Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
105. You are most welcome, sorefeet! The nurse at my doctor's office was in the US Army...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 11:02 AM
Feb 2016

...in 2000 and saw what was ahead. She said everyone in her unit knew that a Bush-II presidency meant war. She didn't know what was coming down the pike would be so horrible, but everyone eligible to retire did so.

I'm a Kennedy Democrat because JFK stood up to the warmongers who demanded he nuke, bomb, invade, kill innocent Americans and blame Castro, etc., and said, "No."

In 1961, CIA director Allen Dulles and JCS chairman Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer told JFK the best time to attack USSR was "Fall 1963," based on our strategic advantage. The timing makes an "interesting coincidence," seeing how so much was done to blame communist Marxist Leninist traitor (and US intelligence agent) Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cubans and the Soviets after Nov. 22, 1963.



Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963



Mack White is no slouch, either. Wonder what he'd think of the memorandum of Col. Howard Burris?

A peace sign would be a perfect message for people to see.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Good mythology Feb 2016 #1
It's long overdue. In_The_Wind Feb 2016 #2
It's only recently that ground combat units were open to women woolldog Feb 2016 #4
I'm too old to be drafted but I would have served if called. In_The_Wind Feb 2016 #5
I don't doubt that you would have. woolldog Feb 2016 #31
It's not overdue until we have the Equal Rights Amendment. When we spent pnwmom Feb 2016 #68
I agree with you. In_The_Wind Feb 2016 #71
Equal is equal aaaaaa5a Feb 2016 #3
Or was until the ultra-Orthodox started squeezing women out starroute Feb 2016 #56
But we're not. The SCOTUS has ruled we're not equal and the states failed to pass an ERA. n/t pnwmom Feb 2016 #69
ERA needs to come first (plus, the military needs to deal with rape/sexual assault harshly). n/t demmiblue Feb 2016 #6
This. ^^^ CrispyQ Feb 2016 #36
I still chuckle at this: demmiblue Feb 2016 #37
LOL. CrispyQ Feb 2016 #38
That's going to haunt my dreams mythology Feb 2016 #72
Good point. nt Laffy Kat Feb 2016 #62
The draft is wrong. Expanding the draft is wronger. Warren Stupidity Feb 2016 #7
There is no draft linuxman Feb 2016 #25
Having to "register" for a non-draft makes no sense, dixiegrrrrl Feb 2016 #40
You understand that there needs to be a registry in case we bring back the draft, right? linuxman Feb 2016 #47
There is a draft - registration for military service is compulsory. Warren Stupidity Feb 2016 #63
That is not a draft. linuxman Feb 2016 #65
My state has the death penalty but we haven't executed anybody in nearly 80 years. Warren Stupidity Feb 2016 #76
That's a poor analogy. linuxman Feb 2016 #94
Agreed nt lostnfound Feb 2016 #81
I'm too old Bettie Feb 2016 #8
Same here. Zing Zing Zingbah Feb 2016 #93
I think they probably wouldn't draft a pregnant woman. Zing Zing Zingbah Feb 2016 #96
America should have a standing draft of ALL citizens Hortensis Feb 2016 #9
That is a good point. SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #17
Required non-military service to one's country is Hortensis Feb 2016 #19
By 24 kids are starting to think a little too independently to make good troops Fumesucker Feb 2016 #34
I see your point, SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #39
It's better to fix the problems before they happen Fumesucker Feb 2016 #43
Again I agree. SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #44
Sorry, I'm jumping back and forth from here to somewhere else and I'm losing track... Fumesucker Feb 2016 #50
Oh, I wasn't being snarky - SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #51
Exactly. And how if we waited until, say 28, Hortensis Feb 2016 #41
I'd actually be in favor of universal service if I could figure out a way to be fair about it Fumesucker Feb 2016 #48
you do realize it's not just citizens that can get drafted right? n/t w0nderer Feb 2016 #35
In my world they would be. :) Non-citizens could volunteer. Hortensis Feb 2016 #42
whilst in the real world w0nderer Feb 2016 #83
LOL, yes, and my notion that they should be drafted Hortensis Feb 2016 #95
Give us the ERA then yes! MuseRider Feb 2016 #10
>THE< ERA is dead. A new one could be brought up, of course. Thor_MN Feb 2016 #28
OK. *An* ERA. nt SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #53
Well, if war comes and they start drafting, migration to Canada will be by both sexes this time. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #11
About fucking time! kydo Feb 2016 #12
Um...both an e-1, e-2, e-10, etc. (enlisted) male & female are paid exactly the same. jonno99 Feb 2016 #30
Doesn't matter n2doc Feb 2016 #13
Here's my response in earlier thread A Little Weird Feb 2016 #14
I'm not excited by any draft, SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #15
"Fair is fair" and "equal" comments wheniwasincongress Feb 2016 #16
You're right. SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #18
that's a good point, but since this is mere registration treestar Feb 2016 #21
Be careful what you wish for. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2016 #45
Fine TeddyR Feb 2016 #87
yup Skittles Feb 2016 #99
Works for me treestar Feb 2016 #20
Do we have a draft? smirkymonkey Feb 2016 #22
We have registration. Male only, at age 18. nt SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #24
Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info. smirkymonkey Feb 2016 #52
Gender neutral screen names... why bother? lumberjack_jeff Feb 2016 #59
There hasn't been a draft since 1973 (n/t) Spider Jerusalem Feb 2016 #23
Everyone who defies the registration law is prevented from student aid. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2016 #46
No, it isn't Spider Jerusalem Feb 2016 #55
So 90% of men are eligible to apply for student aid compared with 100% of women? lumberjack_jeff Feb 2016 #57
No, it doesn't Spider Jerusalem Feb 2016 #60
+1 Starry Messenger Feb 2016 #58
In many states they also are prevented from obtaining a drivers license uppityperson Feb 2016 #64
Every 18-year-old male has to register anyway. jeff47 Feb 2016 #54
Good nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #26
I watched my son sign up. peace13 Feb 2016 #27
There should be no gender... Mike Nelson Feb 2016 #29
It's only fair Boomer Feb 2016 #32
It can never be fair. For one thing, women don't have the same childbearing years... lostnfound Feb 2016 #82
Fine with me TeddyR Feb 2016 #88
I actually never had a problem with excluding women from combat lostnfound Feb 2016 #90
Most people in the military don't serve in combat roles Travis_0004 Feb 2016 #106
I think it's a great idea just as soon as the ERA passes gollygee Feb 2016 #33
Aside from draft registration, can you give me some examples of laws which would change due to ERA? lumberjack_jeff Feb 2016 #49
What planet have you been living on? Feminist groups strongly supported the ERA pnwmom Feb 2016 #73
Simple tracking of the language proposed proves my point. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2016 #74
Exactly....Feminists today do not want that original Alice Paul language davidn3600 Feb 2016 #79
That was a bill proposed by a couple of people. Hillary supported the 1970 version pnwmom Feb 2016 #80
Do feminists even truly want an ERA anymore? davidn3600 Feb 2016 #67
Not just selective equality Major Nikon Feb 2016 #84
I'm fine TeddyR Feb 2016 #89
I'm too old and already served 8 years. But it's only fair. MH1 Feb 2016 #61
Either make women register or take away the penalities for men davidn3600 Feb 2016 #66
Pass the Equal Rights Amendment first. Otherwise they'll be drafting women pnwmom Feb 2016 #70
WW3 is really the only reason there would ever be a full-blown draft davidn3600 Feb 2016 #85
End the Penalities for Men erpowers Feb 2016 #97
Better Idea: End the Wars Octafish Feb 2016 #75
Thanks Octafish, everyone else thinks sorefeet Feb 2016 #104
You are most welcome, sorefeet! The nurse at my doctor's office was in the US Army... Octafish Feb 2016 #105
My guess is that this is 'reverse discrimination' nonsense HereSince1628 Feb 2016 #77
The old draft machine was a hell of a ride catnhatnh Feb 2016 #78
OH GREAT ...I GET to go serve in a NEW WAR! yuiyoshida Feb 2016 #86
Whoa woolldog Feb 2016 #100
I'm way too old. Kath1 Feb 2016 #102
Yes, women should have to register when they turn 18, same as men do NickB79 Feb 2016 #91
slow down the wars - bring back the draft - ain't no senator's son SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #92
No draft for men or women. The draft is government-approved slavery. Oneironaut Feb 2016 #98
Yes!!! tazkcmo Feb 2016 #101
well heaven05 Feb 2016 #103
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Compulsory female registr...»Reply #105