American Strategic Deception Bureau

　At its peak, such as during the Berlin Crisis from 1948 to 1949, the number of Soviet troops stationed in Germany reached an unprecedented 290 million!

　During the Soviet modernization drive, Soviet troops stationed in Germany were always the first to receive the most advanced and modern equipment—including nuclear weapons! Although Soviet troops stationed in Germany in the 1960s were not at their peak in terms of manpower and equipment, they still possessed over 6000 tanks, over 4,000 armored vehicles, over 30,000 artillery pieces, and a powerful air force and air defense force.

　In addition, because the Soviet army has been preparing to fight a world-class war, it has retained a large-scale mobilization system.

　After the end of World War II, most of the Soviet field divisions were skeleton divisions with only 10-20% of their staff and reduced divisions with 50% staff shortages. These divisions could not be deployed to the front line immediately after the outbreak of the war, but required a certain amount of time to mobilize.

　However, the Soviet troops stationed in Germany were all fully equipped and staffed divisions that could be immediately deployed into war without any mobilization. They were the troops with the highest combat readiness level in the Soviet Army. In contrast, the Taman Division and Kantemirovka Division of the Soviet Moscow Military District had a combat readiness level of only I/II level understaffed divisions.

　In particular, the 8th Guards Army deployed in the Fulda Valley in East Germany was the elite of the elite Soviet Army Group in Germany. It was also the star unit that was most frequently inspected by Soviet leaders and most reported and publicized by the news media throughout the Cold War.

　——Somewhat similar to the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division.

　In peacetime, this huge and powerful military group was naturally the Soviet Union's mainstay to deter Eastern European countries from leaving the country.

　Once the war breaks out, the German cluster will immediately transform into a huge spearhead that breaks through the Iron Curtain and sweeps across Western Europe!

　Well, roughly equivalent to the role played by the US Seventh Fleet in the Western Pacific.

　In short, once World War III breaks out and the German battlefield opens up, the NATO forces will have to immediately face the violent attacks of the Soviet Union’s German garrison!

　But on the other side of the Iron Curtain, the US had only 60,000 troops stationed in Germany. Together with the British and French troops stationed in Germany (30,000 British and 10,000 French), the total number was just over 100,000. Even with West Germany's own troops, they were still no match for the Soviet troops and the East German People's Army stationed in Germany.

　NATO could not stop the Soviet advance all the way to the English Channel with conventional weapons. The only solution was to detonate nuclear mines and drop nuclear weapons. Although the British "Blue Peacock" project ultimately failed due to its outrageous requirements and stingy funding, the US "Greenlight" project successfully planted nuclear mines in major European cities.

　But if that were the case, even if the Soviet army could be defeated, wouldn't the whole of Europe be reduced to ruins like at the end of World War II?

　As a pessimistic, defeatist strategist and a German-born Jew, Dr. Kissinger did not want the US troops stationed in Europe to be defeated by the Soviet cluster in Germany, nor did he want to see his German homeland turned into a radioactive wasteland by nuclear bombs.

　Furthermore, Kissinger also raised another question: If the fuse is not in Europe, will European allies still be willing to follow the United States in World War III? What should the United States do if Britain and France declare neutrality?

　"This is impossible! We have established NATO! European allies will inevitably join forces with the United States to join the war!" Professor Brzezinski shouted.

　"NATO is a mutual defense organization, not a mutual offense organization!"

　Kissinger immediately retorted, “The situation now is that if we want to go to war, we have to take the initiative to attack in Europe!

　During World War I, Italy abandoned the Triple Alliance and refused to join the Central Powers because Germany initiated the war. After a year of neutrality, the Italians switched sides and joined the Allies. Who can guarantee that Britain and France today won't imitate Italy during World War I?

　By then, only West Germany will fight alongside us, and we will have no chance of winning against the Soviet cluster stationed in Germany..."

　"As long as Washington is determined, Britain and France will have no choice! Do they have the courage to offend the United States?"

　Another hawk who firmly advocated war and believed that an all-out war should be waged stood up and questioned Kissinger.

　"Under normal circumstances, Britain would naturally not dare to confront the United States. But in the face of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion, perhaps it would have the courage."

　Kissinger shook his head. “Wake up, gentlemen! London and Paris are not slaves of Washington! At least not yet!

　Even Rome and Brussels, facing the impending nuclear war, may have their own ideas..."

　——The reason why the old capitalist countries in Western Europe were able to put aside their arrogance and accept the protection and hegemony of the United States after World War II was that they faced the Soviet Union's powerful steel torrent. The European countries that suffered heavy losses after the war felt unable to resist and needed the military protection of the United States.

　Simply put, the reason why Western European countries are willing to accept

　The US military presence and, to a certain extent, infiltration into Europe was intended to serve as a guardhouse, not to allow US troops stationed in Europe to proactively stir up trouble, anger the Soviet Union, and then throw "Old Europe" into the crossfire as cannon fodder.

　Nowadays, old Europe is becoming more and more timid. What they want is to spend money to avoid disaster, not to spend money to let the US military bring disaster to themselves!

　But the current situation is exactly the opposite. The Soviet Union did not have a conflict of interest with Western European countries. Instead, it bypassed Europe and directly confronted the Americans in Cuba in America - Western European countries have no interests in Cuba. Only the United States can gain benefits in Cuba!

　According to the thinking of the vast majority of Europeans, at this time they should definitely sit on the mountain and watch the tigers fight. At most, they can make a few verbal noises, say some politically correct rhetoric, and "provide all support except help" to the US allies.

　However, what if the United States, enraged by the beating it suffered in Cuba, were to ignite the European battlefield, sending US troops stationed in Europe and NATO forces to launch an invasion east of the Iron Curtain, dragging all of Europe into the inferno of nuclear war?

　Which European country is willing to endure such an unexpected disaster?

　It's important to understand that, due to the devastation and damage of McCarthyism, America's soft power hasn't been fully realized, and few "spiritual Americans" have been cultivated in Europe. The way the US maintains its sphere of influence in Europe is primarily through military deterrence and the coercive suppression of its overall strength. The sheer brutality of its approach isn't much different from the Soviet Union's in Eastern Europe, simply differing in slogans and philosophies.

　Under such circumstances, the European people generally lack the determination and willingness to go through fire and water and go to the battlefield for the United States of America.

　If the US troops stationed in Europe cannot guarantee Europe's security, they will become the culprit for destroying European peace...

　Then, Britain and France might actually withdraw from NATO! Or at least find an excuse to refuse to fulfill their obligations to participate in the war.

　Especially in France now, Charles de Gaulle, the "last man in France", is in power, and he has been dissatisfied with NATO for a long time.

　——Since Charles de Gaulle became President of the French Republic in 1959, he has been trying to restore France's status as a great power and put forward the slogan of "Europe for the Europeans", advocating the unification of Western Europe, breaking away from the control of the United States, and abandoning the Atlantic Group under the auspices and leadership of the United States.

　In the past few years, de Gaulle has repeatedly called for amendments to the NATO Charter to enhance France's status within NATO.

　After being severely rejected by the United States and Britain, de Gaulle first announced in March 1959 that the French Mediterranean Fleet was not under NATO command, and then forced the United States to withdraw its nuclear bombs and bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons deployed in France.

　In 1960, after the first atomic bomb developed by France was successfully detonated in the Sahara Desert in Africa, Charles de Gaulle, who thought he had become stronger, began to oppose and contradict the United States everywhere, and often clamored to withdraw from NATO, just like the British later clamored for Brexit.

　A French president who has long been sabotaging NATO would likely not stand by his American allies if the US and the Soviet Union came to a head over issues outside Europe. Instead, he would likely secretly sign a Franco-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact with Khrushchev, similar to how Stalin and Hitler signed the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact and divided up Poland, and then divide up West Germany and Europe's three richest Low Countries.

　Therefore, Kissinger believes that although the United States has the strongest overall strength in the world, and each NATO member state is much stronger than the Warsaw Pact, on the European battlefield, US troops stationed in Europe can only afford to be beaten, because they are backed by a group of suspicious allies.

　——The US troops stationed in Europe cannot launch attacks at will. Once they take the initiative to attack the Soviet Union without authorization, NATO will fall apart!

　There is no room for the United States to initiate a war and force its allies to follow suit. The only possibility is that the alliance will collapse and the United States will bring humiliation upon itself!

　What's more, the Pentagon is not as bloodthirsty and warmongering as imagined - especially in a head-on nuclear war with the Soviet Union!

　"An hour ago, I just had a few words with Secretary of Defense McNamara. Although the Pentagon previously advocated for a military solution to the Cuban issue, it still disagrees with fighting the Soviet army in Europe. After all, the Soviet Union is a bit too strong."

　Dr. Kissinger said so, and everyone present nodded - the US military has always liked to ravage the weak rather than confront strong enemies.

　The Pentagon is always clamoring about wanting to fight this and that, but in fact, it is just a means to obtain military funds. If they really want to "gamble on the fate of the country" like the military staff of the Empire of Japan... then except for a very few lunatics, the entire US military top brass will instantly become mature and prudent.

　On the other hand, the Soviets had already fired the first shot, dropping a nuclear bomb on the Western Hemisphere and causing the US military to lose several ships and more than 20,000 soldiers. Now the whole world was watching eagerly to see how the United States would react after being hit by a nuclear attack.

　If the US military can silently endure even such a bold and outrageous offense without launching a sufficiently strong counterattack...

　Then, the image of the "Invincible Eagle" that the United States created through World War II will fall from the altar and collapse in front of the whole world.

　——As the "leader of the free world", the United States must never show weakness on the battlefield, otherwise the morale of the entire camp will be dispersed.

　Ultimately, this world is still a jungle society where strength reigns supreme. Throughout history, has there ever been a leader who couldn't fight?

　In addition, public opinion in the United States will be completely outraged, and the government's support rate will plummet due to the accusation of "weakness and incompetence."

　As long as President Kennedy wants to be re-elected, he cannot fall into this pit.

　Therefore, it would be impossible for the US military to initiate a ceasefire on the Cuban battlefield, and the government would be criticized by the opposition if it took the initiative to request negotiations with the Soviet Union.

　Only by finding a way to make the Soviet Union feel pain and surrender voluntarily, and by making Khrushchev bow his head, can the current government have a chance to get through this crisis.

　But judging from the current situation, the Kremlin does not seem to show any signs of giving in - after all, it is only Cuba that is being beaten.

　Of course, another approach is to simply eliminate the Cuban issue: Why all the talk? Wouldn't it be better to just kill Castro?

　However, given that Cuba already has nuclear bombs and medium-range missiles, it would be too risky for the US military to continue using conventional means of attack.

　So, Dr. Kissinger suggested launching a "limited nuclear war"—"We can keep calm about the Soviet Union and hit Cuba hard! Destroy Castro's troublemaker club with a barrage of nuclear bombs and decisively sink any Soviet ships and vessels that enter the Western Hemisphere."

　He spoke eloquently, "As long as the battlefield remains confined to the Caribbean Sea in the Western Hemisphere, the United States, as the first target of a nuclear attack, will have the upper hand in international public opinion. Even if a nuclear counterattack is launched against Cuba, it will be forgiven by the Organization of American States and NATO allies."

　At the same time, as long as we take the initiative to destroy any possible medium-range missile positions on the island of Cuba, we can ensure the security of the US mainland.

　Of course, the Soviet Union might also take the initiative to escalate the war. However, I think even Khrushchev would not be so reckless..."

　Author's words: PS: Busan, South Korea failed in its application for the World Expo, but before the application was approved, two venues had already been built. I don't know what they are used for.

　Osaka, Japan, will host the World Expo next year, but the venues haven't been built at all—not even the sewers or electrical wiring. Japan, hoping to profit, is asking exorbitant fees from participating countries. But the participating countries, unwilling to contribute, are planning to make do with a few tents and stage a temple fair.

　If the Osaka Expo is moved to Busan, wouldn’t that solve the dilemma?

　Chapter 118: The Policy of Not Expanding the Cuban Incident

　For American politicians who appear strong but are actually weak, Kissinger's proposal of "limited nuclear war" is indeed a good medicine to solve the current dilemma.

　On the one hand, the United States used nuclear weapons to severely attack Cuba, its neighbor, to demonstrate that the American bald eagle is still as powerful as ever and will take revenge, thus establishing its prestige in front of the vast majority of Latin American countries; on the other hand, it kept the Soviet polar bear across the ocean calm, avoiding actively provoking World War III and causing panic and alienation among its British and French allies.

　Anyway, the island of Cuba in the Caribbean is far beyond the Soviet Union's power projection range, but is close to the doorstep of the United States.

　With the war already breaking out and the entire Caribbean shipping route blocked, the Soviet Union could do nothing but talk big in newspapers and on the radio and organize a few mass demonstrations in support of Cuba in its own cities. It was unable to provide any new assistance to Cuba.

　At the same time, under normal circumstances, the Soviet Union was unlikely to take the initiative to provoke a nuclear war in Europe because of the United States' "nuclearization of Cuba" approach.

　——If the Kremlin really does this, then NATO allies will loyally and closely unite on the side of the United States!

　The only problem is that Cuba now has both medium-range missiles and Soviet nuclear bombs. What if the Cubans use them to bomb the US mainland?

　In response, Dr. Kissinger spread his hands and said that there was no better way than to retaliate against the Cubans twice as much.

　If you want to resolve a nuclear crisis that has already broken out, you have to destroy a country that already possesses nuclear weapons. This risk must always be taken.

　If the United States were to give in to Cuba, it would no longer be able to remain the world's hegemon, and more and more troublemakers would emerge from all over the world. From ancient times to the present, the underlying logic of maintaining world order has always been the strongest violence.

　If the United States wants to maintain the hegemony it won through World War II and make other countries continue to respect and obey it, it must constantly lash out at the world, beat up all kinds of troublemakers, and use victory to intimidate the small fry, otherwise there will be no peace.

　On the other hand, if the United States is always afraid to take any risks and shrinks back when faced with even the slightest trouble, the result can only be the collapse of its hegemony.

　Moreover, he believed that the Soviet Union would not directly transfer control of the nuclear bomb to the Cubans, and Khrushchev would not have the courage to directly launch a nuclear bomb on the US mainland - otherwise, it would not be Guantanamo Bay but New Orleans or Miami that would have suffered the missile attack in the past two days!

　At this moment, an officer walked into the conference room and informed the advisors of the latest situation of the Cuban war.

　Despite the shock of a series of nuclear explosions and the chaos in the rear caused by President Kennedy's illness, the war on the island of Cuba was still raging. The 2nd Marine Division at Guantanamo Bay was still being bombarded by missiles and long-range rockets, and kept calling for air support.

　To this end, on the evening of January 12, the US Air Force once again carried out a strategic bombing on the island of Cuba, deploying more than 60 B-52 bombers and dropping more than 200 tons of bombs, which allegedly completely destroyed the remaining usable airports of the Cuban revolutionary regime and the two armored training bases that had been discovered.

　But the bombing

　Afterwards, the 2nd Marine Division in Guantanamo continued to withstand missile and rocket attacks, and even the division commander was unfortunately killed in battle.

　Moreover, the Cuban militia and remnants of the Cuban Revolutionary Army in the Guantanamo area also regrouped and began to harass the invading US troops. They found the remaining rocket launchers and a small number of field artillery and continued to launch mobile artillery attacks on US military positions, changing locations after each shot.

　For a time, Guantanamo became the Dien Bien Phu of Vietnam eight years ago, and the US military became the French who were squatting in the valley and being beaten.

　From the port to the barracks, as well as the warehouses and ships in the port area, they were bombed at any time, and the US military's counterattack artillery mostly hit the air.

　The local US troops were tired of being bombed repeatedly, and they were also constantly worried about a nuclear bomb dropping from the sky, which would kill them all. Their morale was extremely low.

　In desperation, the acting commander of the 2nd Marine Division had to order the abandonment of the Guantanamo city and surrounding towns that had just been occupied, and retreat to the Guantanamo US military base with strong fortifications and a sufficient number of bunkers to reduce casualties and prepare for a long-term confrontation.

　But the problem is, even the US military base at Guantanamo was never designed to withstand an atomic bomb attack...

　Therefore, the morale of the 2nd Marine Division is still in a state of panic, and many soldiers are on the verge of collapse. It is said that there is a risk of mutiny and camp bombing.

　The only good news is that, based on radar tracking and reconnaissance, the US military finally discovered the medium-range missile launch site deployed in San Christopher today. Subsequently, the Navy sent reconnaissance aircraft into the relevant airspace to search and finally confirmed that the enemy was launching missiles at Guantanamo from this location.

　The price was that two Navy reconnaissance planes taking off from Key West, Florida were shot down, with one pilot killed and one captured.

　Hmm? Why not use satellite reconnaissance?

　Come on, it's only January 1962. It's only been five years since the first artificial satellite was launched, and only a few months since Gagarin, the first astronaut, went into space. Reconnaissance satellite technology is still in its infancy and is still a long way from being practical.

　Indeed, as the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union reached its peak, the US urgently needed to monitor Soviet nuclear weapons activities. Therefore, as early as 1959, the CIA, in collaboration with the Air Force, launched a spy satellite program codenamed "Keyhole."

　However, due to the technical limitations at the time, it was impossible to transmit photos from the satellite to the ground. Therefore, the only option was to use the film camera on the satellite to take photos, and then eject the return capsule containing the film and return it to Earth.

　The entire process, from launch, taking pictures to retrieving the film, takes at least several weeks, and once the film is used up, the spy satellite will be scrapped.

　In addition, the shooting range of spy satellites is fixed and must be set before launch. It cannot be changed after it is in space.

　It is conceivable that a spy satellite like this, which is extremely inconvenient to use and has no timeliness, is basically only of symbolic significance.

　What's even more tragic is that even the development of such a clumsy spy satellite was full of twists and turns and hardships.

　In order to conceal its existence, the first spy satellite was equipped with mice and was claimed to be used for peaceful biological experiments.

　Unexpectedly, the mouse urinated on the sensor before it was launched, and the United States' first spy satellite was ruined.

　After that, the US Air Force attempted to launch spy satellites more than a dozen times, only to have the cameras explode, the film overexpose, or the return capsules lost in irretrievable locations. One such capsule, containing film, was mistakenly dropped in Kazakhstan, where it was found by a Central Asian shepherd and used as a decoration. It wasn't discovered by chance until half a century later by journalists.

　It wasn't until the end of 1960 that the first spy satellite successfully ejected film back to Earth, and the photos inside could be developed - but it was just photos, and the pictures looked like Picasso's abstract works, and it was basically impossible to see any targets on the ground.

　Moreover, in the following year, there were a series of launch failures, satellite loss of contact, camera failures and the disappearance of the return capsule...

　Therefore, if the Pentagon wants to use spy satellites to monitor Cuba's military intelligence, it must not only wait patiently for the next launch window, but also urgently build a satellite specifically for photographing Cuba - the experimental reconnaissance satellites currently in orbit, if any, are all aimed at the Soviet Union.

　After the launch is successful and the filming is completed, the return capsule containing the film will be ejected and then developed... the whole process will take at least two months, right?

　If any link goes wrong, it may take up to a year or two - by that time, I'm afraid even World War III will be over!

　Therefore, the current US spy satellites are basically toys for defrauding funds and can hardly be relied upon in actual combat.

　The only way to obtain reliable enemy military intelligence is to let pilots fly reconnaissance planes and risk their lives, just like in World War II.

　In short, the U.S. Air Force, having received intelligence, prepared to launch a new round of bombing on St. Christopher today in an attempt to destroy the Soviet missile positions.

　- Of course, as long as the commanders of the Soviet medium-range missile troops deployed in San Cristobal to aid Cuba have an IQ that meets the standard, they should know that they should move their positions as soon as possible after the launch, or move the missiles to cave shelters.

　I guess the US Air Force can only bomb the air in San Christopher, right? At most, they can do their best.

　Then, I heard about Guantanamo