Cold War against China?

nimic said:
Ah, Krauss. I have his something from nothing book. He's a good writer and physicist, though he's been a bit sketchy on a personal level.
Click to expand...

I posted about that a long time ago. He's an extremely militant atheist who would go out of his way to aggressively disparage people of faith, which is a humongous red flag for a woman or man purporting to be 'of science'. Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question.

Extreme behavior like that is unfortunately a strong indicator of narcissisim.
 
hungrywing said:
I posted about that a long time ago. He's an extremely militant atheist who would go out of his way to aggressively disparage people of faith, which is a humongous red flag for a woman or man purporting to be 'of science'. Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question.

Extreme behavior like that is unfortunately a strong indicator of narcissisim.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any contradiction between being a scientist and an atheist. In fact atheism is much more common among scientists than the population in general.

He's definitely a narcissist, though, and has (I believe) among other things defended colleagues that have been MeToo'd.
 
Red_toad said:
I'm amazed at how many of them have no idea or deny the Tiananmen Square massacre actually happened.
Click to expand...

I am more amazed that you believe this nonsense. The actual incident didn't take place in Tianamen Square at all.
All what happened occured before and not in Tianamen Square. All credible journalists agree that there was no massacre in the square. It was before that the fighting took place and it was a fight where soldiers and civilians were killed. It's obvious that soldiers would eventually win as they had arms.
 
Foxbatt said:
I am more amazed that you believe this nonsense. The actual incident didn't take place in Tianamen Square at all.
All what happened occured before and not in Tianamen Square. All credible journalists agree that there was no massacre in the square. It was before that the fighting took place and it was a fight where soldiers and civilians were killed. It's obvious that soldiers would eventually win as they had arms.
Click to expand...

So what would you like me to call it? That’s what it’s referred to as. I didn’t state it happened in the square itself. I’m amazed you believe you read that anywhere. If I’d stated World War One would you feel the need point out the entire world didn’t take part in it?
 
Red_toad said:
So what would you like me to call it? That’s what it’s referred to as. I didn’t state it happened in the square itself. I’m amazed you believe you read that anywhere. If I’d stated World War One would you feel the need point out the entire world didn’t take part in it?
Click to expand...

No need to believe what anyone tell me. Just go and find out for yourself by asking people who were there.
 
Foxbatt said:
No need to believe what anyone tell me. Just go and find out for yourself by asking people who were there.
Click to expand...

? Eh I didn’t tell you anything. I made a post stating the incident is severely censored in China and many Chinese don’t know it happened. It’s a fact.
Then you got all uppity as somewhere along the road you read I’d stated the incident happened in Tiananmen Square, which I did not state. It is referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre, so that what I posted.
 
So China vow to take over Taiwian, Taiwain vow to defend themselves, have the West vowed to come to the defence of Taiwain?

Sounds like a problem
 
hungrywing said:
I posted about that a long time ago. He's an extremely militant atheist who would go out of his way to aggressively disparage people of faith, which is a humongous red flag for a woman or man purporting to be 'of science'. Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question.
Click to expand...
Dunno man, seems not to have harmed Dawkins, or Hawking or Penrose's (to choose 3 are random well known athiests) scientific reputations
 
How the feck they're maintaining and escalating confrontations on multiple fronts, I'll never know. What they need is economic sanctions.
 
GDaly95 said:
So China vow to take over Taiwian, Taiwain vow to defend themselves, have the West vowed to come to the defence of Taiwain?

Sounds like a problem
Click to expand...

Obviously as Taiwan also claims all of mainland China. Mainland China has been willing to maintain the status quo of Taiwan having being run by a rebellious party. The same way Taiwan says mainland China is run by a rebellious party. It's the current ruling party in Taiwan who is creating the problems. The original party who lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan, KMT opposes independence and also unification with mainland China. They want to maintain the current status. Currently they are the opposition party.
The West won't fight but would impose heavy sanctions but end of the day Chinese economy is too big and there won't be any UN sanctions anyway so lots of countries would simply ignore it and if the US tried to impose sanctions on countries doing trade with China, the dollar would crash.
 
Foxbatt said:
The West won't fight but would impose heavy sanctions but end of the day Chinese economy is too big and there won't be any UN sanctions anyway so lots of countries would simply ignore it and if the US tried to impose sanctions on countries doing trade with China, the dollar would crash.
Click to expand...

Could anyone be sure?
Would the West ever try to arm Taiwan with nuclear missiles? If the Aussies have nuclear subs, why not the Taiwanese? Obviously a 'doomsday scenario' for Taiwan, but these preemptive moves on their own, could set off a shooting war!

In 1962 Nikita Khrushchev tried to get Nuclear missiles into Cuba under the guise of the Cubans defending themselves against the US and he threatened to run Kennedy's blockade of the Island. For just over a month the world held its breath. I was sixteen years old and suddenly I became interested in Politics; hope to goodness current teenagers don't have to go through the same experience to take an interest in whats going on around them!
 
Maticmaker said:
In 1962 Nikita Khrushchev tried to get Nuclear missiles into Cuba under the guise of the Cubans defending themselves against the US and he threatened to run Kennedy's blockade of the Island. For just over a month the world held its breath. I was sixteen years old and suddenly I became interested in Politics; hope to goodness current teenagers don't have to go through the same experience to take an interest in whats going on around them!
Click to expand...

The Cuban missile crisis got a lot of us in the west alerted to the nuclear threat. But your analysis as to why it happened is slightly off I think, and it's relevant. The Cubans, Raoul more than Fidel had asked a few times but the deciding factor was the presence of US missiles in Italy and Japan and the huge ICBM gap between the Soviets and the US. I just say this because in your analysis the USSR was the aggressor, but the reality is that it was a defensive move in a wider context. Rarely are the US missiles flanking the Soviets brought into the discussion of Cuba in 62.

You ask why not put missiles in Taiwan. Maybe you could answer your own question (you already did in fairness) if it was the the Chinese putting missiles in Mexico?
 
moses said:
The Cuban missile crisis got a lot of us in the west alerted to the nuclear threat. But your analysis as to why it happened is slightly off I think, and it's relevant. The Cubans, Raoul more than Fidel had asked a few times but the deciding factor was the presence of US missiles in Italy and Japan and the huge ICBM gap between the Soviets and the US. I just say this because in your analysis the USSR was the aggressor, but the reality is that it was a defensive move in a wider context. Rarely are the US missiles flanking the Soviets brought into the discussion of Cuba in 62.

You ask why not put missiles in Taiwan. Maybe you could answer your own question (you already did in fairness) if it was the the Chinese putting missiles in Mexico?
Click to expand...

and a year after the US invaded Cuba!
 
nimic said:
I don't think there's any contradiction between being a scientist and an atheist. In fact atheism is much more common among scientists than the population in general.

He's definitely a narcissist, though, and has (I believe) among other things defended colleagues that have been MeToo'd.
Click to expand...

You're right on that of course; there's none at all. 'Extremely militant' was the active term there. Again, THAT is the marker. Not atheism.

This is tough to explain, but In general, the smarter one is, the less one acts in that manner. So, for example, someone thinking themselves as 'smarter' than other people and going into, say, a video game thread and insulting videogame designers and acting like they know better would actually be a strong sign of them being on the lower rungs of 'higher intelligence'.

I'll try to find a case of a 'reputable' scientist trying to elucidate this phenomenon. (I know there was one semi-recently - within the last year - on Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast. Sorry, I can't remember who it was.) The usual analogy is that of one's intelligence/brain being like a hemisphere or bowl turned upside down: the 'bigger' one's bowl, the more surface area of what one is aware that one doesn't know, which has a humbling effect. AKA ironically it's the ones with the 'smaller' bowls who tend to be more arrogant/dismissive and outspoken, which unfortunately often leads to them gaining more of a following, but who don't/physically can't realize they're on the lower end of 'higher intelligence'.

nickm said:
Dunno man, seems not to have harmed Dawkins, or Hawking or Penrose's (to choose 3 are random well known athiests) scientific reputations
Click to expand...

In the bolded one's case, among people smarter than him, it did/does. Third one (Penrose) has never been the "militant aggressive kind", although I'm sure you would have found that out with some more research or perhaps listening to him speak.

EDIT: Also, one of them guys is not like the others.
 
Last edited:
Foxbatt said:
Obviously as Taiwan also claims all of mainland China. Mainland China has been willing to maintain the status quo of Taiwan having being run by a rebellious party. The same way Taiwan says mainland China is run by a rebellious party. It's the current ruling party in Taiwan who is creating the problems. The original party who lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan, KMT opposes independence and also unification with mainland China. They want to maintain the current status. Currently they are the opposition party.
The West won't fight but would impose heavy sanctions but end of the day Chinese economy is too big and there won't be any UN sanctions anyway so lots of countries would simply ignore it and if the US tried to impose sanctions on countries doing trade with China, the dollar would crash.
Click to expand...
A little more background information would help. The original party (KMT) was winning the civil war by a large margin, until both parties agreed to cease fire due to the invasion of Japan. It turned out KMT was the only party who fought Japan, while the Communists bought time to dodge, recover and eventually win the civil war. They basically stole China.

KMT still wants to unify with mainland China, only that this is not what Taiwan people want and hence they vote for the Democratic Progressive Party (the rebellious party you refer to). The DPP never claims all of mainland China and never admits the "1992 Understanding". This is how democracy works, which you clearly don't understand.

Together with your Tiananmen Square massacre bollox, it's obvious you have an agenda here.
 
Maticmaker said:
Could anyone be sure?
Would the West ever try to arm Taiwan with nuclear missiles? If the Aussies have nuclear subs, why not the Taiwanese? Obviously a 'doomsday scenario' for Taiwan, but these preemptive moves on their own, could set off a shooting war!
Click to expand...
The Aussie deal is for nuclear powered attack subs, they aren't able to carry ballistic missiles (although they could probably carry tactical nukes if needed but those aren't in the deal). Just means they can stay submerged for months and are hard to track, they are designed to be a threat to Chinese ships. Australia isn't becoming a nuclear state because of this.
 
hungrywing said:
You're right on that of course; there's none at all. 'Extremely militant' was the active term there. Again, THAT is the marker. Not atheism.

This is tough to explain, but In general, the smarter one is, the less one acts in that manner. So, for example, someone thinking themselves as 'smarter' than other people and going into, say, a video game thread and insulting videogame designers and acting like they know better would actually be a strong sign of them being on the lower rungs of 'higher intelligence'.

I'll try to find a case of a 'reputable' scientist trying to elucidate this phenomenon. (I know there was one semi-recently - within the last year - on Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast. Sorry, I can't remember who it was.) The usual analogy is that of one's intelligence/brain being like a hemisphere or bowl turned upside down: the 'bigger' one's bowl, the more surface area of what one is aware that one doesn't know, which has a humbling effect. AKA ironically it's the ones with the 'smaller' bowls who tend to be more arrogant/dismissive and outspoken, which unfortunately often leads to them gaining more of a following, but who don't/physically can't realize they're on the lower end of 'higher intelligence'.



In the bolded one's case, among people smarter than him, it did/does. Third one (Penrose) has never been the "militant aggressive kind", although I'm sure you would have found that out with some more research or perhaps listening to him speak.

EDIT: Also, one of them guys is not like the others.
Click to expand...

All the research I needed to do, is of your original post where you included the phrase, "Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question", since both Penrose and Hawking have/had world class acumen and aren't benignly agnostic but publicly atheist. So maybe you are talking bollocks?
 
moses said:
But your analysis as to why it happened is slightly off I think,
Click to expand...

Not really, it was the move itself, not the wider context, that produced the world wide anxiety i.e. putting your tanks on my lawn ..so to speak, that I was referring to; also it allowed the US more (if they needed it) latitude to become aggressive towards Cuba, which they did not long after. The 'political' aggression continued for many years.

nickm said:
The Aussie deal is for nuclear powered attack subs, they aren't able to carry ballistic missiles (although they could probably carry tactical nukes if needed but those aren't in the deal). Just means they can stay submerged for months and are hard to track, they are designed to be a threat to Chinese ships. Australia isn't becoming a nuclear state because of this.
Click to expand...

Not sure the Chinese, in the longer term, would view it that way? The pact between Aus/UK/USA, could possibly be tantamount to putting your tanks on my lawn (as described above) as viewed by the Chinese?

Hope I am wrong, but for someone of my age the political outpourings and the perceived 'goings on' in the South China Sea, 'feels' very similar to the run up to the 1962 Missile crisis.

Wonder what others in my age group (mid 70's) think?
 
Maticmaker said:
Not really, it was the move itself, not the wider context, that produced the world wide anxiety i.e. putting your tanks on my lawn ..so to speak, that I was referring to; also it allowed the US more (if they needed it) latitude to become aggressive towards Cuba, which they did not long after. The 'political' aggression continued for many years.
Click to expand...

Again, the US missiles in Italy and Japan, the tanks on the Soviets' lawn, caused huge anxiety, just not to us. What Kruschev's move did was cause anxiety in the English speaking world. Also this gamble on the Soviets' part was in no uncertain terms defence; albeit a very aggressive one (unless you decide there is no wider context). People on both sides of the Iron Curtain were already pretty anxious about the missiles in situ on US military outposts, and the overwhelming missile superiority in favour of the US. In this context of vastly inferior firepower, if the Soviets were are aggressive as you suggest it would have been borderline suicidal. Also I disagree with your assertion that the US became more aggressive towards Cuba, as they had invaded the previous year in the famous Bay Of Pigs debacle. The US consistently overstated Soviet power so they could assemble their own military and global presence.
 
moses said:
Again, the US missiles in Italy and Japan, the tanks on the Soviets' lawn, caused huge anxiety, just not to us. What Kruschev's move did was cause anxiety in the English speaking world. Also this gamble on the Soviets' part was in no uncertain terms defence; albeit a very aggressive one (unless you decide there is no wider context). People on both sides of the Iron Curtain were already pretty anxious about the missiles in situ on US military outposts, and the overwhelming missile superiority in favour of the US. In this context of vastly inferior firepower, if the Soviets were are aggressive as you suggest it would have been borderline suicidal. Also I disagree with your assertion that the US became more aggressive towards Cuba, as they had invaded the previous year in the famous Bay Of Pigs debacle. The US consistently overstated Soviet power so they could assemble their own military and global presence.
Click to expand...
Agree with most of what you posit here, but the world population was not certain there was an overwhelming missile superiority for the US in the first part of the 1960s. It was in the early 60s when the false narratives of a Soviet missile gap were broadcast through media institutions & the Red Scare was at one of its peaks. But you are spot on about the drumbeat of both constructed Soviet missiles & their anticipated build up being used to augment the US military presence around the world.

Pretty good wiki on the missile gap / perceived missile gap...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missi...e future capabilities,notion of a missile gap.
 
moses said:
Again, the US missiles in Italy and Japan, the tanks on the Soviets' lawn, caused huge anxiety, just not to us. What Kruschev's move did was cause anxiety in the English speaking world. Also this gamble on the Soviets' part was in no uncertain terms defence; albeit a very aggressive one (unless you decide there is no wider context). People on both sides of the Iron Curtain were already pretty anxious about the missiles in situ on US military outposts, and the overwhelming missile superiority in favour of the US. In this context of vastly inferior firepower, if the Soviets were are aggressive as you suggest it would have been borderline suicidal. Also I disagree with your assertion that the US became more aggressive towards Cuba, as they had invaded the previous year in the famous Bay Of Pigs debacle. The US consistently overstated Soviet power so they could assemble their own military and global presence.
Click to expand...

I think we are at cross purposes here, I was using the 1962 Russian Missile saga as an example of tanks on lawns, not the rights and wrongs of it, clearly the Russians had issues about being threatened themselves. My whole point is that escalation was imminent and it caused world wide anxiety, (not just in the English speaking world) much the same as if the US were to put tactical nuclear missiles into Taiwan these days, it wouldn't just be in Chinese speaking areas where anxiety would be felt, the whole area in and around the South China Sea would be anxious.

In the 1960's it was the world holding its breath because a hitherto 'cold war' was likely to erupt into a 'hot war' if any misjudgments were made on either side. In today's scenario the danger would be that a Trade War erupted into a 'shooting war'.
 
Maticmaker said:
I think we are at cross purposes here, I was using the 1962 Russian Missile saga as an example of tanks on lawns, not the rights and wrongs of it, clearly the Russians had issues about being threatened themselves. My whole point is that escalation was imminent and it caused world wide anxiety, (not just in the English speaking world) much the same as if the US were to put tactical nuclear missiles into Taiwan these days, it wouldn't just be in Chinese speaking areas where anxiety would be felt, the whole area in and around the South China Sea would be anxious.

In the 1960's it was the world holding its breath because a hitherto 'cold war' was likely to erupt into a 'hot war' if any misjudgments were made on either side. In today's scenario the danger would be that a Trade War erupted into a 'shooting war'.
Click to expand...

My point was the english speaking world suddenly engaged their level of engagement, like I say, a lot of the world, was already quiet freaked out by nuclear outposts. Just as alarmed as we were by Russian nuclear outposts in Cuba. I just disagree with analogy as the context is entirely different. I will apologise, I'm a devil for conext :)

And yes, the missile crisis did definitely escalate things. That's clear.
 
calodo2003 said:
Agree with most of what you posit here, but the world population was not certain there was an overwhelming missile superiority for the US in the first part of the 1960s. It was in the early 60s when the false narratives of a Soviet missile gap were broadcast through media institutions & the Red Scare was at one of its peaks. But you are spot on about the drumbeat of both constructed Soviet missiles & their anticipated build up being used to augment the US military presence around the world.

Pretty good wiki on the missile gap / perceived missile gap...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#:~:text=The false claims behind a,after CIA Director Allen W.&text=Disagreements between the future capabilities,notion of a missile gap.
Click to expand...

Yes, 100%. I didn't mean that in context of the world opinion, just in context of the Russian motives being clearly defensive dude mainly to their lack of ICBM capability.
 
moses said:
The Cuban missile crisis got a lot of us in the west alerted to the nuclear threat. But your analysis as to why it happened is slightly off I think, and it's relevant. The Cubans, Raoul more than Fidel had asked a few times but the deciding factor was the presence of US missiles in Italy and Japan and the huge ICBM gap between the Soviets and the US. I just say this because in your analysis the USSR was the aggressor, but the reality is that it was a defensive move in a wider context. Rarely are the US missiles flanking the Soviets brought into the discussion of Cuba in 62.

You ask why not put missiles in Taiwan. Maybe you could answer your own question (you already did in fairness) if it was the the Chinese putting missiles in Mexico?
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, and I sometimes don't, the problem the Russians had was that the US put intermediate-range missiles in Turkey which were close enough for a first strike, that is to hit Russia before they had time to arm and launch their own weapons. Previously ICBMs or aircraft could be detected in time, the new ones couldn't be. Russia's intention was to duplicate that in Cuba, and when challenged said they would not if the US removed it's missiles from Turkey. Eventually, and totally contrary to US propaganda, the US agreed to remove it's missiles if the Russia turned back it's deliveries. That agreement held, and in a sense Russia won their objective, the US did withdraw their intermediate-range missiles.
 
moses said:
My point was the english speaking world suddenly engaged their level of engagement, like I say, a lot of the world, was already quiet freaked out by nuclear outposts. Just as alarmed as we were by Russian nuclear outposts in Cuba. I just disagree with analogy as the context is entirely different. I will apologise, I'm a devil for conext :)

And yes, the missile crisis did definitely escalate things. That's clear.
Click to expand...

OK we are clear now. :)

In another 'context', how often did the British send gunboats into ports and/or up various rivers around the world to intimidate or to quell possible rebellion in far flung parts of the Empire... further examples of 'tanks on lawns' or as it also become known as 'Gun boat diplomacy'.

I would argue either way, whether responding to perceived threats or trying to enforce your will, such actions always inflame a situation because the action cannot be misconstrued and anyone in close proximity is entitled to be anxious.

Obviously the 'nuclear aspect' ratchets things up even more.
 
711 said:
If I remember correctly, and I sometimes don't, the problem the Russians had was that the US put intermediate-range missiles in Turkey which were close enough for a first strike, that is to hit Russia before they had time to arm and launch their own weapons. Previously ICBMs or aircraft could be detected in time, the new ones couldn't be. Russia's intention was to duplicate that in Cuba, and when challenged said they would not if the US removed it's missiles from Turkey. Eventually, and totally contrary to US propaganda, the US agreed to remove it's missiles if the Russia turned back it's deliveries. That agreement held, and in a sense Russia won their objective, the US did withdraw their intermediate-range missiles.
Click to expand...

Just to be a pedant, those missiles in Turkey were MRBMs, not ICBMs. But to your point, Turkey was basically in Moscow's backyard, and even medium range missiles were enough to threaten European Russia.

Edit: I see you do call them intermediate-range missiles at the end. I am struggling to find a definitive answer if the Jupiter missiles were intermediate or medium range.
 
711 said:
If I remember correctly, and I sometimes don't, the problem the Russians had was that the US put intermediate-range missiles in Turkey which were close enough for a first strike, that is to hit Russia before they had time to arm and launch their own weapons. Previously ICBMs or aircraft could be detected in time, the new ones couldn't be. Russia's intention was to duplicate that in Cuba, and when challenged said they would not if the US removed it's missiles from Turkey. Eventually, and totally contrary to US propaganda, the US agreed to remove it's missiles if the Russia turned back it's deliveries. That agreement held, and in a sense Russia won their objective, the US did withdraw their intermediate-range missiles.
Click to expand...
The Jupiter (& Nike?) missiles in Turkey were functionally obsolete by 1962, so the Soviet win wasn't that substantive, save for propaganda purposes. What's scary was how many tactical nukes were already on Cuban soil about which we knew nothing, weapons Castro would have used if we invaded the island even though he knew the consequences for the Cuban populace.
 
nimic said:
Just to be a pedant, those missiles in Turkey were MRBMs, not ICBMs. But to your point, Turkey was basically in Moscow's backyard, and even medium range missiles were enough to threaten European Russia.

Edit: I see you do call them intermediate-range missiles at the end. I am struggling to find a definitive answer if the Jupiter missiles were intermediate or medium range.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, it was parallel to the huge ICBM gap.
 
Maticmaker said:
OK we are clear now. :)

In another 'context', how often did the British send gunboats into ports and/or up various rivers around the world to intimidate or to quell possible rebellion in far flung parts of the Empire... further examples of 'tanks on lawns' or as it also become known as 'Gun boat diplomacy'.

I would argue either way, whether responding to perceived threats or trying to enforce your will, such actions always inflame a situation because the action cannot be misconstrued and anyone in close proximity is entitled to be anxious.

Obviously the 'nuclear aspect' ratchets things up even more.
Click to expand...

:lol: Don't get me started. That was often borderline genocide. I'm out.
 
calodo2003 said:
The Jupiter (& Nike?) missiles in Turkey were functionally obsolete by 1962, so the Soviet win wasn't that substantive, save for propaganda purposes. What's scary was how many tactical nukes were already on Cuban soil about which we knew nothing, weapons Castro would have used if we invaded the island even though he knew the consequences for the Cuban populace.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in reading up on that if you point me in the right direction.
 
moses said:
I'd be interested in reading up on that if you point me in the right direction.
Click to expand...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/jfk-attack/

Dear Comrade Khrushchev:


Given the analysis of the situation and the reports which have reached us, consider an attack to be almost imminent -- within the next 24 to 72 hours. There are two possible variants: the first and most probable one is an air attack against certain objectives with the limited aim of destroying them; the second, and though less probable, still possible, is a full invasion. This would require a large force and is the most repugnant form of aggression, which might restrain them.


You can be sure that we will resist with determination, whatever the case. The Cuban people's morale is extremely high and the people will confront aggression heroically.


I would like to briefly express my own personal opinion.


If the second variant takes place and the imperialists invade Cuba with the aim of occupying it, the dangers of their aggressive policy are so great that after such an invasion the Soviet Union must never allow circumstances in which the imperialists could carry out a nuclear first strike against it.


I tell you this because I believe that the imperialists' aggressiveness makes them extremely dangerous, and that if they manage to carry out an invasion of Cuba -- a brutal act in violation of universal and moral law -- then that would be the moment to eliminate this danger forever, in an act of the most legitimate self-defense. However harsh and terrible the solution, there would be no other.


This opinion is shaped by observing the development of their aggressive policy. The imperialists, without regard for world opinion and against laws and principles, have blockaded the seas, violated our air-space, and are preparing to invade, while at the same time blocking any possibility of negotiation, even though they understand the gravity of the problem.


You have been, and are, a tireless defender of peace, and I understand that these moments, when the results of your superhuman efforts are so seriously threatened, must be bitter for you. We will maintain our hopes for saving the peace until the last moment, and we are ready to contribute to this in any way we can. But, at the same time, we are serene and ready to confront a situation which we see as very real and imminent.


I convey to you the infinite gratitude and recognition of the Cuban people to the Soviet people, who have been so generous and fraternal, along with our profound gratitude and admiration to you personally. We wish you success with the enormous task and great responsibilities which are in your hands.


Fraternally,


Fidel Castro
Click to expand...
 
moses said:
I'd be interested in reading up on that if you point me in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Little blurb here...

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB449/

Longer article touching on the 1992 Havana Conference where gems like this were discussed - McNamara was asking the questions:

At the January 1992 Havana conference, we on the U.S. Side were shocked by this information. And so during that conference, I asked President Castro three questions:

1. Were you aware the nuclear war- heads were in Cuba?

2. If so, would you have recommended their use?

3. If the nuclear weapons had been used, what would have been the outcome for Cuba?

President Castro’s answer sent a chill down my spine. He replied:

Now, we started from the assumption that if there was an invasion of Cuba, nuclear war would erupt. We were certain of that ... we would be forced to pay the price, that we would disappear.... Would I have been ready to use nuclear weapons? Yes, I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons.…
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
/QUOTE]

https://web.archive.org/web/20040218031020/http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_11/cubanmissile.asp
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
calodo2003 said:
The Jupiter (& Nike?) missiles in Turkey were functionally obsolete by 1962, so the Soviet win wasn't that substantive, save for propaganda purposes. What's scary was how many tactical nukes were already on Cuban soil about which we knew nothing, weapons Castro would have used if we invaded the island even though he knew the consequences for the Cuban populace.
Click to expand...
I think the propaganda came more from the US, with JFK 'saving the free world', and even today most people in the US go along with that. And coming the 'they were obsolete so we didn't really back down' seems part of that propaganda to me. The missiles were only put into Turkey in 1960/61, why put them in if they were obsolete?

As for Castro saying he was prepared to use his tactical nuclear weapons if invaded, isn't that what all leaders of countries with nuclear weapons would say? I get he had kept them secret up to that point, but keeping your best weapons secret is hardly unusual either..

Fortunately sense prevailed, the US backed down and agreed to remove their missiles from Turkey.
 
nickm said:
All the research I needed to do, is of your original post where you included the phrase, "Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question", since both Penrose and Hawking have/had world class acumen and aren't benignly agnostic but publicly atheist. So maybe you are talking bollocks?
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed certain nuances in the post that you tangentially replied to.

Also , you seem to be belatedly backtracking from including Dawkins in your 'supporting arguments'.

Also, unlike @nimic, who at the very least has a very, very long track record of trying to be rational and intellectually honest, you just fabricated a quote there. Don't exactly speak too highly of you, kemosabe.

Generously giving you a chance you amend and backtrack here. Your original reply put you extremely heavily in the "not worth replying to" category, by the way.

EDIT: Are there any Chinese posters here who'd be able to comment on this?
 
Last edited:
hungrywing said:
Also, unlike @nimic, who at the very least has a very, very long track record of trying to be rational and intellectually honest
Click to expand...

2XSjKYY.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.