Talk:Missile gap

Unclear

"Not a new technical development, but a place to hide when the bombs start falling" Is this really necessary? I'll comment it out in 7 days if noone responds. InvertRect 21:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just reverted the date that the first NIE was issued from 1541 to 1957. 194.50.118.230 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction seems awkwardly worded; I am slightly confused by the sentence that states that the Committee and USAF gave estimates, but the CIA also gave estimates? Can we reword that slightly? Sswerdna (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary: Kennedy lied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.152.238 (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"McNamara, the new secretary of defense, and Roswell Gilpatric, a new deputy secretary, who strongly believed..." Who strongly believe? Gilpatric, or both McNamara and Gilpatric? Mcswell (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

McNamara

The obituary of Robert McNamara in The Guardian 7 July 2009 p 32 by Harold Jackson states that Kennedy was elected on the basis of his promises to mend the supposed Missile Gap. McNamara was appointed to Defense in the new administration and, following thorough research, announced that the gap was in favour of the US. "The Republicans went crazy, some even demanding that the election be rerun." Perhaps there is some reliable source that confirms the story. The story of false politically- generated beliefs is echoed in the sorry tale of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, perhaps. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Good Classified Material was unavailable to the Democrats until they took power

In Fred Kaplan's 1983 book the "Wizards of Armageddon" the US Air Force was aggressive in creating first the "bomber gap" and then the "missile gap" and defending it aggressively against the doubters in the CIA, Navy, Army and White House. The Democrats were just one of several tools that the USAF used in its constant struggle for more money and power against the other services.

Since the Democrats were out of power they could only act on the info they had and it came from the Air Force or from think tanks like RAND that were either under contract to the Air Force or only had access to the Air Force estimates. Eisenhower and Nixon could not defend themselves with the truth because it was secret and also hotly contested between the various government factions. McNamara went on to kill various pet projects of the Air Force (bombers and missiles), deciding that the Minuteman and Polaris ICBM's provided the solution, but the inter-service conflicts continued on.

BTW, it has long been commonly understood that Kennedy was actually elected based on the ballot-stuffing in Chicago by Mayor Daley's machine and his looking so much better in the big TV debate than Nixon with his unshaven look. (The phrase "commonly understood" is inaccurate. Historians and political scientists endlessly debate why Kennedy won in 1960. His war record, more impressive than Nixon's, was probably a factor at a time when the war was a recent memory for millions of voters [including veterans] and a time of national anxiety about future wars. His campaign theme of looking optimistically toward the future was probably a factor. His selection of Lyndon Baines Johnson as his running mate, allowing him to carry Texas, was probably a factor. His support for civil rights (i.e., his phone call to Mrs. King) was probably a factor. It's quite true that his performance in the TV debate was important -- it's entirely true that he took the time to master the dominant communications medium of his day, while Nixon didn't -- but the notion that this superior performance can be summed up in the phrase "looking so much better" is fallacious -- looks were part of it, what he said was also part of it. Also, this section should note the comments of Mike Royko, the great Chicago columnist, who noted in a Q and A interview in the 1990s in West magazine [the Sunday magazine of The San Jose Mercury News] that the Republicans were busily stealing votes in downstate Illinois even as the Democrats were doing so in Chicago -- just as aggressively and just as effectively, Royko indicated.)

192.30.202.15 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

I removed the following: "Claims placed the Soviet missile count as high as 2,000 functioning weapons, at a time when they actually had only 2 functional and 2 prototypes, an exaggeration of 1,000 times what existed." In addition to it being in an unencyclopedic format, it's a pretty bold statement with no source cited. Lawyer2b (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching a 1960 film on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REUnoI4yLgg that's a declassified intelligence briefing "Development of the Soviet Ballistic Threat" which says that the Soviets launched 4 ICBM tests in the 3500nm range in 1958, after a long test program of about 40 shorter flights (800 to 1000nm) and 9 vertical flights in the prior 2-3 years. Many tests were confirmed to have nose cone separation. The briefer made it sound like they have very specific ELINT coverage of almost every test's telemetry. He says by the end of 1959 the Soviets had launched at least 21 ICBM-length (over 3500nm) missile tests. The film goes on to say that the missiles could carry a 8MT to 10MT warhead, and that they estimate 5500nm distance capability in the first production missiles, and in terms of quantity the film guesstimates that in 1960 they will have 50 missiles, in 1961 about 250 (for perspective at the same time they estimated 500 bombers would reach US targets), in 1962 about 500 missiles, and by 1963 about 800 missiles. Overall it sounds like a pretty reasonable estimate given what they knew about how many test missiles were fired, but you all should watch the video yourselves to see if you think it is convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.56.210 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV much?

"it is believed that the gap was known to be illusionary from the start," - uh, believed by who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"...like Sausages"

This quote from Khruschev can also be found in the book Red Moon Rising (by Matthew Brzezinski), on page 204. This book is also cited on the page about Sputnik (as number 57), so it's probably a "reliable source". Moreso than the webpage currently cited for the statement, which doesn't even state the full sentence?

I'll probably edit it in myself if I can figure out the wiki-markup, but I just wanted to field the idea first if anyone wants to beat me to it or argue the point. Wombats&Co. (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Missile gap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205084236/http://www.cnn.com:80/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/12/interviews/mcnamara/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/12/interviews/mcnamara/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)