swansont

It’s my understanding the ones on continuous patrol had nukes aboard for retaliation efforts. Part of the deterrence triad, which would survive a first strike. They could have done this for Cuba with conventional payloads, but I’ve not seen anything that confirms this.

Yes. But there is a bucket. The molecules leaving in one direction (on average) is an important part of the scenario. Much like an explosion in freefall vs a rocket

Yes, there will be. A molecule of mass M that leaves at speed v has a momentum of Mv. The residual mass will have a momentum of Mv in the opposite direction, because momentum is conserved. Since m>>M the momentum will be small. Since force is the time rate of change of momentum, the force will be v dm/dt An extreme case of this would be water boiling and steam channeled through a nozzle.

If this had happened in 1962, probably zero. It would have been considered an attack by the Soviet Union. As toucana has pointed out, the missiles were under Soviet control. They would have been launched from Cuba, but not by Cuba. Slightly longer, unless Key West had an airbase that could handle the planes (plus time to get to the desired altitude). Orlando airport used to be McCoy AFB, which had B-52 bombers stationed there. It was also where many of the U-2 recon flights originated for the crisis.

But you can have a similar situation with free will. If you disbelieve it, you are rewarded with a clear conscience, even if it exists. One might make the same observation about not believing in free will.

They would have some explaining to do

As someone who worked on an atom interferometer (in grad school), I’m in that minority.

No. Pascal’s wager is about asymmetric outcomes from a choice to believe in something, or not. In the case of free will, you must also account for the fact that society acts like it exists. “free will exists and controls everything you do” seems to be contradictory.

Fair enough - missiles would be launched from Cuba, rather than Cuba launching missiles. It’s moot, though; Kennedy announced that any missiles launched from Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviets.

And different speeds (since this is for massive particles), so the two elements of it will separate, which is not what we observe happening.

“If dark energy is constant, the universe will continue to expand, forever getting colder and emptier. If it’s growing in strength, the universe will expand so speedily that it’ll destroy itself in what astronomers call the Big Rip.” If they’ve considered it might grow in strength, the notion that it was assumed to be constant is overstated.

But an invasion was rejected for the fear that the Cubans would launch missiles. And that’s the scenario being offered - that they launched missiles.

Matter-wave interference confirms the deBroglie equation.

President Kennedy doesn’t agree “The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. … This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base -- by the presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction -- constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all Americas“ http://wp.stu.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Kennedy-Speech-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.pdf The Soviets agreed to remove the missiles. Can’t remove something that isn’t there. Recon photos showing the missiles and also them being loaded onto ships for removal in November https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/photos.htm November 5, 1962: Low-level photography documents loading of Soviet missiles at the main Mariel port facility for return to the USSR. On the dock are vehicles later identified by NPIC as nuclear warhead vans.

Do you understand what an analogy is?

“if Cuba launched Russian missiles” Launched is past tense. There was only one Cuban missile crisis. It happened in 1962. People screw up grammar all the time. It usually doesn’t cause such issues. Cuban missile crisis. Right there in the title.

Because you made a statement about non-nukes.

It depends on whether you could take out the launch sites with conventional weapons. And also on how many missiles had been launched. But they did when the crisis happened.

Or, you know, you could just make an effort to explain what you mean, so people don’t have to read between the lines. And not put the blame on others when they don’t get what you mean No, but that’s not the point. It’s analogous to Pascal’s wager, with free will taking the place of the existence of a supreme being

In the Cuban missile crisis they were nukes. That’s why it was a crisis. How about answering the question that was asked, instead of trying to divine some other question.

Why is this posted in philosophy? What is it you want to discuss?

Maksimiusz banned as a sockpuppet of Bart, bart2, ravell, exuczen, kawiusz Further iterations will be spam-banned (no trace)

OTOH, I think part of the issue is taking an imprecise/ambiguous statement and assuming that there can be only one narrow interpretation of it.

! Moderator Note Anecdotes aren’t evidence and there’s no science here.

If NPR is going to publish crap like this, no thanks “RFK Jr. wants to 'Make America Healthy Again.' He could face a lot of pushback” https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/11/15/nx-s1-5191947/trump-rfk-health-hhs As if the pushback is because he wants to make the country healthy, rather than his batsh** crazy ideas about how to do it.