And arguably the missiles in Turkey (combined with the Bay of Pigs) were what pushed Khrushchev to put the missiles in Cuba. Like you said, full circle.

Khrushchev thought Kennedy was crazy and would actually start a war over all of this, removing the missiles was part of it. Khrushchev blinked first. But that dip-stick castro almost started WW3 on his own, as he was tired of being a pawn in the middle.

Not just "arguably". Extremely arguable, and not incredibly substantive.

Castro and the USSR would likely have had attempted to place missiles in Cuba regardless of our missiles in Turkey as the USSR didn't have any reliable long range missiles at the time.

Operation Mongoose also have an influence.

Nobody really knows Khrushchev's true intentions, and unfortunately he's not alive to answer our questions today.

But we do know that he knew about the missiles in Turkey and was VERY concerned about them, for the same reasons we were concerned about the missiles in Cuba.

Strategically the Crisis was actually a victory for the Soviet Union. If you look at the strategic balance before they put the missiles in Cuba and compare it to after the Crisis, there was a clear swing in the Soviet favor. They got the American missiles out of Turkey and an American no-invasion pledge on Cuba, and they didn't have to give up anything.

Unfortunately for Khrushchev, Kennedy was PR genius. The provision that the missile withdrawal from Turkey be kept a secret was a master stroke, and ensured a US victory in the court of public opinion. That blunder by Khrushchev was one of the things that cost him his job.

In my readings on this issue, I have not been able to find any credible source that discusses why Khrushchev would agree to such a demand.

It is not like Kennedy would have told Khrushchev "keep this quiet or we will nuke you."


Was this simply a blunder by Khrushchev; an oversight; or was there some deeper deal that is still classified (possible)?

There had to be a benefit to Khrushchev to keep the Jupiter move a secret.

But I agree with you, both sides were making out pretty well in different ways. But that agreement to not publicize the Jupiter move baffles me.

Khrushchev was not dumb, nor would he *accidently* agree to anything that would make him look bad and make JFK look good. Nikki had his boys just like JFK had boys advising him.

That leads me to wonder if there is "more to the story". If you read the declassified writings there is still a bunch of information that was redacted.

Things that make you go hmmmm :hmmm:

To argue that your nation should get to keep nuclear weapons when others don't IS a pretty clear statement of your wish to hegemony.

The arguments you've actually put onto the page here don't exactly demonstrate that kind of education, though it does show that kind of indoctrination.

Which is not to diss the school, but SOS's total length (if I'm not reading the webpage wrong, the length of the resident course is measured in weeks, which puts severe limits on what kind of "education" is possible regardless of the talent of the students or the density of the course) just isn't that long and it has a lot to cover.

What is the "horse's mouth" (singular) exactly when it comes to nuclear strategy anyway?

As I said, if you had a global, history-based perspective rather than one heavily centered on the US, you will realize that such a progression is inevitable, and that the US was lucky that it actually had some time out. I know it is very uncomfortable for a former (current?) US military officer to see the correlation of forces weakened in any way, but the rest of the world is more able to see that this is a natural flow.

If you had been schooled in say the Soviet Frunze Academy, you'll probably be telling me that the Soviets legitimately needed 20 divisions in East Germany.

What WERE the axioms (such as the level of destruction required for deterrent effect) that were used to deduce that "1000 warheads is not enough to deter major powers"?

Then, by this logic, wouldn't it have been the US' long-range strike capability that pushed things into this?

And what kind of professional military education and training have you received? You know, I didn't see a need to address anything else from you. But I will address your stupidity here. As you disrespectfully, and naively equate the education I and many other servicemen received as simple "indoctrination" of no actual analysis or thought being applied. You sir, know absolutely nothing about anything.

You are somebody I see as being nothing but jealous towards the USA. You are an envious person, as your posts do nothing but seek to discredit those who understand and have learned realities you never could. I'm 100% certain, based on your posts, and your reaction to others, you have no formal education on this topic at all which would allow any information of any relevance to give you the tools to form a real informed opinion on such matters as these. Your views and rantings prove that. As such, you're not a worthy opponent in such a debate. You're unwilling to learn. And yet, you have no actual experience, education, or training to provide anybody else with any insight on this topic other than misinformed opinion. In other words, debating/discussing it with you is a hopeless waste of time.

That's not a bet I would take; KSII strikes me as being pretty well-read, maybe master's level or above.

Going to the Maxwell AFB website to get minor details of SOS, as a basis to support your argument does not strike me as brilliance or being "well read" or informed. Since I'm certain the school wouldn't outlay the ever changing curriculum or actual equivalent units of degree of topics covered. To naively detail it as "indocrination" without actually understanding anything about it does not strike me as someone being well read or educated on matters. It's simply somebody who doesn't have anything else to grasp onto other than baseless and typical discrediting methods. And the individual's feverish pursuit of the futile, shows me that there are other issues (jealousy?) other than pursuit of truth or answers.

What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that much of Cold War history in heavily centered on the US. As such, realistic and reasonable perspectives of that time period in relation to the topic at hand would also be U.S.-centric.

Modern world culture seems to support this.