Nuclear missiles in Cuba?

[Jehanne]

If Russia (hypocritical) or China would want to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, how should the United States react? If at all?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If Russia (hypocritical) or China would want to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, how should the United States react?  If at all?

Quarantine worked once, no reason it wouldn’t work again.

Boru

[Jehanne]

If Russia (hypocritical) or China would want to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, how should the United States react?  If at all?

Quarantine worked once, no reason it wouldn’t work again.

Boru

And, so, another bluff?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Quarantine worked once, no reason it wouldn’t work again.

Boru

And, so, another bluff?

I don’t think either side was bluffing in 1962. Cuba didn’t want another US attempt at invasion, the USSR didn’t want American ballistic missiles in Turkey. It was brinksmanship, not a bluff.

Fortunately for both sides, cooler heads prevailed.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

If Russia (hypocritical) or China would want to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, how should the United States react?  If at all?

If Cuba joins in a military Alliance with either and either country puts missiles there then America has no right to do anything other than convincing them not to.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If Russia (hypocritical) or China would want to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, how should the United States react?  If at all?

If Cuba joins in a military Alliance with either and either country puts missiles there then America has no right to do anything other than convincing them not to.

What the US has the right to do and what the US can do are two very different kettles of fish (not very different from any other great power).

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

If Cuba joins in a military Alliance with either and either country puts missiles there then America has no right to do anything other than convincing them not to.

What the US has the right to do and what the US can do are two very different kettles of fish (not very different from any other great power).

Boru

If a country only does what everyone would agree it has the right to do, then the chances are it won’t be able to exercise its right to exist, even if everyone agree it has that right, for very much longer.

Rule system can serve many causes, some noble, some not so noble.   There are many rewards associated with any well contrived rule system.   But there is one thing that all rule system will inevitably do, that is it will eventually bring the greatest reward to the one who breaks it in the most cunning and opportune manner.

[The Architect Of Fate]

If Cuba joins in a military Alliance with either and either country puts missiles there then America has no right to do anything other than convincing them not to.

What the US has the right to do and what the US can do are two very different kettles of fish (not very different from any other great power).

Boru

The OP asked how the US should act not how they can act. The US should respect the right of a sovereign nation to enter into alliances even if they are not advantageous to the US. The fact could act like Russia and throw a hissy fit doesn't mean they should.

---

If a country only does what everyone would agree it has the right to do, then the chances are it won’t be able to exercise its right to exist, even if everyone agree it has that right, for very much longer.

There is a difference between defending your country from imminent threat to its existence and flying into a hissy fit because one of your neighbors allied with a country you don't like to defend itself from you.

Rule system can serve many causes, some noble, some not so noble.   There are many rewards associated with any well contrived rule system.   But there is one thing that all rule system will inevitably do, that is it will eventually bring the greatest reward to the one who breaks it in the most cunning and opportune manner.

As opposed to your system of anarchy  and might makes right  mixed with delusion having more assholes living by this notion will make the world better somehow 

[Anomalocaris]

What the US has the right to do and what the US can do are two very different kettles of fish (not very different from any other great power).

Boru

The OP asked how the US should act not how they can act. The US should respect the right of a sovereign nation to enter into alliances even if they are not advantageous to the US. The fact could act like Russia and throw a hissy fit doesn't mean they should.

---

If a country only does what everyone would agree it has the right to do, then the chances are it won’t be able to exercise its right to exist, even if everyone agree it has that right, for very much longer.

There is a difference between defending your country from imminent threat to its existence and flying into a hissy fit because one of your neighbors allied with a country you don't like to defend itself from you.

There is no fundamental adjudicatable difference.   You are living in a legalistic fantasy world, not a real one.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There is no fundamental adjudicatable difference.   You are living in a legalistic fantasy world, not a real one.

Yes there is a clear difference your the one living in a fantasy world friend