I know, I'm just saying it's not entirely without merit. You just have to go the whole way, and be prepared to make some sacrifices.
I do not think that "oh well, we'll still have to lose London" (even if it's true, which I doubt) ever entered the minds of Foot et al. Seeing how they would all have been in London at the time, I don't think they would have appreciated it. Withdrawal from NATO and adjusting their geopolitical stance would have helped, but it's clear that the soft-Left still saw the USSR rather than the USA as "the enemy" - its assessment of the best way to avoid destruction was to remain as inconspicuous and inconsequential as possible.
Whereas in reality the Russians wouldn't have wanted an undamaged Britain to interfere with her post-war recovery anyway. The plan was unmitigated stupidity.
It did, however, give us V for Vendetta, so we'll forgive it that...
"what huge and loathsome abnormality was the Sphinx originally carven to represent? Accursed is the sight, be it in dream or not, that revealed to me the supreme horror - the Unknown God of the Dead, which licks its colossal chops in the unsuspected abyss, fed hideous morsels by soulless absurdities that should not exist" - Harry Houdini "Under the Pyramids"
"The goal of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions" - John Ruskin, "Stones of Venice"
Illuminatus Primus wrote:It wasn't unreasonable that Cuba would provide basing in the event of a general war during the height of the Cold War.
Of course it's unreasonable. Cuba was a Soviet client state just south of Florida. If the US and USSR had gone to war, guess who would have been pimp-slapped in the first round? The Russians wouldn't have been able to use Cuba as a base for the same reason the Americans couldn't use a Moscow suburb for a base. As Garry Wills pointed out in The Kennedy Imprisonment, Cuba was less than useless as a base for the Soviet Union to do anything against the US. No matter what the scenario, any attack from the USSR or Cuba would end with both countries getting thermonuclear enemas, as was made clear by the Kennedy administration and every successor during the Cold War.
And they wouldn't try to base planes there during tense periods leading up to potential war? Sorry, but you're grinding your political ax here. This easily applies to the wisdom of basing missiles in Turkey or West Germany, as it does to potential Soviet basing in Cuba in the event of general war. Placing the SAMs makes Cuba unfavorable basing from the outset, and by virtual attrition, frees up forces to be directed against other, more likely venues of attack. You're trying to limit the chess moves the opponent has on the board before things get hot, rather than just anticipating them before hand.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Illuminatus Primus wrote:It wasn't unreasonable that Cuba would provide basing in the event of a general war during the height of the Cold War.
Of course it's unreasonable. Cuba was a Soviet client state just south of Florida. If the US and USSR had gone to war, guess who would have been pimp-slapped in the first round? The Russians wouldn't have been able to use Cuba as a base for the same reason the Americans couldn't use a Moscow suburb for a base. As Garry Wills pointed out in The Kennedy Imprisonment, Cuba was less than useless as a base for the Soviet Union to do anything against the US. No matter what the scenario, any attack from the USSR or Cuba would end with both countries getting thermonuclear enemas, as was made clear by the Kennedy administration and every successor during the Cold War.
Er? Did you know that most Soviet missiles back then couldn't hit the US? Did you know that most Soviet SSBNs were shit in the gutter? That the Soviet Union had no substantial Strategic Aviation? Back then, the only serious deterrent that the Russians had was to place missiles right at the doorstep of the United States, or shooting nuclear torpedoes. This compared to missiles in Turkey, or W. Germany.
By and far, to the Russians, it was strategically sound to place them there, while at the same time, stop the loonies in the JFK administration from launching attacks on Cuba.
Of course, if missiles fly and both sides will get nuked. The question to the Russians is to make sure that the US at least gets the blunt of it, or at least think twice about it. Otherwise, the US would, for the most part, escape a nuclear attack relatively unscathed while the USSR is burnt to cinders. It might even encourage idiots to provoke a conflict.
STGOD: Byzantine Empire Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
Illuminatus Primus wrote:And they wouldn't try to base planes there during tense periods leading up to potential war?
Actually, with the public US obligation not to invade Cuba that worked very well and led to the removal of Soviet units from Cuba, post the CMC it was hard to rationalize such a build-up for anything but an attack on the US. I don't think even in Carter-Reagan years which were ripe with conflict situation, the USSR placed weaponry on Cuba as means of military build-up in a "tense period", but feel free to correct me.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
And they wouldn't try to base planes there during tense periods leading up to potential war? Sorry, but you're grinding your political ax here. This easily applies to the wisdom of basing missiles in Turkey or West Germany, as it does to potential Soviet basing in Cuba in the event of general war. Placing the SAMs makes Cuba unfavorable basing from the outset, and by virtual attrition, frees up forces to be directed against other, more likely venues of attack. You're trying to limit the chess moves the opponent has on the board before things get hot, rather than just anticipating them before hand.
The Soviets were able to sneak missiles into Cuba because American intelligence hadn't considered it a possibility until the deed was done. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the cat is out of the bag, now isn't it? The idea of using Cuba to attack the US (pay attention Fingolfin_Noldor)in the 1970s is absurd, since the US would retaliate against the USSR, just as an attack from Turkey would bring Russian payback to the US.
I forgot to add before that as Andrew Marr pointed out in his series the most important element in the British economies increasing strength during the early nineteen eightees was the discovery of North Sea oil and that without it, most of Thatcher's ideas would have fallen on their arse.
"Yeah, funny how that works - you giving hungry people food they vote for you. You give homeless people shelter they vote for you. You give the unemployed a job they vote for you.
Maybe if the conservative ideology put a roof overhead, food on the table, and employed the downtrodden the poor folk would be all for it, too". - Broomstick
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
And they wouldn't try to base planes there during tense periods leading up to potential war? Sorry, but you're grinding your political ax here. This easily applies to the wisdom of basing missiles in Turkey or West Germany, as it does to potential Soviet basing in Cuba in the event of general war. Placing the SAMs makes Cuba unfavorable basing from the outset, and by virtual attrition, frees up forces to be directed against other, more likely venues of attack. You're trying to limit the chess moves the opponent has on the board before things get hot, rather than just anticipating them before hand.
The Soviets were able to sneak missiles into Cuba because American intelligence hadn't considered it a possibility until the deed was done. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the cat is out of the bag, now isn't it? The idea of using Cuba to attack the US (pay attention Fingolfin_Noldor)in the 1970s is absurd, since the US would retaliate against the USSR, just as an attack from Turkey would bring Russian payback to the US.
Of course basing your weapons from another country and attacking an enemy with them from there will get you attacked. By your logic, there was no reasoning for basing in Western Europe, as if we did it because we thought we were going to pull the wool over the Soviet's eyes. The point is not to maintain plausible deniability - the Soviets expected us to find out, just not until after the missiles were deployed so we couldn't interfere with their deployment. Likewise, SAM basing in the SE acts as a permanent deterrent to any conceivable Cuban deployment in any such crisis, so you can turn your eyes to other areas of interest.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
The point is, there was zero chance of any attack coming from Cuba in the 1970s, so anything other than token defenses there was as silly as that Army fort guarding the Potomac against the Royal Navy -in the 1980s!
Darth Wong wrote:Imagine what would have happened if Argentina had played their cards a bit better and Britain lost the Falkland Islands war.
Nah Brits aren't Americans, when they arm a future enemy they try and made sure they leave something better in reserve.
If you refer to the British, about the only thing the Brits had left was nukes. As it was that whole war was a very close run thing, the margin was very tight.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
Darth Wong wrote:Imagine what would have happened if Argentina had played their cards a bit better and Britain lost the Falkland Islands war.
Nah. All the Argentinians had to do was fuze their bombs correctly; and they win. Skimmer went into this in some detail a while back; many british ships were hit by argentinian bombs which failed to explode.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944