The Parallels between the Cuban Missle Crisis and Iran

[berni_mccoy]

At the beginning of March, I went to the JFK Library for the first time. There, I watched the presentation on the Cuban Missle Crisis. When that crisis happened, I wasn't born yet. The presentation made it very clear how scary it was, but as only an observer, I can't say I fully appreciate the fear that crisis created. That's why I asked this question in another thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x915280#915590 To the DUers who actually lived through it to see how they felt about the current situation. Needless to say, I'm relieved at the consensus that the current situation doesn't seem as scary as the Cuban Missle Crisis. I had to ask because the thought of the U.S.A. STARTING A NUCLEAR WAR with another country is the scariest thing I've seen.

However, I still see parallels between that Crisis and the current situation with Iran. Beyond the emotion of fear, there are some situational similarities, but it's almost in complete reverse...

Here we are on Iran's doorstep (like the Soviet Union was on ours). And the U.S. has come out and said it is considering Nukes as an option (like Cuba had nukes). Two different reporters have disclosed the fear of Pentagon officials. Bush and McLellan and dancing around the questions. And Sec. of State Rice has come out and said it's "time for action." The only differences is basically that Iran can not retalliate like the U.S. could during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

[Taxloss]

1. Even with nukes, Iran couldn't hit America.

It doesn't have any way to deliver the nuke. Unless it smuggled one in, but why? That's not a retaliatory move, it's a purely terroristic one that would be plain stupid and certainly wouldn't garner any benefits for the Iranian regime. This talk of nuking Iran is just bluster, pure and simple. It will not happen.

[berni_mccoy]

2. It doesn't need to smuggle a nuke in... simply ship it to NY

A small 25Kt nuke could be as much as a 1/2 mile off-coast and still do MASSIVE damage and cause a tremendous loss-of-life.

[Taxloss]

4. But why would they?

Sure, Ahmadinejad is a bit of a nutcase but he's not where the real power lies, with the Mullahs. And the Mullahs might be fanatics, but they're wily ones who know realpolitik. The nuclear threat to Israel is real, but they have their deterrent and also their deterrent by proxy, the USA. Another factor in the equation is Russia, which is at the moment the only world poer with any real leverage over Iran, and it is pushing it in a peaceful direction.

Also, the thing to remember about the Cuban Missile Crisis is that it was resolved peacefully.

[berni_mccoy]

6. They would do it IF we attacked, which our government seems to be saying

it will do.

And Kennedy was the President during the Cuban Missle Crisis... Bush is president now.... Kennedy resolved that crisis peacefully, do you really think Bush can solve ANYTHING peacefully?

[Taxloss]

13. Well, they don't have nukes yet.

That'll take two years if they proceed unimpeded. And to be honest an attack would work in their diplomatic favour, shoring up the regime no end and providing an ideal cover for no end of fun in Iraq, where they can do the USA and the rest of the West untold harm without straying too far from home or horrifying the world.

[coalition_unwilling]

11. Exactly! Iran wants nuclear weapons as a deterrent to U.S.

imperialist aggression. Chomsky has written that one of the rules of U.S. military\foreign policy post-Korea is to attack only those nations that cannot defend themselves. That's one explanation for why we pussy-foot around North Korea, while invading Iraq. Surely North Korea represents a more serious national security threat (even if you accept the war mongers' premises and terms) than Iraq. So why wouldn't we attack North Korea? Because they could fight back. We were deterred.

To think the Iranian regime hasn't figured out that possessing nuclear weapons equals deterring imperialist aggression is to seriously underestimate their intelligence. Of course, the intelligence of the Iraqi resistance was similarly underestimated and there are now 2364 (or 66, depending on how you count 'em) U.S. KIA and 18,000+ WIA who have paid the price for that underestimation

[Tesha]

5. Nonsense. Even smuggled-in, if theirs go off after ours go off...

> Even with nukes, Iran couldn't hit America.
> It doesn't have any way to deliver the nuke.
> Unless it smuggled one in, but why? That's
> not a retaliatory move, it's a purely
> terroristic one...

Nonsense. Even smuggled-in, if theirs go off after ours go off,
it's retaliation, not terrorism. It really doesn't matter how
they deliver the retaliatory strike, whether by ICBM, airplane,
rowboat, or Fed-Ex, its still a retaliatory strike.

Tesha

[Taxloss]

14. They don't have nukes yet. That would take at least two years.

They certainly haven't smuggled any in, unless they bought them, in which case why bother with a domestic programme?

The USA is threatening massive force now because, in terms of brinkmanship, it is the only time it can do it - and it isn't even working now.

[gordianot]

3. No comparison.

We had duck and cover drills the day after Kennedy announced missiles in Cuba. When we start that in schools again I will have more to say.

I do know Bush is capable of precipitating a nuclear conflict with someone. No matter how close we were to Nuclear War during the cold war Bush could bungle this at any time.

[Tesha]

8. You could make the comparison, but the CMC didn't have nuts on both sides

You could make the comparison, but the Cuban Missile Crisis
didn't have religiously-insane wackos on both sides of the
balance of terror; the current crisis does.

I could see the wackos on either side of the standoff taking
us ever closer and closer to the brink, just because they
both think dog is on their side. And our clowns are just
spoiling to bring on Armageddon.

Tesha

[gordianot]

18. When it came down to it Kennedy and Kruschev displayed diplomacy.

The current clowns do not have it in their repertoire.

[tjwash]

7. Not even close.

The Soviets actually DID have nukes. They were REALLY 45 minutes away from delivering them via missiles and hitting the U.S. with them.

Of course, if you are in Iran, or you have any relatives in Iran, it's far worse then it was for us during the CMC because this administration is batshit crazy, and wants that oil. They have already proved that they just don't care what they have to do, and who has to die to get to it as well.

From a U.S.A. perspective though, there is no comparison.

[Tesha]

10. Can you be absolutely sure that if we launched, the (e.g.) Chinese...

Can you be absolutely sure that if we launched, the (e.g.) Chinese
or (more likely) the Pakistanis wouldn't slip Iran a few nukes
just as:

1. A nice, boiling-the pot gesture (China), or

2. A helping hand to co-religionists?

I wouldn't want to stake my life on that bet.

Tesha

[tjwash]

16. Why would the Chinese want to launch on us?

They would just be destroying the property that they own out here. The US has been selling off pieces of our national parks just to keep our heads above water. Better for them to just let us get a few trillion more into debt by fighting two un-winnable multi front wars, keep on buying up that debt like they are doing at present, and then call in the money that we owe them.

Game-set-match. We are then the lackeys that get the low wage jobs shipped out to here.

Yep, let's all just keep talking all of that "illegal immigration" stuff. We are fixing to get an extremely fresh perspective on WHY people are coming over here at the present.

That's unfortunate too. We had our chance for greatness, and decided to waste it by sitting on our lazy butts, and getting fat, cocky, and complacent while watching "Survivor" and "American Idol."

[Tesha]

17. The Chinese wouldn't "launch at us".

The Chinese wouldn't "launch at us". They'd just ensure that
the right folks have the right devices to deliver to us.

Personally, I've always figured that the delivery system
of choice would be something like the trunk of a Hyundai.
It would be easy to suborne a few employees to put a little
something extra into one car, and I'll bet commonly-imported
everyday stuff like cars are even less-screened than those
nasty "containers" (which we know are hardly screened).

One day, the ports of Long Beach and/or Newark just
disappear in a blinding flash.

Or if they believe they couldn't get it ashore, then it
would be detonated in the harbor while still on the ship.

Dedicated people, epsecially people who aren't afraid of
themselves dying in the process, can accomplish a lot.

Tesha

[tjwash]

20. Again,the Chinese would not want to do that.

It just wouldn't be in their best interests to. Better to just watch us implode economically like the old Soviet Union did, and then turn us into their slave country.

[libnnc]

9. I'm not worried about Iran

I'm more worried about the US striking first. That's what scares the crap out of me. I'd say President Chucklenuts is more looney than Iran's president.

[berni_mccoy]

12. That's the point of my post: the situation is reversed

And to make matters worse, you've got nut-jobs on both sides this time.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. The biggest difference--

We trusted Kennedy and his calm, cool, collected, non-theocratic management team.

---I was in college then -- back in the era of "compulsory ROTC" (at least the first two years) - and it scared me out of signing up for the last two years -- and the obligated active duty that went with the scholarship.

[H2O Man]

19. One huge difference

is that the Cuban Missile Crisis did not involve thinking errors associated with religiosity.