20-11-2018, 03:09 AM
The US maintained control over the NATO IRBM warheads. But what did that mean?
Clearly, General Norstad felt that he had succeeded in getting NATO a nuclear shield. He called it "NATO as a fourth nuclear power".
Once the US decided to eliminate the missiles, NATO had no way to maintenance them on its own. No spare parts. Etc. Since Norstad was so proud of this accomplishment, one can only infer that he would have been equally dismayed with the withdrawal of the missiles.
And at this same time, JFK and McNamara cancelled the UK Skybolt missile deal. That would have eliminated the deterrent for the UK to a Soviet nuclear strike.
Once the Soviets could hit the US with their ICBM's (even once) Europe felt that the US would sit and watch the Soviets nuke Europe, but the US would be deathly afraid to strike back and be destroyed ourselves.
We wouldn't accept IRBM's aimed at the US from Cuba, but IRBM's aimed at Europe without any deterrent for the Europeans was just peachy. Nicht so gut! as the Germans would put it.
You can see how the UK, NATO and West Germany didn't like this at all. And DeGaulle had his own nukes, but he had begun to pull out of NATO so that this didn't help the UK and Germany.
Co-incidently there were 3 or more assassination attempts against DeGaulle in addition to the JFK hit. Probably part of the same controversy. Every man (and country) for yourself when it came to the existential nuclear threat.
And we can guess what General Curtis LeMay felt about this. For him, taking away the nukes from Germany and the UK would have been heresy. LeMay never saw a nuke that he didn't fall in love with. Or any kind of bomb for that matter.
We may never know exactly how all of the above came down. But, to me, the weight of the evidence is on the side of the above theory and explanation.
James Lateer
Clearly, General Norstad felt that he had succeeded in getting NATO a nuclear shield. He called it "NATO as a fourth nuclear power".
Once the US decided to eliminate the missiles, NATO had no way to maintenance them on its own. No spare parts. Etc. Since Norstad was so proud of this accomplishment, one can only infer that he would have been equally dismayed with the withdrawal of the missiles.
And at this same time, JFK and McNamara cancelled the UK Skybolt missile deal. That would have eliminated the deterrent for the UK to a Soviet nuclear strike.
Once the Soviets could hit the US with their ICBM's (even once) Europe felt that the US would sit and watch the Soviets nuke Europe, but the US would be deathly afraid to strike back and be destroyed ourselves.
We wouldn't accept IRBM's aimed at the US from Cuba, but IRBM's aimed at Europe without any deterrent for the Europeans was just peachy. Nicht so gut! as the Germans would put it.
You can see how the UK, NATO and West Germany didn't like this at all. And DeGaulle had his own nukes, but he had begun to pull out of NATO so that this didn't help the UK and Germany.
Co-incidently there were 3 or more assassination attempts against DeGaulle in addition to the JFK hit. Probably part of the same controversy. Every man (and country) for yourself when it came to the existential nuclear threat.
And we can guess what General Curtis LeMay felt about this. For him, taking away the nukes from Germany and the UK would have been heresy. LeMay never saw a nuke that he didn't fall in love with. Or any kind of bomb for that matter.
We may never know exactly how all of the above came down. But, to me, the weight of the evidence is on the side of the above theory and explanation.
James Lateer