Talk:Cuban Missile Crisis

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

NSDC

I don't think we can NSDC as a source. Forbes reports,

  • Results may be skewed due to unconsolidated data of national and affiliate groups, rounding or incomplete information. *Total compensation, which may include benefits, one-time payments and deferred compensation, is based on latest available information. In some cases, sum is for a different year. Top pay may not be that of listed top person. 1Charitable services as percent of total expenses. 2Percent of private support tremaining after fundraising expenses. 3Percent of private support remaining after surplus. A negative number indicates private support exceeded surplus. NA- Not available. - Ratio increase from previous reported period. - Ratio decrease from previous reported period. - Same as previously reported period. - No comparable [1]

Hmmm....where did we hear similiar language...hmmm...was it ...Enron? RobS 16:17, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Dates

Somebody wrote 14 days, starting at October 14th, it was actually October 15th. Plus, that makes Thirteen Days, which is the title of Robert Kennedy's book, as well as the Feature Film on the Crisis. Just something I noticed. Mskreuz 19:25, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Photography

Not being disrespectful, but as the author wrote "Satelite technology was in its infancy." It was, and the satellites where VERY primative, not capable of delivering that quality of photography. There may have been one or two test runs of taking photography late in the Cold War, but the primary method of gathering photography was through the U-2 Spy Plane. Just to clear that up. Thanks! Mskreuz 19:37, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Including Images

I was thinking it'd be cool to include some of the U-2 photography, but it doesn't look like the system will let me. From what I read, it looked like the admins were okay with it, but I don't know... Mskreuz 13:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Place Conservapedia:Image upload requests here. RobS 13:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Here you go. [2]
Sweet! Thanks! Mskreuz 16:10, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Ray Cline I think was the analyst who discovered the missiles from the photgraphs. [3] Perhaps we can get his name in here somehow or quote from him, and I'd like t o do an Ray Cline entry. RobS 15:18, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, cool! I never knew that. That's a good idea for books on further reading. I just did a research documentary on this topic, and I have loads of stuff I could list. (I won't be to excessive) Funny I didn't already know that. Mskreuz 16:47, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Expanse of the Crisis Section

I'm looking for opinions on this. I was looking at this section of the article (Section Title added by me just for clarification.) Not to be rude or anything, but after a lot of research this year a lot of those statments were either really questionable, strangely interpreted facts (IMHO), or wrong. (I do realize that part of the interpretation is due to an individual and their bias, but I really can't understand how they could be so different.) I'm sure anybody who has an extended view on this topic would understand. I was going to try to edit it, but I realized it'd take a lot of work. Would it be at all appropriate to just chop it? I don't want to be out of line or rude, but a lot of that stuff just doesn't seem right.

Thanks! Mskreuz 21:06, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Since User_talk:RobS is the only other contributor to this article [4], I would suggest you contact Rob on his talk page with your suggestion. Crocoite Talk 21:16, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Okay I'm removing the following text from the article:
Expanse of The Crisis The United States discovered that the Soviet Union was installing offensive missiles capable of nuclear warheads at air bases in Cuba. The potentially nuclear missiles would soon be able to launch and strike the U.S. within minutes of launch. Washington D.C. was well within their range. President Kennedy demanded that the Soviets remove the missiles. To ensure this would happen, and to insure no further development of the missile base, he sent the U.S. navy to blockade the island. Secret negotiations ensued. The Russians demanded that U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey be removed for the removal of missiles in Cuba, but this was rejected. Eventually, Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier at the time, backed down to avoid a possible war with the United States and to maintain a relationship with Cuba.

Here's my justification. Overall, these are a lot of basic statements, which contain information that should be written about, but in a more in depth way. Also, a lot of these statements aren't completely accurate. For example the USSR did not "Demand" the missiles in Turkey to be removed, and we did not "Refuse". It was a much more delicate situation, resulting in a non Quid Pro Quo agreement. The Quarantine (Or basically blockade) wasn't to prevent the missiles from becoming active, it was to prevent further missiles from being delivered, and really just a show of force to say "We Mean Business". Also, keeping the relationship with Cuba was not on the USSR's agenda. Cuba was rather ticked off at the USSR because of that, and in Fidel Castro's words "We Were Irate!".

That's my justification for this edit, just so everybody knows. Mskreuz 12:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

One thing that neeeds to be included here, is to dispell the false notion that this was a stand-off between Kennedy & Khruschev, each with their finger on the trigger. In fact, it was the local Soviet commander on the ground in Cuba who had the power to authorize a nuclear launch without permission from Moscow. RobS 13:14, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but it wouldn't seem right to say that Kreuschev and Moscow had no role in the decisions. He probably had the authority, but with the understand not to do so unless there was a move of force by the US, or upon word by Moscow. That may explain the Rudolph Anderson shootdown. This information might be good together in a section. Gotta go for now. Mskreuz 14:16, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Actually that's not the case at all. Too often this crisis is portrayed as a confrontation between the two big men, Kennedy & Khruschev, staring each other down, with Khruschev being the first to blink. This has led to a total misperception among the American public, espoused by the American media, of what the Soviet system was and how it operated. Khurschev was not Kennedy's counterpart in this confrontation, with his finger on the trigger, being the last man who had the final decision to launch or not. It was the Soviet commander on the ground in Cuba who had the blank check to decide, should a threatening military situation arise, to nuke America to kingdom come. This misperception of Soviet politics persists, and there has always been unrealistic representations to the American people in US/Soviet Summits, that the Soviet counterpart has equal status with the US President, or that the Soviet system of decision making in military affairs was somewhat analagous to the US, the militiary being subordinated to the civilian, for example. RobS 15:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I do agree that the Soviet Commander had the authority to make that decision. But the thing was, the United States had said that if those missiles aren't out of there by X Date, we will remove them for you. So the commander in Cuba knew that either by that date, or unless the United States made a move, to hold off, because The US and USSR were trying to strike a deal on this, because nobody wants to get nuked. (That's rather bad....) So that commander is either waiting for word from Moscow, or a turn of events that would call him to make a decision.
Based on what I've seen, I think that the government in Moscow had the higher authority over that comander to either launch those missiles, or retreat them, as we saw done. So Kennedy and Kreuschev (And their governments)were trying to strike a deal that said that they wouldn't do what they said they'd do. That's just my take on this. What's your thoughts on this? (I'm thinking I won't write anything on this in particular, as it sounds too controversial.)
BTW, I did get Un-Banned. YAY! Mskreuz 14:53, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
What you've seen is precisely what I've stated above. But the known facts now are, this was not a confrontation of Kennedy & Khruschev eyeball to eyeball. This is what needs to be articulated, so we probably will have to consult some Soviet sources, Sergey Khruschev may be a good starting point. Two questions remain, (1) to what extent was this known or understood in US policymaking circles, and (2) if it was known, why have misperceptions of this nature persisted through subsequent Cold War negotiations and crises? (IOW, is this simply another example of US Intelligence failures which, in this case, persisted for decades; and if not, what purpose did disinformation serve?). RobS 15:34, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Soviet military doctrine

This is just a quick check as to what's available online, from a PBS News Hour roundtable with Sergei Khrushchev,

SERGEI KHRUSHCHEV: . It was the biggest miscalculation of my father and he had to make improvisation later after the beginning of the crisis.
JIM LEHRER: And in the final analysis he turned those ships around and he took those missiles off because he thought that United States really was going to bomb Cuba, really was prepared to start a war--
SERGEI KHRUSHCHEV:--if the strike will begin, he [Khurushchev] will lose the control of the situation and then nobody knows who would push the button, general, sergeant, colonel, and all this fire on this distraction. At that time there was no technical possibility to prevent it. You can turn the key, like in the car, push the button, and destroy New York City and then begin the war. So he wanted to prevent that. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec97/cuba_10-16.html --RobS 13:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Cool! Very nice writeup! I think that I'm starting to understand this particular aspect a whole lot better. So, Kreuschev was actually just the method of communication with President Kennedy?
Actually, its sounding like Kreuschev may have been overstepping his boundaries when he sent the message to Radio Moscow (Unless there was an agreement reached in the Soviet Government that I don't know about, which has a very probably chance, or some other unknown fact). The tricky thing is, we don't have as many sources from the USSR perspective as easily accessible as American ones. Again, very nice section! Mskreuz 16:10, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
Khruschev was spokesmen for the collective Politburo; however, control of nuclear weapons was not in CPSU hands, which Khruschev represented on the Politiburo. It was in the Soviet military hands, a potent political force in the USSR, which had saved the Soviet Union in WWII. Their judgement in use of nuclear weapons use was final. They did not need to consult with the CPSU or KGB on use once collectively the Poltiburo had committed them to action.
And the situation is further dramatized by the fact that Soviet miltiary doctrine allowed for a deployment force outside the Soviet Union to be incommunicado with the Center. If the Commander felt threatened in his mission, it was his sole judgement to launch a nuclear attack. RobS 16:20, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Formatting Question

Just a quick question on formatting. I was noticing how this "Contents" box is in different places in different articles, and I was wondering if it was possible to move it so its on the left of the "Overview" section. Is this possible, and if so, how would this be accomplished? Thanks! Mskreuz 20:05, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

You can't really move it, it's just going to appear after the fisrt ==(intro)== section. So you probably either have to revome the ==Overview== subsection head, or write a brief intro of a sentence or two above it. RobS 23:10, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
P.S. the articles looking good!
Thanks! I guess it might have to be okay how it is. I was kinda looking for something like The Chronicles of Narnia, so maybe an image would look good there... How many images is too many in an article? I don't want to go overboard or anything. Mskreuz 11:51, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
There's plenty of room for more images, basically one per section looks nice. RobS 11:57, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I requested an image that I think would be good at the top, to rearrange that nicely. Mskreuz 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

What Else?

What else should we add? The only things I can think of are the final negotiations through RFK and Anatoly Dobrynin, and the low level reconnaissance, but I'll need to find some good sources to verify my memory. I'm starting to forget stuff from my. I'm melting.... just kidding... Mskreuz 21:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

! Part of this article was copied from Citizendium but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png
RJJensen 21:56, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
Personal tools