K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

They valued warfare higher.

As someone who has "been there, done that" I can assure you that nobody v=
alues
warfare except arms vendors.

Warfare is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a method to OBTAIN some thin=
g or
some result of value.

Well said!

JFK needed something that looked good to
counter his critics about the Bay of Pigs and
the Cuban missile crisis.

"Been there, done that, got the medals both times". The only critics of =
the
results of the "Cuban missile crisis" wore poorly fitting suits and drank=
lots
of vodka.

Not the results but that the whole thing happened in the first place.

IIRC, the Soviets were ticked off about the placement of Jupiter-C
IRBMs in Turkey. Of course Turkey was and is a NATO country. Moscow's
objection to the IRBMs was that they could hit targets inside the
Soviet Union in minutes, and were virtually impossible to stop,
compared to conventional bombers. They demanded that the IRBMs be
removed, and of course NATO refused - even though the Jupiters were
becoming outdated by ICBMs and submarine-launched missiles.

So the Soviets retaliated by trying to install similar IRBMs in Cuba.
Fortunately the preparations were discovered and their plans thwarted.

But what was kept rather quiet is that some months after the Soviets
backed down from installing their missiles in Cuba, the Jupiters were
quietly removed from Turkey.

And a "hot-line" was installed between Washington and Moscow so that
things could be discussed more directly by the leaders of the two
countries, and their representatives.

73 de Jim, N2EY