John Kenneth Galbraith: A Hero in our Time

[James Lateer]

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

[Scott Kaiser]

No one is arguing that JFK was a "professional leftist". Jim clearly pointed out that he used that term in reference to polemicists and commentators like Chomsky, Cokburn and the Counterpunch crowd.

I disagree that Vietnam was a "steamroller" that would have "overrun" JFK. It wasn't a "steamroller" until Johnson's massive escalation in 1965. Eisenhower's commitment was small and considered much less important than Laos.

Kennedy did a hell of a lot more than "contemplate" withdrawal - he had concrete policies and plans that had already been set in motion. And it wasn't just Vietnam that got him assassinated. It was the combination of his willingness to ratchet down the whole Cold War enterprise by exploring detente with the Soviet Union, normalization of relations with Cuba and the Limited Test Ban Treaty.

Without a doubt Phil, you could kill a single bee, and that bee may leave off enough pheromones for other bees to realize what just happened to their fellow bee before a few more attack, or, you could simply stir up a bees nest and wait till the swarm attacks you, only a select few, of course, the Queen always remains behind with a few to protect her.

In other words, they were carefully hand picked for the job, Cuba did not get invaded, although, that was the plan from the start. Fidel kinda missed that up with his speech, and Castro's greatest achievement known as November 26 was going to be oust by November 25. But, to no avail, the United States had no choice but have the president of the United States LBJ order Dulles to work with the CIA to cover up the investigation the FBI could never fully investigate, not even the HSCA.

Hope this helps,

[Phil Dagosto]

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

Quoting from Wikipedia (yes, I know they have issues):

In April 1959, the secretary of the Air Force issued implementing instructions to USAF to deploy two Jupiter squadrons to Italy. The two squadrons, totaling 30 missiles, were d eployed at 10 sites in Italy from 1961 to 1963. They were operated by Italian Air Force crews, but USAF personnel controlled arming the nuclear warheads. The deployed missiles were under command of 36ª Aerobrigata Interdizione Strategica (36th Strategic Interdiction Air Squadron, Italian Air Force) at Gioia del Colle Air Base, Italy.


In October 1959, the location of the third and final Jupiter MRBM squadron was settled when a government-to-government agreement was signed with Turkey. The U.S. and Turkey concluded an agreement to deploy one Jupiter squadron on NATO's southern flank. One squadron totaling 15 missiles was deployed at five sites near İzmir, Turkey from 1961 to 1963, operated by USAF personnel, with the first flight of three Jupiter missiles turned over to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) in late October 1962, but USAF personnel retaining control of nuclear warhead arming.


So what that means is that NATO forces could not launch a nuclear strike without US approval. If you think that Italian or Turkish forces could have launched a nuclear strike on their own you're delusional irrespective of what Norstad said (which was most likely PR not strategic doctrine). The fact that operations outside of arming the warheads were outsourced to Italian and Turkish forces was probably more PR and a fig leaf that their leaders could use to claim some level of control which they really didn't have. Why do you think DeGaulle pulled out of NATO and built his own independent nuclear forces? Could it be that he understood that the NATO nuclear shield was mostly a bluff?

I suggest you re-read the following sentence you wrote until you realize how silly it is:

Once the US decided to eliminate the missiles, NATO had no way to maintenance them on its own. No spare parts.

Do you understand that 1) if the missiles were really under NATO control the US couldn't unilaterally decide to pull them out as part of a deal to end the missile crisis and 2) once they were pulled out there was nothing to freaking maintain!!!!

If you could only see things outside of your irrational German/Nazi obsession you might understand things a little better.

[James Lateer]

Thanks to Mr. Dagosto for his pointed yet very helpful questions about the Jupiter missiles. I don't agree that my analysis is (1) Nazi-obsessed, (2) silly or (3) that the Jupiter missile situation was just PR.

If one lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, one knows that there was nothing silly about it. Everyone on the planet was pretty much scared s***less.

In order to clarify things, let me list the following points:

1. As quoted by Mr. Dagosto "but USAF personnel controlled arming the nuclear warheads". What did that mean?

2. The Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) was both commander of all US forces in Europe and also nominal commander of NATO in Europe. He wore "two hats". So if he was in control of the warheads, were they in control of the US or NATO? Good luck with figuring that out.

3. During the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis (according to the book Defcon 2 by Polmar), General Thomas Power went on the military radio and announced that he had taken over the authority to launch the nukes from the civilian authorities. (He apparently could do that).

4. Under the control of USAF personnel meant control by General Lauris Norstad, General Curtis LeMay, General Thomas Power and General Lyman Lemnitzer. Clearly, neither Eisenhower, and Kennedy (especially Kennedy) did not personally control the nukes in Europe. (All these Generals despised or ignored JFK which everyone on this site knows).

5. As the North Koreans and Iranians are discovering, just getting nukes is less than half the challenge. Getting a secure delivery system is the tough part.

6. If the Cuban Missile Crisis had not occured, how would JFK have gotten those missiles back from NATO? NATO must have voted to install the missiles (after a long struggle). Would they have to vote to return the missiles back to the US?

7. It is not silly to suggest that NATO could have kept the missiles (without warheads). They could have installed conventional warheads and kept them. This would have preserved the right of NATO to have such missiles.

8. There were at least five ways NATO could have gotten nuclear warheads for them: (a) got "loaner" warheads from the UK on a basis identical to the US (i.e. under shared control) (b) done the same with France who had nukes © gotten a few nukes from Israel who had nukes (d) have Germany develop their own nuke warheads and (e) have NATO develop their own warheads. All of these possibilities would have been a can of worms for the US.

9. General Lauris Norstad, the main proponent of NATO as a Fourth Nuclear Power was fired by JFK and McNamara in 1962.

10. The successor to Norstad would have been (by seniority) General Earl Wheeler. But Konrad Adenauer and the British Government intervened to get General Lyman Lemnnitzer instead.

11. "Lem" served the entirety of WWII under British General Harold Alexander (who was also Governor-General of Canada later). "Lem" also partnered with Allen Dulles to cut a "separate peace" with Nazi General Karl Wolff who he worked with personally. This was an act of treason done behind the back of FDR.

12. McNamara and JFK cancelled the Skybolt Missile in November, 1962. This outraged the UK and deprived them of a secure nuclear delivery system just as the Jupiter decision had done with NATO.

13. This whole picture adds up to JFK regaining control over the launching of a nuclear war. This is not a silly issue--it is not a PR issue.

14. If the Germans (possibly through NATO which they controlled in 1962-1963)
had decided to push for keeping a missile system, they would not have lacked for technical skills to do it.

The Jupiter missile was designed by SS Nazi General Wernher von Braun. The US Saturn missile was managed by Nazi veteran Arthur Rudolph (who was deported back to Germany later in life). The supervisor of Michael Paine, Nazi General Walter Dornberger, was head of research for Bell Aerospace. Upon retirement, Dornberger returned to Germany where he was buried.

With whom would these ex-Nazis side if it came to a tug-of-war between the US and Germany over missiles? Would JFK even want to make that phone call to von Braun in order to find out?

15. I dont' think I'm "Nazi obsessed". Hitler's right hand man from the Russian front, General Adolf Heusinger was the permanent chairman of the NATO Military Committee in 1962-1963. It would have been him who got the news regarding the Jupiter Missiles. (Also read The Skorzeny Papers---also "Nazi-Obsessed" but true). His position made him the top ranking military official in NATO, (even higher than the SACEUR Lemnitzer).

16. After thinking though the answers to the very incisive questions posed by Mr. Dagosto, it becomes obvious to me that the only way JFK could have solved this horrendous problem of Nukes in Europe was to collude with Khrushchev in setting up the Cuban Missile Crisis. This way, his decision on the Jupiters became a "fait accompli" and no one in their right mind could have questioned it. Any other negotiations or strategy would have been doomed to failure.

17. All of this is a tribute to the brilliance of both JFK and McNamara (and maybe LBJ) in keeping the Germans from getting access to nukes. This accomplishment has endured for 50 plus years and maybe has even contributed to saving the planet.

James Lateer

[Phil Dagosto]

Thanks to Mr. Dagosto for his pointed yet very helpful questions about the Jupiter missiles. I don't agree that my analysis is (1) Nazi-obsessed, (2) silly or (3) that the Jupiter missile situation was just PR.

If one lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, one knows that there was nothing silly about it. Everyone on the planet was pretty much scared s***less.

I live through it too and I didn't say it was silly. I quoted a sentence you wrote and said you should re-read it until you understood how silly it was. Do you understand that the "it" I referred to was your sentence, which did not reference the missile crisis, not the missile crisis itself? Did you even read what I wrote or did you you just read the word "silly" and jump to an illogical conclusion that I wrote that the missile crisis was silly?

In order to clarify things, let me list the following points:

1. As quoted by Mr. Dagosto "but USAF personnel controlled arming the nuclear warheads". What did that mean?

2. The Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) was both commander of all US forces in Europe and also nominal commander of NATO in Europe. He wore "two hats". So if he was in control of the warheads, were they in control of the US or NATO? Good luck with figuring that out.

There's nothing to figure out. The warheads were under US control no matter how many freaking hats Norstad was wearing. Its not as if European heads of state or military commanders could arbitrarily decide to use those weapons without US approval.

3. During the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis (according to the book Defcon 2 by Polmar), General Thomas Power went on the military radio and announced that he had taken over the authority to launch the nukes from the civilian authorities. (He apparently could do that).

The military did subvert the idea of civilian control of nuclear weapons and circumvented whatever command and control protocols had been put into place so that not only Power (who was acknowledge to be mentally unbalanced and a sadist by no less than LeMay) but individual submarine and aircraft commanders as well as Army field commanders in charge of tactical weapons had, in effect, the "authority" to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in circumstance where they felt going through proper channels was not feasible. However, that's a long way from saying that NATO, independently of US authorities could authorize the use of those weapons. Power worked for SAC not NATO.

4. Under the control of USAF personnel meant control by General Lauris Norstad, General Curtis LeMay, General Thomas Power and General Lyman Lemnitzer. Clearly, neither Eisenhower, and Kennedy (especially Kennedy) did not personally control the nukes in Europe. (All these Generals despised or ignored JFK which everyone on this site knows).

Again, did you read what I wrote? I didn't say "under Kennedy's control" although that's the way it was supposed to be. I said "USAF personnel" as you quoted above. Did you even read what you wrote a couple of bullet points ago?

5. As the North Koreans and Iranians are discovering, just getting nukes is less than half the challenge. Getting a secure delivery system is the tough part.

How is this even relevant to this discussion?

6. If the Cuban Missile Crisis had not occured, how would JFK have gotten those missiles back from NATO? NATO must have voted to install the missiles (after a long struggle). Would they have to vote to return the missiles back to the US?

Kennedy had requested their removal before the missile crisis because they were obsolete and vulnerable making them unduly provocative. The fact that they hadn't been withdrawn probably did have something to do with assuaging NATO allies Turkey and Italy but if NATO owned those missiles as you imply then its pretty far fetched to imagine how JFK and RFK could have traded them away in a back-room deal with the Soviets.

Here's another quote from the Wikipedia article on the Jupiters:

In April 1959, the secretary of the Air Force issued implementing instructions to USAF to deploy two Jupiter squadrons to Italy.

Note that these were USAF squadrons. There's no mention of any NATO vote (otherwise how could France, which remained in NATO until 1996, refused a deployment of these missiles?). If you have actual evidence of a NATO vote please present it.

7. It is not silly to suggest that NATO could have kept the missiles (without warheads). They could have installed conventional warheads and kept them. This would have preserved the right of NATO to have such missiles.

Yeah, it is. Its based on your unfounded and undocumented assertion that NATO somehow owned the missiles as well as the unfounded assumption that they could have been re-fitted with conventional warheads. This is a desperation move by you to try to wiggle your way out of the illogical sentence that you wrote.

8. There were at least five ways NATO could have gotten nuclear warheads for them: (a) got "loaner" warheads from the UK on a basis identical to the US (i.e. under shared control) (b) done the same with France who had nukes © gotten a few nukes from Israel who had nukes (d) have Germany develop their own nuke warheads and (e) have NATO develop their own warheads. All of these possibilities would have been a can of worms for the US.

Where is the documentation for all of this bullshit? Do you really think that countries are in the habit of loaning out their nuclear weapons? And where do you get the idea that Germany would have been permitted or allowed to develop nuclear weapons or that NATO as an organization could have done so?

You should read this:

Here's the money quote:

As part of the accession negotiations of West Germany to the Western European Union at the London and Paris Conferences, the country was forbidden (by Protocol No III to the revised Treaty of Brussels of 23 October 1954) to possess nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. This was reiterated in domestic law by the War Weapons Control Act (Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz)

I'm surprised that a German-obsessed guy like you didn't know that.


9. General Lauris Norstad, the main proponent of NATO as a Fourth Nuclear Power was fired by JFK and McNamara in 1962.

Irrelevant to the discussion but undercuts your argurment that the idea of NATO becoming an independent nuclear powere was viable.

10. The successor to Norstad would have been (by seniority) General Earl Wheeler. But Konrad Adenauer and the British Government intervened to get General Lyman Lemnnitzer instead.

And your point would be ...

11. "Lem" served the entirety of WWII under British General Harold Alexander (who was also Governor-General of Canada later). "Lem" also partnered with Allen Dulles to cut a "separate peace" with Nazi General Karl Wolff who he worked with personally. This was an act of treason done behind the back of FDR.

See my comment for item 10.

12. McNamara and JFK cancelled the Skybolt Missile in November, 1962. This outraged the UK and deprived them of a secure nuclear delivery system just as the Jupiter decision had done with NATO.


13. This whole picture adds up to JFK regaining control over the launching of a nuclear war. This is not a silly issue--it is not a PR issue.

Where did I write that JFK trying to maintain control of nuclear weapons was a "silly issue" or a PR issue? Please point it out to me. I wrote that what Norstad said about the "NATO nuclear shield" was more PR than strategic doctrine.

14. If the Germans (possibly through NATO which they controlled in 1962-1963)
had decided to push for keeping a missile system, they would not have lacked for technical skills to do it.

See my comment to item 8.

The Jupiter missile was designed by SS Nazi General Wernher von Braun. The US Saturn missile was managed by Nazi veteran Arthur Rudolph (who was deported back to Germany later in life). The supervisor of Michael Paine, Nazi General Walter Dornberger, was head of research for Bell Aerospace. Upon retirement, Dornberger returned to Germany where he was buried.

Yes, this is well known. So what?

With whom would these ex-Nazis side if it came to a tug-of-war between the US and Germany over missiles? Would JFK even want to make that phone call to von Braun in order to find out?

More delusional assumptions. Where do you get the idea that there was going to be some "tug of war" between Germany and the US over missiles? The missiles I referred to in my original post were built in the US and based in Turkey and Italy. You're the one dragging Germany into this (but you're not obsessed - right?)

15. I dont' think I'm "Nazi obsessed".

You are. You're as bad as drunks who can't admit they have a drinking problem. I also think that you lack reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. You try to come off as some kind of expert but you're really nothing more than a crackpot and a troll.

Hitler's right hand man from the Russian front, General Adolf Heusinger was the permanent chairman of the NATO Military Committee in 1962-1963. It would have been him who got the news regarding the Jupiter Missiles. (Also read The Skorzeny Papers---also "Nazi-Obsessed" but true). His position made him the top ranking military official in NATO, (even higher than the SACEUR Lemnitzer).

16. After thinking though the answers to the very incisive questions posed by Mr. Dagosto, it becomes obvious to me that the only way JFK could have solved this horrendous problem of Nukes in Europe was to collude with Khrushchev in setting up the Cuban Missile Crisis. This way, his decision on the Jupiters became a "fait accompli" and no one in their right mind could have questioned it. Any other negotiations or strategy would have been doomed to failure.

Well, you're entitled to your delusional thoughts but as Carl Sagan once observed: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've provide no evidence outside of your pre-conceived notions let alone evidence of an extraordinary nature, like, you know, actual documents detailing JFK and Khrushchev cooking up the missile crisis. Doesn't the fact that there is no credible historical documentation of this and that the actual documented record shows how the Soviet deployment of missiles in Cuba came as a total surprise to the Kennedys?

17. All of this is a tribute to the brilliance of both JFK and McNamara (and maybe LBJ) in keeping the Germans from getting access to nukes. This accomplishment has endured for 50 plus years and maybe has even contributed to saving the planet.

I don't even know what to say to this. Germany had already renounced nuclear weapons and was legally bound not to develop or possess them. I agree that JFK and McNamara were brilliant men but keeping a nation that had renounced nuclear weapons and was not legally entitled to develop or possess them from acquiring those weapons doesn't take much brilliance.

James Lateer

My replies in blue

[James Lateer]

Crackpot, troll, drunk-like--I'll add that to the list of things I have been called along with fabulist, hare-brain, libel artist…

The rebuttal by Mr. Dagosto, though brilliant in many ways, is at its core kind of confusing for the following reasons:

1. Mr. Dagosto seems to be denying that General Norstad had accomplished anything at all by getting the IRBMs in Europe. Having read a biography of General Norstad, it seems clear that Norstad thought he had accomplished something by getting the missiles there. He clearly didn't think it was only a PR job. We have to give Norstad more credit than that!
   
2. Per Mr. Dagosto, JFK had requested the Jupiter missiles be removed, but that was refused. What am I missing? That fact supports my argument, not the reverse! (I was unaware of this).
   
3. His prior posting says "The deployed missiles were under command of 36ª Aerobrigata Interdizione Strategica (36th Strategic Interdiction Air Squadron, Italian Air Force) at Gioia del Colle Air Base, Italy. That doesn't sound like they were controlled by the USAF. Which is it?
   
4. Mr. Dagosto demands proof that NATO voted to deploy the missiles. It's clear that General Norstad viewed the missiles as NATO missiles. There isn't any real question as to whether NATO wanted to become "The Fourth Nuclear Power." That was General Norstad's often-used phrase. And the missiles were stationed in two NATO countries. NATO, as an entity, obviously had to approve all of this. Norstad was the NATO SACEUR. Is there any question as to whether NATO approved of the Jupiter missiles in Europe? Is there any question that NATO desired the missiles? It's pretty much proven by the circumstances, even without an actual document IMHO. There may be such a document or evidence of a vote, but that's beside the point. NATO was ruled by consensus, so their apparently was a consensus on the missiles (at least under NATO legal process).
   
5. I think every issue which I have mentioned regarding the Jupiter Missiles and the Cuban Missile Crisis is reasonable and sensible. Mr. Dagosto states that JFK had requested the missiles be removed. He was refused. How is it "silly" to suggest that Germany or NATO might have kept the missiles against JFK's wishes? Per Mr. Dagosto, that actually happened (which I didn't actually know about myself). My opinions on this IMHO may be subject to debate, but I don't see how they are silly. And, by the way, I don't drink (at all) either.
   
6. Although Germany had agreed to renounce nuclear weapons, the Germans under both Hitler and Adenauer didn't have the best record for living up to legal agreements. Hitler abrogated the Versailles Treaty. West Germany agreed to de-Nazify (which they didn't really do). They enacted an arbitrary 15 year statute of limitations to protect their own war criminals. They even re-defined "murder" to exclude war crime murder done under orders. When it comes to an issue like nuclear annihilation, wouldn't it be pretty easy to change your laws to prevent being incinerated? I would do it. Wouldn't anybody? Besides, they controlled NATO, so they controlled the NATO missiles. Same difference.
   
7. Germany was in the middle of this problem for one reason: Germany controlled NATO. They provided the majority of troops and, in return, they demanded controland they got it. Ex-Nazi Adolf Heusinger was the "permanent" chairman of the NATO military committee which was a three-year appointment (and made him the military top dog in NATO). DeGaulle tried in vain to put control back under the U.S., the U.K. and France, but failed. So DeGaulle pulled France out. The Secretary-General of NATO at the time was Dirk Stekker of the Netherlands. The command of the troops in central Europe was under General Hans Speidel, another former Hitler General. Secretary-General Stekker was a close personal friend of Adenauer. Anyone who was not aware of these facts should do more research on NATO You will find it all to be true as well as very interesting. It was a myth that the US controlled NATO because the SACEUR was always to be an American. This was a phony fig leaf and a myth.
   
8. The Soviet invasion of Cuba in 1962 was probably the biggest single amphibious operation in world history (especially considering the distance involved). How could the Japanese move their entire fleet almost 2000 miles across the North Pacific and FDR didn't know about it? Answer: FDR knew about it. So how could the USSR pull off the biggest amphibious operation in world history (certainly by number of ships, submarines and distance) and JFK didn't find out about it? Answer: See the above reference to FDR. The USSR moved enough men and equipment to totally defend Cuba. That's a heck of an operation in anybody's book. The book Defcon 2 makes all this clear. A must-read!
   
9. I don't suggest that JFK and Khrushchev secretly planned and discussed the Cuban Missile Crisis in advance. Rather, they probably instinctively allowed it to develop as the path of least resistance to solve their mutual problem of NATO, Germany and nukes.
   
10. The argument by Mr. Dagosto boils down to (a) General Norstad was a phony, (b) the Jupiter missiles were irrelevant (even though Soviet IRBM's in Cuba were very relevant) and © the Germans were implicitly completely trustworthy, law abiding, not in control of NATO and not controlled at all by ex-Nazis. Also, Mr. Dagosto doesn't believe in jumping to conclusions. Even IMHO obvious conclusions.
    

Sadly, this (IMHO) somewhat naïve view of the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as NATO is all too common because Americans have been kept in the dark and presented with many, many myths surrounding all of these really bad historical problems.

Regarding NATO, these problems may well still exist. I'm not up to date on that. I would like to be at some point in the future.

James Lateer

ps. Trump has issues with NATO, too!