>>512248583
Just to flesh this out a bit. Imagine the scenario:
>US has nuclear hegemony in the 1950s. >As we approach the 1960s soviets begin developing an arsenal.
>Thermonuclear warheads begin to proliferate vastly multiplying destructive potential
>ICBMs start becoming a reality vastly multiplying delivery potential.
>US is ahead significantly in number of ICBMs thermonuclear warheads and strategic bomber fleets.
>Intel determines that the gap will be the largest in 1963ish and after then the soviets begin to establish near parity.
>It would be survivable perhaps even easily survivable with a proper first strike and appropriate civilian warning systems etc.
What would you do? I'll tell you what you'd do- you'd go to the president and explain this situation to him and try to get the point across that the button will need to be pressed. And if he says no you will try to find a way to walk him into it... now imagine
>your intel gets reports that the soviets have moved missile installations to Cuba right off of the US east coast.
>This is it, you think
>you breif thr president, you advice an immediate and strong attack on the installations resulting in escalation and enough pressure to get him to slap the big red button.
>President quibbles. He agrees something must be done. The entire going chiefs is advising him to strike.
>he is on the bubble. He authorizes the attack but backs out and pursues diplomacy.
This all happened just like Ive laid out- every bit of it. It hindsight we learned khrushchev authorized the use of naval tactical nuclear weapons if a strike on Cuba occured... you do the math.
Now a little alternate history... Nixon lost in 60 by the skin of his teeth. Let's imagine he is sitting in the room with the JCoS and SAC. They are advising him to strike Cuba... what do you think he does?