Under the royal charters, Britain had control in the American colonies. Under the Platt Amendment, US had presence and control in Cuba with a limited Cuban government after the Spanish American War. When one party violated mutual agreements, the other party has the right to enforce these agreements. Con: 1. No qualms here. We're neutral, both sides had its commitment to fulfill. 2. Unlike the UK (who made agreements after the break between India and US), US did not recognize complete Cuban independence. Under the Cuban constitution Platt Amendment, US had the right to intervene. http://www.mtholyoke.edu... USSR fell after the Cuban missile crisis, thus this argument is invalid according to our agreement in R1 "at the time of the crisis". Like the UK, US failed in stopping the revolution. Unlike the UK, US did not sign a peace treaty formally recognizing a communist Cuba. It is still under US authority and US had the right to intervene to enforce a democratic system. "The Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence" -Platt Amendment. Legally, the US had the right to do so. 3. Agreed on US should not have installed, but by the time of the crisis Jupiter missiles were exposed and obsolete rendering it as a poor deterrence. Both countries had surface to air missiles capable to eliminating bombers. This would be highly ineffective. US had subs, but the Russia's major cities are landlocked or surrounded by Soviet territory rendering it useless for US subs attacking Russian cities directly. The first US/Turkish nuclear missiles were completed by 1961 during the time of the Cuban missile crisis. And the missiles were obsolete due to above ground launch, short range, heavy payload, and time consuming launch procedure. (Russian air strike would had destroyed them if US attacked) http://www.missilethreat.com... For all the reasons above, US had the right to intervene with the Cuban Missile Crisis.