Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

12

rockrnger t1_jd5mfqy wrote

The russians had 5 icbms at that point.

Europe would have got invaded or at least berlin.

−14

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.

10

rockrnger t1_jd8nj8j wrote

5 of the MRBMs in cuba were operational and the soviets didn’t have any operational slmbs.

−1

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.

1

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?

0