It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are we really in Cuba Missile Mk 2 or not?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I am hearing a few people of late saying that Russia have put Missiles on Cuba again because of America trying to put Radar etc close to Russian borders.
I have not heard anything on any news broadcast about this happening, but I did see this after a search today on the net (see link) however has anyone got anything on this report please guys?

www.mathaba.net...




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   


Whether the quotes attributed to Putin are accurate or not remains to be seen.They appear nowhere outside of the original Pravda piece.


From the article.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
What if over the years they secretly sneaked in some newks to cuba. They did it way more covert this time. Like for all we know it might have been done by way of a russian new-clear sub going to cuba and entering into a sub pen by way of an underground cave system. Then offloading the newks there. And maybe the US had an idea of this going on, but weren't able to prove it, so instead that is why they stayed mad at cuba and never resumed trading as they knew funny business was going on still covertly.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
You have given a potential reason for Russia to place missiles in Cuba but you havent given any reason why Cuba would allow it to happen. I dont get the impression that Cuba is under imminent threat of invasion so why would Raul Castro make such an aggresive move? I say its all lies but I could be wrong.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 


First of all get it right. WE the AMERICAN people didn't give the Russians ANY reason. We don't even control our elections. If that is our fault then so be it. But we as a non represented republic have done nothing to the Russians.

I hope you are wrong.

Then again Obama and Putin have a nice story.
edit on 18-10-2012 by JrDavis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Cuba just lifted travel restrictions, The Castro era is coming to an end, and both Cuba and Russia are covetous of US monied interests. The more apt scenario is that, within the next 5-10 years, Cuba will normalize relations with the US and possibly even more towards Democracy... or at least a more Chinese model of corporate style communism.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
If there is a Third World War 10-1 its the USA that starts it in some fasion or another. Current climate in the middle east is a perfect instigator for such an event. Lets just hope cooler heads prevail in the end.

The stars should be our goal not the occupation of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan!
edit on 18-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I'm not really sure why the Russians would *bother* putting nuclear missiles in Cuba at this point.

It made a lot of sense back in 1962...the US nuclear deterrent force was primarily built around B-47 and B-52 manned bombers, Titan I ICBMS, and early-generation Polaris submarine-launched missiles. Titan I took 15-20 minutes to fuel, elevate, and launch. Manned bombers took several minutes as well, and had to get well away from a nuclear initiation to survive the blast wave. Against an ICBM or manned bomber attack from the USSR, this was acceptable, since ICBM flight times were also in the 20-30 minute range. That meant that even an all-out attack with complete surprise would still leave the US capable of massive retaliation, which was a serious dis-incentive to launch such an attack in the first place (deterrence theory). Missiles in Cuba changed the picture massively. Their flight times would have been on the order of 10-15 minutes...quick enough to catch most of the US nuclear forces before they could be launched. That was the big reason that we objected so strongly to those missiles in 1962.

Fast forward to 2012. Launch times for a Minuteman missile are in the single digits, making it almost impossible to catch them before launch, assuming our early-warning systems work. Submarine-launched missiles (just starting to enter service in 1962) have become just as long-ranged and accurate as their land-based counterparts, and are very difficult to locate and neutralize before launch. In short, no matter how short your flight times are, any nuclear strike against the US will more than likely be answered with an Apocalyptic response. That means that there isn't any real military advantage to having your missiles in Cuba. There are, however, some serious drawbacks. You've just placed your missiles at the end of a very long logistical chain...parts, supplies, and technicians all have to be shipped, and that costs. You've also placed those missiles in a less secure environment, and under a looser command structure, both of which can have really bad consequences for all parties involved. (Either a rogue commander launches an unauthorized strike, and you're held accountable, or you send a legitimate launch order and it's not carried out).

Long story short (too late for that by about two paragraphs, I know! :lol
, why face the political and operational consequences of putting missiles in Cuba when you can do the same thing (in terms of operational results) with a ballistic missile submarine? I'm not saying it *couldn't* happen, just that it makes little if any sense. Then again, politicians on both sides of the Iron Curtain have a truly abysmal record when it comes to acting rationally,



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JrDavis
 


Get what right?
I didnt accuse the American people of anything or even the American government for that matter (In my post on this thread atleast), I merely stated that the person who made the thread gave a potential reason for Russia putting Missiles in Cuba but no reason for Cuba to accept the missiles.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


Well put mate, sums up the current situation nicely!



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
If there is a Third World War 10-1 its the USA that starts it in some fasion or another. Current climate in the middle east is a perfect instigator for such an event. Lets just hope cooler heads prevail in the end.

The stars should be our goal not the occupation of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan!
edit on 18-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


You're on.
It's easy to point to the current US/Iran tension and say "This will lead to World War III", but there are plenty of other, more likely candidates.

India / China is one that a lot of people overlook, but 50 years ago this month, China attacked India over a border dispute. 50 years later, the border still isn't settled, and both nations have nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Israel / Pick one is another good candidate. We can argue all day about Israel's right to exist, but the fact that they have nuclear weapons pretty well settles that question...I wonder what the Hebrew script for "Ultima Ratio Regum" is? Israel isn't going to go away, and Israel's neighbors just can't seem to stop belaboring a lost cause. Sooner or later (hopefully *much* later), somebody is going to push things one step too far.

India / Pakistan - Another unsettled area with a long history of bad manners all around, combined with nuclear weapons. Not a great mixture.

North Korea / Anybody within reach - Desperate regimes do desperate things. How desperate is North Korea? Who knows?

Iran / *insert laundry list* - At various times, they've exchanged threats and / or hostilities with Iraq, Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia, and The Generic West. Hopefully, it's just rhetoric, but who knows?

China / Taiwan - Something is going to have to give here sooner or later, and when it does, more than likely, Taiwan's allies are going to get dragged into the mess.

I could go on...regional conflicts are a dime a dozen (sorry to say), and most of them have some ties to major powers, which opens the possibility of unexpected escalation...we've never seen that happen before, have we? *cough* Franz Ferdinand *cough*. It's true that America could easily wind up involved in several of these, but very few of them would be started by America.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


I dont think anyone of us would be left to collect said bet(Unless you except Nuke cola caps) LoL. There are no winners/losers if and when we start firing these things at one another. The above scenarios you have mentioned all have merit ile give you that. Maybe i should have replaced the U.S starting WWIII with current NWO Illuminati US gov starting WWIII. In any event the US will be involved to one degree or another simply because they currently have the largest pointed stick and two many fingers in to many pies!
edit on 18-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 


they're still ticked about the bay of pigs. We just thought at that point that we could walk into any country without any challenge.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join