The point of first strike is to damage the enemies retaliation capabilities to an acceptable level. Range was not the only factor, speed was the factor.
If you could destroy command and control and retaliation capabilities quickly, then there wouldn't be MAD. The point of putting the missiles in Cuba was to make an overt claim of first strike capability. From Cuba they could launch a strike that could have crippled DC within 12 minutes I think, maybe less. Sub locations weren't known, thus they couldn't make a public first strike claim. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:00 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Bush reconfirms nuking Iran, sorry :) > > 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) > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204564 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
