Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny
Seriously, while Trump does have some strange ideas from time to time (e.g. torpedoing trade), I believe the probability he'll start a nuclear war is very low. He's not a neoconservative, and in general seems to want to avoid war. The most likely place in the world right now to drag us into a nuclear conflict is Ukraine, and Trump's doing his dead level best to deescalate that.
I could be wrong though. His support for Israeli actions in Gaza and hard line posture towards Iran could indicate otherwise.
|
I agree, and think the probability of a nuclear war is just about as low as it's been at any time since WWII. I'm not in the camp that believes a nuclear exchange arising from the Russia-Ukraine war is at all likely. Putin is an epically evil bastard, but he and the oligarchs are not suicidal. And the Iranian mullahs don't quite have the capability yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny
I started this thread to reply to you without going off topic and to post the video of Slim Pickens riding a nuclear bomb. Which you have to admit is pretty damn cool.
You bring up a question. Who brought us closer to a nuclear war, the Reagan or Kennedy administration? I’d argue that’s a no brainer. Robert McNamara and the other geniuses who brought us the Vietnam War also brought us much closer to nuclear Armageddon than Reagan’s bunch.
|
(The above was addressed to Eccieuser9500)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny
ChatGPT says Kennedy,
.............................. .............
Damn, that bitch is long winded!
|
Well, if you think that ChatGPT bitch is long-winded, check out the burst of verbosity that perplexity.ai served up in response to the same query!
To wit:
Kennedy vs. Reagan: Assessing Nuclear Brinkmanship During the Cold War
The Cold War brought humanity face-to-face with the possibility of nuclear annihilation multiple times, but two particular episodes-during the Kennedy and Reagan administrations-stand out as especially perilous. While both periods witnessed dangerous nuclear standoffs, a systematic analysis of available evidence suggests that Kennedy's administration, specifically during the Cuban Missile Crisis, brought the world closer to nuclear catastrophe.
The Kennedy Administration and the Cuban Missile Crisis
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 represents what historians widely consider the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war. For 13 tense days, from October 16-28, 1962, the United States and Soviet Union engaged in a direct confrontation that threatened to escalate into full-scale nuclear conflict.
The Brink of Armageddon
Multiple historical accounts emphasize the unprecedented danger of this crisis:
The confrontation is widely regarded as "the moment when the two superpowers came closest to nuclear conflict" during the Cold War1.
Contemporary accounts describe it as "a close call-maybe the closest call in human history," with the world "teetered on the edge of thermonuclear war and the end of civilization"2.
The crisis was uniquely dangerous because it played out primarily at the White House and Kremlin level, bypassing standard diplomatic channels and safeguards1.
The Strategic Air Command was placed on high alert, with some analysts suggesting "there was a 99 percent probability that nuclear war would have been initiated"11.
Escalation Factors
The crisis developed after U.S. intelligence discovered Soviet nuclear missile sites under construction in Cuba in October 1962. Kennedy's administration responded with a naval blockade and demands for missile removal, while preparing military options17.
Some critics argue that Kennedy's approach unnecessarily heightened tensions:
His administration employed "bluster and provocation in the gravest crisis of the Cold War era"3.
Some historians suggest Kennedy intentionally escalated a situation that "did not fundamentally change the security context for the US" primarily for political reasons13.
Nevertheless, the crisis was successfully resolved through diplomacy when Khrushchev agreed to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba, while Kennedy secretly promised to remove U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey27.
The Reagan Administration and Cold War Tensions
While the Reagan era didn't produce a single crisis of the same magnitude as the Cuban Missile Crisis, it witnessed two particularly dangerous moments that brought nuclear fears to the fore.
Able Archer 83
In November 1983, NATO conducted the Able Archer 83 military exercise, simulating nuclear conflict procedures that almost triggered an unintended crisis:
The exercise featured unusual elements specifically designed to confuse Soviet observers8.
Soviet intelligence became concerned that the exercise might be a cover for an actual NATO nuclear first strike48.
In response, the USSR reportedly "readied their forces, including their nuclear forces"4 and "began preparations for a large-scale retaliation"8.
Some accounts claim U.S. forces reached DEFCON 1 during the exercise, though this claim is contested4.
The Soviet False Alarm Incident
Just before Able Archer 83, in September 1983, the Soviet early warning system Oko malfunctioned:
The system falsely indicated an incoming U.S. ICBM, triggering an automatic order to prepare for retaliation8.
Soviet officer Stanislov Petrov, skeptical of the alarm's validity, chose not to follow protocol-a decision that "almost certainly averted a nuclear disaster"8.
Reagan's Evolution
Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union evolved significantly during his presidency:
His early rhetoric and policies increased tensions, with a strategic buildup aimed at achieving nuclear superiority5.
By 1984, Reagan had become "increasingly disturbed about the possibility of an inadvertent nuclear exchange"5.
This led to a more conciliatory approach and eventual breakthrough arms control negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev5.
Comparative Analysis
When comparing these dangerous periods, several factors suggest the Cuban Missile Crisis represented the more severe nuclear threat:
Direct Confrontation: Kennedy faced actual deployed nuclear forces rather than a military exercise or false alarm17.
Historical Consensus: The Cuban Missile Crisis remains the benchmark for nuclear danger, with President Biden in 2022 noting: "For the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat to the use of nuclear weapons"9.
Duration and Awareness: The Cuban Missile Crisis lasted 13 full days with both sides fully aware of the stakes, unlike the shorter, less mutually acknowledged tension during Able Archer7.
Proximity to Conflict: During the Cuban Missile Crisis, military forces were actively engaged (with one U.S. U-2 plane shot down and pilot killed)7, whereas Able Archer remained a simulation.
Conclusion
While both administrations presided over dangerous nuclear standoffs, the historical record suggests that Kennedy's administration during the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world closer to nuclear Armageddon. The 13-day confrontation in October 1962 remains the standard against which all other nuclear crises are measured.
However, the Reagan-era incidents-particularly Able Archer 83 and the Soviet false alarm-highlight how miscommunication and misperception could have triggered accidental nuclear war even without deliberate escalation. This suggests that nuclear risk exists along multiple dimensions, with Kennedy's crisis representing deliberate brinkmanship while Reagan's era demonstrated the dangers of accident and miscalculation.
The comparative history of these nuclear crises underscores that the risk of nuclear conflict can emerge both from direct confrontation and from misunderstanding-lessons that remain relevant in today's geopolitical landscape.
