Is Reason from Unreasonable Still Reason?

[kenberg]

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

 

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.

 

 

b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

 

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

 

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.

 

 

I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

I happened to be in 6th grade during this event and have memories of how tense was Mr. Sullivan, our teacher. Even though our day-to-day existence was business as usual, you could tell this wasn't the everyday crisis but something much more worrisome.

 

Your point about the Cuban missile crises is a good one - did the U.S. have any right to stop this transfer of arms? What about now? What if Russia or China elected to sell Iran nuclear missiles - would Israel or the U.S. have the right, duty, or responsibility to halt that sale?

 

The best solution is for no one to play - to outlaw nuclear weapons from every country, including the U.S.

 

It's either that or wait for Gort and Klaatu to show up and stop all the world's electricity for an hour....

 

Bonus points: Translate: "Gort. Klaatu barada nikto."

Actually my intended point was more along the lines of: I seriously doubt that in all of the high level discussions in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was ever anyone who pushed for the view that we should accept the installation of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba as a matter of Cuban and Russian sovereign rights. There may have been many reservations about what we actually could do, but legalistic arguments about Cuba's right to point missiles at us if they chose to was, I am willing to bet, not on the table. The Russians/Cubans intended to do it if they could, we intended to stop them if we could, and pretty much that was that. I doubt that this way of doing business on substantive matters of national survival has changed.

 

As for your best solution, nukes going away, it would be great to get rid of nukes, AIDS, world hunger, and American Idol (my wife, an otherwise sane woman, actually watches this), but not likely.

[jtfanclub]

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

 

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.

 

 

b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

 

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

 

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.

 

 

I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

The funny part is, while that was certainly the news at the time, that's not actually what was happening, exactly.

 

What REALLY happened is that we started putting nukes in Turkey. Russia retailiated by preparing to put nukes in Cuba. The ship with nukes in it approached Cuba, and at the last moment, we agreed to pull our nukes out of Turkey. After which, of course, the ship with the nukes turned around.

 

So while the news made it sound like the Russians blinked, we actually did. But that was a secret for decades.

 

 

And this is what usually happens. Except for groups with nothing to lose, somebody blinks long before the nukes start going up. Which is why nukes in the hands of those with nothing to lose is so very dangerous.

[kenberg]

AS a thought experiment, and since I mentioned '62, try this: In 1962 the Soviets began installing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba.

 

a. Of course our only proof was through surveillance photos so we did not "really know". Although we did really know, and it was true.

 

 

b. Cuba is an independent country and if we just g by cold logic, it would seem that they have a right to let the Soviets place missiles in their country if they wish. What business is ot of ours?

 

c. Of course we acted. I well recall a Soviet ship heading towards Cuba and the American announcement that we would stop that ship and board it. One hell of a game of chicken but Kennedy, rightly or wrongly, saw it as worth taking us to the edge of nuclear war to prevent these missiles from being installed. I'm no expert on missile warfare but missiles 90 miles from the coast are presumably a bigger threat than missiles a few thousand miles from the coast.

 

Ir seems to me this is how things are done. We said "No way on hell are you putting those missiles in" and somehow we got through it. (We gave more than a little ground in return for the removal of the missiles I think.) It was not settled as a matter of fairness but rather of survival. Right or wrong, the result was no missiles in Cuba.

 

 

I am not so sure where this leads us, except to a way of looking at the world.

The funny part is, while that was certainly the news at the time, that's not actually what was happening, exactly.

 

What REALLY happened is that we started putting nukes in Turkey. Russia retailiated by preparing to put nukes in Cuba. The ship with nukes in it approached Cuba, and at the last moment, we agreed to pull our nukes out of Turkey. After which, of course, the ship with the nukes turned around.

 

So while the news made it sound like the Russians blinked, we actually did. But that was a secret for decades.

 

 

And this is what usually happens. Except for groups with nothing to lose, somebody blinks long before the nukes start going up. Which is why nukes in the hands of those with nothing to lose is so very dangerous.

At the time the crisis was resolved, the withdrawal of American nukes from Turkey was a secret only in the sense that there was no public announcement. Even in Minneapolis, reading the Minneapolis Trib (a pretty reasonable newspaper but w/o great resources for independent investigations), I knew of this. I think the idea that the installation of nukes in Cuba was a negotiating ploy to get the nukes out of Turkey is probably an overstatement. I confess to not being a (or an) historian but I believe Khrushchev lost a lot of prestige in this encounter. Further, we had more than a few nukes elsewhere, and those remained. A more serious concession that I believe took place is that we agreed to no more covert attempts to overthrow Castro. Speculation I guess, but Castro lived out his life.

 

Certainly I prefer nukes to be in the hands of someone with something to lose by using them. Absolutely I agree there. I think, however, that we get a little overconfident. Hence my own story of playing automotive chicken. The US and USSR pulled back, true, but I was listening closely to the news and if Khrushchev told Kennedy to stuff it I was packing up the family and getting out of town. MAD worked (where worked means that no one blew anyone else away) but you can only go to the edge so many times before there is an oops.

[blackshoe]

Bonus points: Translate: "Gort. Klaatu barada nikto."

From the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Gort was the robot, Klaatu his alien companion. I don't recall a translation in the movie, and Wikipedia suggests there isn't one. It goes on to say

Philosophy professor Aeon J. Skoble describes the famous phrase as a "safe-word" that is part of a fail-safe feature used during the diplomatic missions such as the one Klaatu and Gort make to Earth. With the use of the safe-word, Gort's deadly force can be deactivated in the event the robot is mistakenly triggered into a defensive posture.

:blink:

[Winstonm]

Blackshoe earns 1200 bonus points.

[barmar]

Bonus points: Translate: "Gort.  Klaatu barada nikto."

From the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Gort was the robot, Klaatu his alien companion. I don't recall a translation in the movie, and Wikipedia suggests there isn't one. It goes on to say

Philosophy professor Aeon J. Skoble describes the famous phrase as a "safe-word" that is part of a fail-safe feature used during the diplomatic missions such as the one Klaatu and Gort make to Earth. With the use of the safe-word, Gort's deadly force can be deactivated in the event the robot is mistakenly triggered into a defensive posture.

:unsure:

Although the film never provides a translation, I think many fans think it translates to something like "Gort, Klaatu says 'stop'."

 

Of course, if Helen said this in English, Gort would have little reason to believe her. But the only way she could know how to say it in their alien language is if Klaatu had told her, and it can assume he would only do this if absolutely necessary.

[blackshoe]

Cool. What can I do with them? :unsure:

 

Interesting tidbit: in the short story on which the film is based, the last line is Gnut (Gort) replying to something a Terran said about Klaatu being the robot's master: "You are mistaken. I am the master."

[Al_U_Card]

Of course, because allegorically, we are slaves to our machines.

[mycroft]

Ah, but it's so much better in Army of Darkness.

 

When failing to log in to Calum T. Dalek at the UWaterloo CSC, the friendly machine tells you (at least used to tell you; one of the things about student-administered boxes is that things always change, especially as that's sort of the point) "Klaatu! Barada Necktie!"

[Al_U_Card]

UGH! Did you have to remind me of that ugly Mathie pink tie?

 

You have to be a UofW alumnus to understand....lol

[mycroft]

It was at least better than our mascot (Dept. E&CE...)

 

And the pink tie was *cute*. Especially the 6-story one.

[Winstonm]

I guess once you get through the mirror, up IS down.

 

AFP

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

 

US President George W. Bush on Monday called Iran the "single biggest threat" to peace in the Middle East ahead of a visit to the region centered on celebrations of Israel's 60th anniversary.

 

Reality Scoreboard: Mid-East Wars Started and Engaged In: USA-2 Iran-0.

[kenberg]

Withdrawn, I misunderstood

[jtfanclub]

Reality Scoreboard: Mid-East Wars Started and Engaged In: USA-2 Iran-0.

Iran gets at least a half for the Israel-Lebanon war last year.

[Winstonm]

Reality Scoreboard:  Mid-East Wars Started and Engaged In:  USA-2  Iran-0.

Iran gets at least a half for the Israel-Lebanon war last year.

In that case, the U.S. gets another 0.5 for arming Iraq and egging on the Iraq/Iran war.

 

Updated Middle East Reality Scoreboard: U.S.A.- 2 1/2 Iran - 1/2

 

However, Iran does have the ball now and may be the next to score.