My understanding is that we can build a system that is similar to what the Soviets have. I have read the text, but it's been too long ago.
Eh oh! I VAGUELY remember that your right. I'm not sure though.
Neat trick on the part of the Soviets if so. What US city would it be? Washington, of course. Would the rest of us stand still for a system intended to preserve to worst of us? Wanna bet? So the US gets no ABM.
I don't want to look it up. How about you?
No thanks. I stick to English.
I think our diplomats always had trouble selling to the Soviets the notion that we were the good guys and they were the bad guys.
I doubt that they ever sold any of them that idea. Or many of the Soviet people. Remember, a large majority of Germans supported Hitler most of the time. In general, the Soviets weren't nearly as vicious as the Nazis.
It might be a reasonable speculation that JFK, by the very nature of the addendum you refer to, came to the conclusion that it would be "fair" to remove the weapons from Turkey.
I doubt that "fair" even entered his mind. Nations mostly seek advantage, not justice. If justice were delivered right no now, no nation would remain in existence.
Kruschev made a big point of those Turkish missiles and insisted they be removed. It was probably a condition for agreement to avoid WWIII. Kennedy's response probably was that he would do it, but not publicly. Kruschev, holding the weaker military hand, agreed to publicly remove his missiles from Cuba, whereas Kennedy got to clandestinely remove the US missiles.
My compliments on your awareness of the addendum. Pretty arcane stuff. Relatively few sickos are aware of it, you and I are two of them.
Wait a minute! How can we both be sickos? I thought only the other guy was a sicko. :-) |
