Was it a mistake to retire the F-14 Tomcat??...

[Peter Kesternich]

(...) All nuclear weapons do is make sure no one else uses them against you...insurance if you like. Countries will STILL go to war conventionally, knowing that they won't be used. (Can you imagine the outcry and how the offending country will become an instant pariar, shunned by the rest of the world...Nuclear war will never happen whilst calm, intelligent heads are at the helm (can't last forever). (...)

You clearly haven't spoken to anybody in Pakistan or India concerning the use of nukes. And as if Iran or North Korea or China or Israel even cared how the world sees them. In my opinion, the threat of a nuclear war (even if it is not global but only limited to the Middle East, South Asia or the Far East) has never been as great as it is today.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Come off it the Soviets/Cubans were never going to use the proposed missile base in Cuba to challenge US sovereingty. That's just a ridiculous suggestion.

They were aware that there were nuclear missiles positioned in Europe (under de-facto US control) that could hit the Soviet Union. They had no equivalent land based missiles at the time which could reach the US (except maybe Alaska). Not unreasonably they wanted some to counter-balance the European based nukes. And not surprisingly the Yanks weren't keen on the idea.

At no stage in history did the Soviets ever hold any Military superiority over the US which would have given them even the slightest chance of challenging US sovereignty. Their best case scenario was a "draw" in a Nuclear War. In that sense the ending of the Cold War hasn't changed anything much - Russia still could not achieve anything useful in a conventional war with the US but could (probably) still achieve mutual destruction in an atomic war (if that can be considered an achievement).

The question was about American sovereignty being threatened, maybe it was just a gambling chip played, maybe it wasn't, the point was America was threatened and took action to ameliorate that threat. If it hadn't been for the ability to enforce the blockade, achieved by conventional forces, not nuc's the standoff may not have been resolved. You know, conventional weapons such as all the expensive aircraft carriers, B52 and B47's, the Dragon lady's that took the aerial photographs that confirmed the existence of the missiles. If the US only had 2 stages to resolve the conflict, diplomatic posturing and all out nuclear war, do you think it would have ended differently?

[SYDCBRWOD]

You clearly haven't spoken to anybody in Pakistan or India concerning the use of nukes.

Do tell. Is the policy first use?

And as if Iran or North Korea or China or Israel even cared how the world sees them.

No, they don't. But using a nuc is like throwing a grenade at someone standing 3 meters from you, sure you'll get the other person, but you probably end up dead yourself. If for no other reason than self preservation I cannot see nukes being used unless the existencde of the nation is threatened - after all, if you are about to lose your country, you have nothing to lose. So, warfare will still continue to be waged by conventional forces, with 'The Bomb' being used as the final solution. Pakistan, China and India clearly don't believe that having nuc's makes conventional forces redundant, China is rearming at a rapid rate, India has just signed an order for 300 Fifth gen fighters, Aircraft carriers, and even nuclear submarines.

In my opinion, the threat of a nuclear war (even if it is not global but only limited to the Middle East, South Asia or the Far East) has never been as great as it is today.

Agree.

[Luka]

You clearly haven't spoken to anybody in Pakistan or India concerning the use of nukes. And as if Iran or North Korea or China or Israel even cared how the world sees them. In my opinion, the threat of a nuclear war (even if it is not global but only limited to the Middle East, South Asia or the Far East) has never been as great as it is today.

- Man has continually shot himself in the foot, using technology that he simply isn't mature enough to weild. The Middle East isn't yet mature enough to have these types of weapons ("Death to America!") hmmm....
The ENTIRE middle east and surrounds SHOULD be made a nuclear free zone...Yes that would mean countries like India, Pakistan and ISRAEL would need to give up their weapons...and leave IRAN sitting in the corner looking sheepish. That region is way too nuclear! And once one gets one they all want one...and don't think a place like IRAN wouldn't supply them. The entire region needs a bloody big broom put through it in terms of weapons. Its like a neighbourhood with a bunch of uneducated louts packed to the rafters with knives, poles, chains and a chip on their shoulder!

[Curtis Malone]

The question was about American sovereignty being threatened, maybe it was just a gambling chip played, maybe it wasn't, the point was America was threatened and took action to ameliorate that threat. If it hadn't been for the ability to enforce the blockade, achieved by conventional forces, not nuc's the standoff may not have been resolved. You know, conventional weapons such as all the expensive aircraft carriers, B52 and B47's, the Dragon lady's that took the aerial photographs that confirmed the existence of the missiles. If the US only had 2 stages to resolve the conflict, diplomatic posturing and all out nuclear war, do you think it would have ended differently?

Just realized it's been years since I've seen the word ameliorate.

[SYDCBRWOD]

Just realized it's been years since I've seen the word ameliorate.

You're welcome.