Then your definition won't match most writing about "First Strike" between 1950 and 1990. But a good definition to work with here.
Using your definition, though, why would the missiles need to be in Cuba? They had ballistic missile subs bigger than ours. They had ICBMs almost as long as we did. There is no need for a first strike to be local, is there? There were two reasons for the missiles in Turkey (and Germany, England, Alaska, Canada, the Azores,etc) One was in case there was a "regional" nuclear conflict. The missiles in those countries were closer, smaller, and more accurate, and under local control. The other was in case of an all-out nuclear was, to spread the potential targets around as much as possible, and to unlink the command and control from needing the US intact for a response (in case we were somehow caught napping) On 4/18/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I define first strike as attacking first. > > Ballistic missile subs are one way to have first strike capability. Also, > the missile silos in Turkey. The USSR didn't get into first strike range > until they started putting things in Cuba. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204562 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
