Norwegian27 t1_jd550pf wrote
My dad talked about his disillusionment during the Cuban missile crisis. I was in the planning stage I guess (born in 1963), and my dad wondered if bringing a child into the world was a good idea. Later when I was in college, during the Reagan years, I seriously didn’t think I necessarily had a future. Nuclear war seemed to loom. Think about it. On two occasions in history a lone Russian man has saved America.
Foreverbanevading t1_jd5lbu2 wrote
Saved America? He saved the world. The entire world. All of history and — at least for the moment — the future. A nuclear strike on the USA would have ended with 20,000 weapons traded from either side and would have pulled in the rest of the NPT family. It would have left us in at best a pre-Columbian level of technology. Sticks. Rocks. Grass. Farming. Nothing would have been left and we’d have likely had to reinvent knowledge itself due to the loss of ~95% of the world’s population.
rockrnger t1_jd5mfqy wrote
The russians had 5 icbms at that point.
Europe would have got invaded or at least berlin.
Foreverbanevading t1_jd6fqyi wrote
What? During the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Soviets had a dozen MRBMs in Cuba alone, and plenty of sub-launched ICBMs. On top of that, the National intelligence Estimate from June 1961 indicated 50-100 ICBMs on land based launchers, which could be launched within minutes. There were hundred more capable of being moved to launchers as well. You’re just flat out wrong.
rockrnger t1_jd8nj8j wrote
5 of the MRBMs in cuba were operational and the soviets didn’t have any operational slmbs.
Foreverbanevading t1_jd8w8ka wrote
Nonsense. The USSR had sub-launched ballistic missiles by 1950. They put 40 MRBMs in Cuba in 1962 in response to U.S. placement of Jupiter missiles in Turkey, all of them nuclear capable and many on mobile launchers. Stop this nonsense.
I’m starting to think this is disingenuous.
rockrnger t1_jd91u2w wrote
Yeah, they were installing 40 of them of which 5 were operational when they started removing them.
The soviets could build slbms but none of them were operational during crisis. I mean, which subs do you think were operating?
beburba t1_jd60c9i wrote
Forgive my ignorance, who’s the other Russian that saved America during the Reagan years? What are you referring to?
DeHavilland88 t1_jd6duzp wrote
They didn't say exclusively during that time period. Probably referring to Stanislav Petrov if I had to guess.
[deleted] t1_jd71w3a wrote
[removed]
born_on_mars_1957 t1_jd69cto wrote
That probably was Gorbachev… (“Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall”!). Ronald Reagan
[deleted] t1_jd60unu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jd7yd7w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jddxmu8 wrote
[removed]
Trimson-Grondag t1_jd5eofi wrote
Makes you wonder how long our luck will hold out.
sdnt_slave t1_jd7365r wrote
THIS is exactly why I don't believe there is a credible risk of Russia using a nuclear weapon. Even if its ordered there will be one person who refuses. History has shown that both times it could have happened it didn't.
Norwegian27 t1_jdb5rtl wrote
I wouldn’t go that far. Putin is leading Russia now, and he has already proven himself to be aggressive and brutal.
RackyRackerton t1_jd5oq7a wrote
Two Russian men “saved America” because they stopped other Russian men from launching a barrage of nukes at the US? Lmaoooo.
By that logic an American man saves every country in the world every day because we could be launching nukes all the time but choose not to.
newblevelz t1_jd5uwe8 wrote
Sadly because you chose to save yourself by continuing to breathe we had to read this dumbass post.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments