There are now 3 US Carrier Strike Groups sitting off the shores of Iran

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your participation has been more stupid than usual as well.

Every time CU4 brings up the war he wants with Iran, stupidity results.

[sirs]

And yet Xo still responds.  Amazing isn't it.  Still not going to pull back on your stupid label for Tee?  He is the fella advocating the holocaust of that evil empire, America, for all the supposed smaller holocausts at the hands of that evil empire

[Plane]

<<How nice you make a holocaust sound.>>

One big holocaust to make all the little ones inflicted by the U.S. on the rest of the world gone for good.

The final solution , expanded a little bit.

[Michael Tee]

<<The final solution , expanded a little bit.>>

In all your final solution/holocaust/Nazi analogies, one little fact seems to get lost in the heat of debate - - in the scenario favoured by Mao and Fidel, it was the U.S.A. which would launch the first nuclear strike or holocaust if they chose to do so, and the holocaust which would then fall on them would be retaliatory rather than unprovoked.  So your analogy, unfortunately, just won't hold water.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The US actually did send a fighter aircraft into Cuba to do surveillance of the nuclear weapons,and it was duly shot down, and the pilot died.  But the Cubans and Soviets did not retaliate. Of course it was advantageous that the US knew for sure what was there, as a nuke has a deterrent effect.

[Michael Tee]

That was actually a Cold War turning point, and I majorly fault Khruschev for backing down.  Kennedy's bluff could have and should have been called.  The U.S.A. would never have risked a nuclear strike on its own population centres and America's nuclear-armed NATO allies would have stayed out of it, since they stood to lose a lot more than the U.S.A. in any nuclear exchange.  With a battery of Russian nukes in Cuba targeting the entire East Coast, America would have been a much tamer beast in the Sixties and Seventies.  The massive war crime known as the Viet Nam War would never have occurred.

Woulda coulda shoulda all over again.

[Plane]

That was actually a Cold War turning point, and I majorly fault Khruschev for backing down.  Kennedy's bluff could have and should have been called.  The U.S.A. would never have risked a nuclear strike on its own population centres and America's nuclear-armed NATO allies would have stayed out of it, since they stood to lose a lot more than the U.S.A. in any nuclear exchange.  With a battery of Russian nukes in Cuba targeting the entire East Coast, America would have been a much tamer beast in the Sixties and Seventies.  The massive war crime known as the Viet Nam War would never have occurred.

Woulda coulda shoulda all over again.

We found out later that Krushev didn't actually have the weponry he claimed to have.

Nor even half.

The Soviet Union slowly moved from pure bluff to an arsonal that they couldn't even maintain without bankruptcy.

[Michael Tee]

<<We found out later that Krushev didn't actually have the weponry he claimed to have.

<<Nor even half.>>

Found out that he didn't have what it took to nuke Boston, NYC, Atlanta  and Miami from Cuba in 1962?  Where'd you get THAT from?  They'd already test-fired lots of nukes and their rocketry at the time was ahead of yours.

[Plane]

When Krushev told the world that they were turning out missles "like sausages" he was exaggerating .

When Kennedy , LBJ and Nixon reacted with a building program they were not exaggerating, they beleived there was a missle gap. So soon we were turning out missles like sausages.

The Soviets did catch up, but the cost was ruinous.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Soviets did catch up, but the cost was ruinous.

=======================
They never caught up, but they did ruin their economy trying to catch up.