Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis/Archive 1

message: 67.80.190.213 recently vandalized the page which I reverted. I'm fairly new to this site and not sure about what action (if any) is supposed to be taken against the first time offender. Falphin 22:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandal 

message: "Soviet technology was well developed in the field of medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), as opposed to ICBMs. The Soviets did not believe they could achieve parity in ICBMs before 1970". That's bs. The other way around. The reason, of course, is that ICBM technology of both countries was at the stage when they could not be armed and fired quickly enough to be  efficient. In other words, anything medium range would beat ICBM time-wise.  I changed that part. Gaidash 6 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)
--Pixydust91 22:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICBMs 

message: It seems to me that the following does not really belong in the article:
Author and former Cuban military intelligence officer Servando Gonzalez has advanced a controversial but well-supported hypothesis that there were never any nuclear warheads in Cuba at all--that the crisis had been an unintended consequence of a May 1962 plan hatched by Khrushchev as a means of getting the United States to invade Cuba in order to depose Castro, whom the Soviets were beginning to see as an unstable and troublesome ally, one who was fast becoming a major political and financial liability to the Kremlin.
Especially the "well-supported" bit, since the very next paragraph directly disproves that there were never any nuclear warheads in Cuba at all. I am new to wikipedia, so don't want to begin by slashing someone else's work, but the quoted part clearly needs to be edited out.
*I agree. I removed it. Thanks. --Fastfission 01:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't that conspiracy theory be removed & 

message: Ah, dueling verisimilitude!  Although Thirteen Days (2000) made good use of JFK's tapes for much of the character's dialogue, I personally found the film disappointing both as history and as drama.  The minimalistic docu-drama The Missiles of October (1974), which arguably made far better use of the archival materials then available, for my money remains the most chilling depiction of the Cuban Missile Crisis to date, and perhaps the most factual.  De gustibus non est disputandum.  (I only saw the Costner film when it came out, so I can't compare the two films any more closely than that, but I was surprised to read here that it's the one used in academia.)  Both films take dramatic license, of course, and neither are documentaries.  I'm still waiting for the docu-drama which makes use of Soviet and Cuban archives available since that October 2002 seminar!  Perhaps after Castro checks out...  Heck, maybe someone will film Brendan DuBois's "Resurrection Day"!
Kencf 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Portrayals 

message: This article links to San Cristobal, with no indication of where that place actually is. -- Beardo 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the information that San Cristobal is situated in Pinar del Rio province. It is a town of some 10,000 inhabitants about 50 km southwest of Havana (see ). As to the exact missile launch sites there is a posting in the Google Earth community indicating 4 MRBM sites in the vicinity of San Cristobal, another two IRBM sites at Guanajay (a bit closer to Havana), and three more sites near the centre of the island [http:bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=132732]. There is nothing much to see there, nowadays, as those were mobile launch sites that were dismantled at the end of the crisis. --Proofreader 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Cristobal 

message: This article seems to get vandalized every day, almost always from users without accounts, and in the flurry of reverts information often gets lost and has to be laboriously recovered. I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to just semi-protect it so that only users who have been here awhile can edit it? Any objections? --Fastfission 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked the ability of new and un-logged in users to edit this article. If any of them have legitimate changes to suggest they should do so here on the talk page. --Fastfission 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection?

message: I'm not sure if this is mentioned, but I saw this documentary about the Crisis where they said that after the Soviet freighters were ordered to go home, the Soviet nuclear subs never got the order. The American destroyers found the subs and dropped hand grenades as a warning. The lead sub armed its nuclear torpedo at the American ship, but the commander choose not to fire and therefore averted a war. Could we do some research on this and add it?- JustPhil 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not exactly. Khruschev was able to "back down" because Kennedy gave him the ability to save face, by agreeing to withdraw the Jupiter missiles from Turkey, and also that the US would agree never to invade Cuba again. This was Kennedy's greatest moment   (I am someone who thinks he was a good President, but not great); he realized that, in order to avoid war, he must allow the Soviets to save face. Further threats and posturing--which were recommended by many in the military, members of ExCom, etc.--would just make the risk of nuclear war ever greater. This was true leadership. Everyone knew that the Jupiter missiles were obsolete, and the agreement between Kennedy and the USSR demanded confidentiality anyway, but between the two countries, Khruschev was given a way to bow out gracefully. Leadership is not always about bullying; intelligence and wisdom are just as important. And foolhardiness is not the same thing as courage. 66.108.4.183 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended aftermath 

message: This article has been referenced:  --Striver 02:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reference

message: "By the fall of 1962, America�s arsenal contained 3,000 nuclear warheads and nearly 300 in espionage."
I do not understand this sentance. How can somebody have anything "in espionage"? Harley peters 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: The newly created trivia section states,
:"The famous comment "Don't wait for the translation!" was later used in the film Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country"
Sorry to be blunt, but I don't give a crap. I don't know anything about "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country", and I don't want to know anything about it. I'm reading this because I want to know about the Cuban missile crisis. To me this is just too trivial and detracts from the article. Does anyone have any thoughts about it's removal?--Zleitzen 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is very famous, and should be under Stevenson's article, but does not relate to the CMC. Perhaps if more pop culture references were made to this line (or can be found to support this), then it could be included here as well. Totalirrelevance 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: This section appears to lack sources, and is dominating the page somewhat. Could those who have contributed this section provide sources before we work on honing that section. I'll give it a few days, if no sources come forward then it may have to be removed in it's entirety. --Zleitzen 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kennedy's options

message: Can any German-speaker check this link from the "external links" section?
cuban missile crises part of a final paper about the cuban missile crises
It looks like spam, but I can't read German any better than I can read Linear A  Nyttend 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is English wikipedia; foreign language links should only be included if no English links suffice - I don't think that is the case here. -- Beardo 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam link? 

message: Most people mistakenly believe this image was taken during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when in fact it was taken after the crisis had concluded.
This part of the caption should be reworded to remove weasel words.
71.117.209.8 07:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most people..." 

message: Later, a U-2 flight was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement on October 27, causing negotiation stress between the USSR and the U.S. Khrushchev had not given the order, and Castro had used the freedom of using SAM missiles. However, Kennedy did not destroy the site, as he claimed to do, if such an incident happened. Kennedy's contradictory decision probably averted nuclear war.
This section contains two sentences that lack clarity and would benefit from editing by someone more familiar with the events of October 1962 than I. First of all, what happened in the incident described here as "... and Castro had used the freedom of using SAM missiles"? It sounds like the Cubans shot down the U2 without Soviet permission, but the phrasing "had used the freedom of using" is awkward and requires repeat reading to make sense. Would it be more clear to say, "Krushchev had not given the order; the Cubans were in control of the SAM emplacement from which the missile was launched"? 
Secondly, what is meant by "Kennedy did not destroy the site, as he claimed to do, if such an incident happened"? Is the author saying JFK claimed to have destroyed the SAM site but in fact had not, thus (one supposes) saving face at home while avoiding confrontation with the Russians? Or is the author saying that JFK had threatened, not "claimed", to destroy any missile emplacement from which an attack on US aircraft was launched but did not follow through on the threat, thus averting nuclear war? I suspect the second meaning is the correct one, but the phrasing here really needs cleaning up and clarification. Any help would be appreciated. 68.83.143.100 03:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification on SAM Incident Needed

message: That little line about 'Osama' in the Background. Very sketchy, most probably vandalism. Just need some clarification before I remove it. Totalirrelevance 10:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Osama?

message: Since 15.40, 26 November, the only genuine change, which has not been reversed as vadalism, was to change "leader" to "premier".  I wonder whether this page should be semi-protected ? -- Beardo 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Beardo. I added it to the "most vandalised pages" list a while back, but fat use that was. Check the history to see how many times I've reverted vandalism in the last few months.--Zleitzen 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually put it on the requests for protection page, which seems to have worked. -- Beardo 23:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just been unprotected - and the vandalism started again. -- Beardo 17:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I submitted it to be protected again. This entire article needs to be rewritten. Goodolclint 15:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to not specific changes - with cited sources - here, and we'll consider them. -- Beardo 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: There was some criticism about contradicting time mentions, especially regarding the the start of the incident. The photos were taken on October 14, were presented to JFK two days later, on October 16 and Kennedy's widely known TV statement was made on the October 22. 
Between the 16th and 22nd of October, there was a relatively peaceful period, sort of like the silence before hurricane. During the period, the hardliners in the Pentagon and the White House have tried to persuade Kennedy into some kind of a military response, at least a surgical strike. But both Kennedy and Khrushchev have been reluctant to take military action. As a precaution, the military command deploys the Navy in Florida, to intervene in case the crisis does not get resolved until the end of the month. 
On 26th, Khrushchev offers to withdraw the nuclear weapons if US promises not to attack Cuba. On 27th, this offer expands to include the withdrawal of the Jupiter missiles deployed in Turkey. During this diplomatic traffic, Castro starts to distribute arms to the people, in an effort to create a militia army to resist a possible US invasion. 
In the meanwhile, US reconnaissance flights continue to increase, increasing the armed Cubans' enthusiasm to respond back. On the 27th, a group of armed Cuban militia opens fire on a USAF U-2 plane. This alerts the Soviet base in Cuba and failing to contact Moscow, the base takes the initiative to launch a missile at the plane on the mistaken assumption the war has finally started. 
This response panics both Washington, on the assumption that the Soviets are willing to do whatever it takes to get their offer accepted and Moscow, in expectation of a military reprisal that will trigger a large-scale war. On the 28th, as Khrushchev was preparing to declare that he's dropping the condition of the withdrawal of the missiles deployed in Turkey, Kennedy accepts the Soviet offer and the crisis ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsazak (talk • contribs)  11:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates regarding the Timeline Problems