The Real Cuban Missile Crisis (2013)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/?single_page=true

by ClintEhrlich • 11 years ago

83 49 11 years ago

dpweb2• 11 years ago

I'm not sure the new revalations here that prove the accusation that Kennedy caused the crisis. You would have to first, try to understand the cold war mentality prevalent at the time. Admittedly, the threat of Soviet expansion was at times exaggerated and grew to a paranoia, but still was a real threat.

We already know that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Kennedy all conspired to assasinate Castro. Kennedy invaded the country in the US sponsored Bay of Pigs. We know that the Cold War paranoia was used as a political tool particularly by Kennedy against Nixon in the 1960 election. We also know both the US and USSR were making provocative acts against the other.

What strikes me espeically is the argument here that, since McNamera said so, USSR putting nuclear missles 90 miles off the coast of Florida had no impact on the balance of power, ie.. not a real new threat - which means Kennedy should not have opposed that, at the risk of inflaming tensions. I just don't find that a sensible argument.

fredkbloggs2• 11 years ago

So how did it alter the balance of power, then? The only argument I can see for it is the one the author is railing against.

I don't think the argument here is that Kennedy shouldn't have done anything about the missiles in Cuba. Clearly, for political reasons if nothing else, it was necessary. But as pointed out, he could have scored just as many points by agreeing publicly to a mutual reduction instead. Then he can not only go on TV and tell Americans that his stalwart determination rescued America from a grave threat, but he can also claim to have reduced overall tensions. If he wants to, he can even claim that the entire purpose of the Jupiters all along was to serve as a bargaining chip should such a situation arise (if you're going to lie, you may as well tell the lies that help you most). It would have been a fitting prelude to Reagan.

arethuza3• 11 years ago

Reagan at least had the sense to realize that, in the aftermath of the Able Archer 83 debacle, that if you are dealing with completely paranoid Soviet leaders who think that they are the ones who are going to be attacked at any moment then it is wise to tone down the "evil empire" rhetoric a bit.

arethuza3• 11 years ago

"at times exaggerated"

That's a bit of an understatement, the CIA estimated in 1958 that the Soviets had:

'the technical and industrial capability ... to have an operational capability with 100 ICBMs" some time in 1960, and perhaps 500 ICBMs "some time in 1961, or at the latest in 1962."'

'It is known today that even the CIA's estimate was too high; the actual number of ICBMs, even including interim-use prototypes, was 4'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap

VLM• 11 years ago

"no impact on the balance of power, ie.. not a real new threat"

The new impact was abandoning the Munroe Doctrine, or more accurately re-defining its limitations. OK so on paper we should roll the landing craft and tanks in, but you have nukes so you get a free pass, we'll harass the heck out of you but keep the weapons that directly impact us out of sight and we'll not fight back too hard. There is also some face saving going on that sure there are plenty of leftist orgs with weapons that suspiciously happen to be all from your factories but we can kind of plausibly deny based on plenty of western rifles and even local factory production. But it goes too far WRT saving face to take over and four years later emplace Russian missiles and nukes... we can turn a blind eye to generic infantry rifles but the missiles are a step too far.

Another way to look at it is confusion about the borders of the Munroe Doctrine. When it was written the US didn't have hundreds of military bases around the world full of troops and we just did two world wars and we're fighting brushfire conflicts all over the planet. Suddenly partitioning the globe by hemisphere into ours and theirs and never the two shall meet doesn't seem so fair or realistic. So newly negotiated result of the post crisis Munroe Doctrine is the Russians can do behind the scene and adviser stuff right up to our borders, but strategic weapons were a step too far at that time (although it would have been more fair to let them do in Cuba what we did in Turkey, that was just too big of a step at that time)

Now debating the sanity or wisdom or ethics of the Munroe Doctrine is a whole nother kettle of fish, but given it, there are some interpretations based on it that shouldn't be missed. Pre-crisis, this is our hemisphere, keep out, because we don't get involved in foreign entanglements. Post-crisis, well, yeah, we get into all kinds of foreign entanglements and the new line in the sand is no permanently emplaced strategic weapons in our hemisphere, fair or right or not, its the new line in the sand and the other guys agreed to it.

cstross• 11 years ago

Ah yes: the Monroe Doctrine which was, in effect, the unilateral declaration of a USAn hemispheric imperial hegemony -- that is, that the USA would respond as an imperial power to attempts by rival imperial powers to encroach on "its" territory (territory including other nations such as Argentina and Canada).

veddox4• 11 years ago

USSR putting nuclear missles 90 miles off the coast of Florida had no impact on the balance of power, ie.. not a real new threat - which means Kennedy should not have opposed that, at the risk of inflaming tensions. I just don't find that a sensible argument.

The reason the Cuban missiles didn't change the balance of power was because the USSR could have attacked the USA anyway, using Russian-based long range missiles and (especially) submarine-launched missiles. The only difference between the Cuban missiles and the other two types were that the Cuban missiles were more visible, so they seemed more dangerous even though they were not.

IkmoIkmo2• 11 years ago

Alright so you read the article. You read that the US put nuclear missiles next to Russia, missiles that were visible to the entire world including Russia, aboveground, missiles which are vulnerable and can be destroyed in a first-strike, missiles that are therefore useless as a deterrent, and only useful as a first-strike weapon. Combined with ridiculous levels of paranoia and threats against the USSR and Cuba, and the invasion of Cuba, assassination attacks and constant provocations, and that this fuelled the Soviet's interest in positioning something similar in Cuba, and Cuba's interest in having some kind of deterrence to the multiple acts of aggression including a full-scale invasion. You already read that the USSR suggested and agreed to a peaceful missile trade that eventually happened, and that this was a reasonable course of action from the get-go, without the necessity of a confrontation which was fuelled by JFK's actions in the first place. And you also read that instead they forced a confrontation regardless, a confrontation that put half the world on the brink of destruction. How can you still not think Kennedy caused the confrontation/crisis? Not only did he cause it, but he also made sure not to avoid such a risky confrontation when it wasn't strategically necessary.

As for 'Kennedy shouldn't have opposed that', the article touches on it when it quotes Kennedy as saying he shouldn't have said the soviets couldn't have those missiles a few weeks earlier, and infers he now has to stick with it for domestic consumption because he'd be flip-flopping, not good after already being humiliated on Cuba, after running a campaign partially driven by hawkish views on Cuba. So Kennedy agrees with you that it makes no sense, and the article touches on the fact the Soviet position made sense, and that the European position disagreed with Kennedy, and that his own staff told him the threat wasn't significant, and the article also touches on the fact the Kennedies wanted to keep this a secret because it was a political, not a strategic move, and so part of his staff was kept in the dark (even the VC), part of the white house lied to congress, they pressured the Soviets to keep it in the dark and even went so far as to retrieve a letter that would expose it all if it was ever leaked, that tells you a lot.

RodericDay• 11 years ago

In the 1960 presidential election, Kennedy had cynically attacked Richard Nixon from the right, claiming that the Eisenhower-Nixon administration had allowed a dangerous “missile gap” to grow in the U.S.S.R.’s favor. But in fact, just as Eisenhower and Nixon had suggested—and just as the classified briefings that Kennedy received as a presidential candidate indicated—the missile gap, and the nuclear balance generally, was overwhelmingly to America’s advantage.

I'm glad stuff like this would not happen in 2015

fredkbloggs2• 11 years ago

I'm glad stuff like this would not happen in 2015

There is one thing that would never happen today: a Democrat attacking from the right, or for that matter talking about military strategy at all. Of course, the Republicans don't seem interested in talking about China, either. It's the new third rail of American politics.

arethuza3• 11 years ago

Kennedy was sensitive to the accusation that he was an "appeaser" as his father has been US ambassador to the UK at the time of the Munich agreement and had supported a policy of appeasing the Nazis.

General Curtis Le May even said to Kennedy "It will lead right to war. This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich."

js2• 11 years ago

(2013). This article is a review/excerpt of http://www.amazon.com/Cuban-Missile-Crisis-American-Memory/d... by Sheldon Stern, a former historian at the JFK library in Boston.

Two earlier books by the author:

http://www.amazon.com/Week-World-Stood-Still-Stanford/dp/080...

http://www.amazon.com/Averting-Final-Failure-Meetings-Stanfo...

Some of the source material is available here:

http://millercenter.org/presidentialrecordings/kennedy

veddox4• 11 years ago

I like the comparison to the current China situation at the end of the article. It's true, China's military power and aggression are always being hyped, but when you get down to it, when is the last time you heard about a Chinese cruiser in the Mediterranean, or a Chinese aircraft carrier off Greenland? And yet the States are moving their naval task forces across the world all the time.

Perhaps we really are experiencing a similar twisting of the public view of military politics as happened back then.

harmegido• 11 years ago

I think this is absolutely what is meant by the value of history being in preventing previous mistakes.

The lessons here could also likely be applied to Iran.

nl2• 11 years ago

While I agree with your point, accuracy is important even when it undermines what I'm agreeing with.

when is the last time you heard about a Chinese cruiser in the Mediterranean

"On the Chinese side, the vessels involved were fewer in number but consisted of newer models including two Type 054A frigates, the Linyi and Weifang. Type 054A frigates are multirole warships and have been deployed for anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden since 2009. Also, among other tasks, in January 2014, a ship of the same class was sent to escort Syrian chemical weapons destined for destruction. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) currently has 18 Type 054A frigates in service. The third Chinese vessel to participate in Joint Sea 2015 was the Type 903 replenishment ship Weishanhu."[1]

Ok, it was two frigates instead of a cruiser, but still...

or a Chinese aircraft carrier off Greenland. I haven't heard of that. But:

"Five Chinese navy ships are currently operating in the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska, Pentagon officials said Wednesday, marking the first time the U.S. military has seen Chinese naval activity in the area.... “This would be a first in the vicinity of the Aleutian Islands,” one defense official said of the Chinese ships, which have been operating in international waters. “I don’t think we’d characterize anything they’re doing as threatening,” the official said."[2]

[1] http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/china-and-russia-conclude-nav...

[2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-watches-as-chinese-navy...

Retric• 11 years ago

If you look at a globe the Bering sea is close to China. Greenland is easily 4 times as far away.

veddox4• 11 years ago

Hm, thanks for pointing these occasions out, I had never actually heard about them!

tomohawk• 11 years ago

No, but they are building a military installation far out in the south china sea, and making claims that well established shipping lanes of strategic importance to many countries are now owned by them. They have harassed, threatened, and sunk Vietnamese, Filipino, and other countries sovereign vessels and aircraft. This is naked, calculated aggression to achieve territorial aims.

On the other hand, the US has treaty commitments to many countries for mutual self defense, and is probably over committed.

rrggrr• 11 years ago

The Chinese military stopped US forces cold during the Korea war, a feat the Russians never accomplished. Chinese contributions in material, training and personnel led to Vietnam's victory during its war. Until Ukraine Russia was unable to take and hold territory after WWII. China's accomplishments in cyberespionage against the US are unmatched, and you won't find Chinese hardware running global telecom networks. Everyone relies upon Chinese manufacturing for the elements of basic military supply. In sum, Russia presented a real danger of global war by accident or incompetence. China presents a real danger to its neighbors for reasons that would make this post tl;dr.

curiousjorge2• 11 years ago

incorrect about vietnam war, it was Soviet efforts that made US air power useless because of an American spy gave out the codes and Soviets knew ahead of time where the strikes would take place and advise their VietCong fighters to launch in the air.

cafard• 11 years ago

And after the US left, China tried its own little invasion of Vietnam, and suffered badly.

ClintEhrlich5• 11 years ago

I submitted this piece to HN because it exemplifies how useful falsehoods can permeate a free society. We laugh at North Korean propaganda, and rightly so. But if a well informed Russian watched Thirteen Days, I'm sure he would find it a laugh-inducing example of American nationalist indoctrination.

All of us think we know the story, but few Americans have ever had occasion to consider some basic questions, such as: Why was it acceptable for America to place nuclear missiles near Russia, but not for Russia to respond by placing nuclear missiles near America?

The Cuban Missile Crisis also offers a humbling illustration of how American democracy rarely passes accurate judgment on the performance of the president. No matter how many justifications or excuses one makes for Kennedy's choices, there remains one inescapable fact: He brought the world as close to nuclear annihilation as it has ever come.

The successful "quarantine" that hagiographies of J.F.K. recount as his greatest diplomatic achievement almost destroyed the world, when American destroyers began dropping depth charges near a Soviet submarine in international waters. The submarine's captain ordered the launch of a nuclear torpedo, and his decision was affirmed by the sub's political officer — which normally would be enough to authorize the use of a nuclear weapon.

Why wasn't the world transformed into a sphere of radioactive ice? Pure Serendipity. The commander of the Soviet flotilla happened to be present on the submarine, and he was able to convince his comrades to stand down.

Thus, the man we owe our lives to is not Kennedy, our national icon, but rather a guy named Василий Архипов, whom most Americans will never hear about. I named my cat "Vasili" in his honor.

Sometimes, when I'm petting him, I think about the constant gulf between perception and reality that I have witnessed firsthand. How often do we think that the right people receive credit or blame when software breaks or corporations implode? Why would we expect verism to prevail in even higher stakes domains, like world history?

I stand by what I wrote a couple years ago: "[T]he highest entropy fields are also the ones with the highest stakes for society. For example, what were the consequences of American intervention against the Central Powers in World War I? They are difficult to fathom precisely because they were so immense. The problem is a combination of 'causal density' and 'holistic integration.' The more variables a decision affects, the harder it is to untangle the resulting chain of cause and effect. And if its consequences are far reaching, then there is rarely an opportunity to perform controlled experiments.

Thus, the experts who offer opinions about the momentous issues of our times are precisely those in whom we should have the least confidence. Their fields may appear prestigious because they involve matters of global importance, but there is a corollary decrease in the reliability of their insights."

dpweb2• 11 years ago

Why was it acceptable for America to place nuclear missiles near Russia, but not for Russia to respond by placing nuclear missiles near America.

Can you explain how this is different from the statement, how is it acceptable for the US to have an atomic bomb, and Hitler doesn't?

chipsy• 11 years ago

Both statements are hyperbolic, but the original is tongue-in-cheek and is saying that these moral judgments, themselves, are not logical. It also makes an elitist gut punch at the American mindset, too, but I'll forgive it.

If either statement were meant to be logical, it would have to be judged by applying some rationalistic framework like a utilitarian ethics, and summing up every potential achievement or atrocity into a total, so that one party might be declared more responsible with their nukes.

(We don't do this, so when such a dilemma is presented, it's entirely for a rhetorical purpose - either to sway an unthinking audience, or to demonstrate a fallacy in action.)

lmm• 11 years ago

I don't think anyone claims that Hitler unilaterally escalated WWII to the nuclear level, or that it was particularly immoral for Hitler to try to develop nuclear weapons.

snowmaker• 11 years ago

Side note: that is probably the best "pet name" story I've ever heard. I want to name my next cat Vasili now too.

You're obviously very knowledgeable about this topic. Is there a book you could recommend that tells the true story of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

ClintEhrlich5• 11 years ago

I have a limited amount of time to learn about history, so I prefer to focus on original sources instead of reading descriptions by historians. When you review the source material yourself, you place yourself on the same level as the participants in the events. It can change your perspective in surprising ways.

Here are the most important documents from the Cuban Missile Crisis: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/docs.htm

dingaling• 11 years ago

The submarine's captain ordered the launch of a nuclear torpedo, and his decision was affirmed by the sub's political officer — which normally would be enough to authorize the use of a nuclear weapon.

It sounds scary, but in fact there was quite a lot of procedural tolerance for the use of underwater nuclear devices; they wouldn't have crossed the NATO 'tripwire', for example, whereas using a tactical nuke of the same yield on land would have done so.[0]

Hence it doesn't automatically follow that the release of a nuclear torpedo would have escalated beyond the tactical level.

[0] In fact just months after the Cuban crisis the Canadian forces began an investigation as to whether they should up-gauge to nuclear anti-submarine weapons, simply to overcome targeting and effectiveness problems.

ClintEhrlich5• 11 years ago

I think it was pretty damn scary, and I would be very interested to see any sources you know about that suggest otherwise. I'm not being sarcastic, I really would appreciate a link if you have one. I have read some arguments about why the Russian submarine captain was not actually committed to using the nuclear torpedo, but nothing about the risk of escalation having been low.

Based on my memory of the Cold War literature, there was quite a bit of concern about a naval nuclear exchange triggering strategic nuclear war. A quick search seemed to confirm my recollection: "[T]he doctrines and operational procedures associated with sea-based nuclear weapons are subject to less well-defined thresholds and, in some cases, are quite provocative. Moreover, there are good reasons for believing that the first use of nuclear weapons could take place at sea, and for concern that the escalation dynamics of nuclear warfare in this theater are far less constrained than those that would attend nuclear operations on land." (Ball, Desmond. "Nuclear war at sea." International Security (1985): 3-31.)

The risk of escalation would have been intensified during the missile crisis, because the underlying dispute involved strategic weapons. If a Soviet nuclear weapon destroyed an American carrier battle group, at minimum the U.S. would have retaliated with tactical nuclear weapons. And there would be significant pressure to target land-based military installations in order to achieve a proportionate response, because the Soviets were so much less dependent on their Navy than the U.S. At that point, all bets are off, particularly given the Soviet's proclivity for interpreting any American action in the worst possible light.

Escalation to extinction-level global nuclear war was certainly not guaranteed, but it was arguably the most probable outcome. One cannot reasonably dispute that it was well within the realm of possibility.

CamperBob22• 11 years ago

I don't find this credible in the least. Any nuclear shenanigans would have pushed the leadership of one or both countries over the brink.

Never mind the American response. On a game-theoretic basis, it would have made sense for the Soviets to follow up the submarine attack with an immediate overwhelming strike, even if they had no idea what (if anything) provoked the torpedo launch in the first place.

tempestn• 11 years ago

This is an entertaining read and demonstrates how it might have gone down had that first shot been fired: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=...

CamperBob22• 11 years ago

But if a well informed Russian watched Thirteen Days, I'm sure he would find it a laugh-inducing example of American nationalist indoctrination.

I didn't think Thirteen Days was that unbalanced. It didn't portray a unilateral victory for the steadfast Americans, but made it clear that both sides made compromises to end the crisis.

Thirteen Days left me with an overwhelming impression of extreme arrogance on both sides. Who are you people, and who gave you the power of life and death over an entire planet? It's a good movie IMHO, and you're doing it a disservice by lumping it in with the usual jingoistic propaganda flicks from Hollywood.

ClintEhrlich5• 11 years ago

It was a movie that I enjoyed when it came out, which is why I was troubled when I later learned the full extent of American responsibility for the crisis.

First, before Jupiter missiles were deployed to Turkey, the question was raised in Congress of what our response would be if the Soviets responded by placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. Deployment of the Jupiter missiles was particularly provocative, because they were incapable of surviving a counter-force attack, so their only logical purpose was a first-strike capacity against the Soviet Union.

Second, the declassified EXCOMM transcripts include all sorts of shocking moments. At one point, JFK commented that the Soviets were acting as if we had deployed missiles to Turkey... at which point someone had to remind him that we had done exactly that. It's possible that the drugs he was taking for his back injury seriously impaired his cognitive ability.

Within the White House, it was openly acknowledged that the missiles were of no military significance, and that the "crisis" was a matter of public perception. Yet RFK still advocated a full invasion of Cuba! Is that in Thirteen Days? (Honest question)

Third, the very fact that the movie left you with an impression of mutual arrogance demonstrates that it misled you. The Soviets' deployment of the missiles was a completely reasonable response to (1) the attempted invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and (2) American missiles in Turkey and Italy. And they offered to honor the principle of reciprocity, which America was striving to violate during the entirety of crisis, until finally succumbing to reason and cutting the original tit-for-tat deal that the Soviets wanted in the first place.

In a sense, the fact that Thirteen Days is a facially credible movie makes it that much more misleading than transparently jingoistic action flicks. Viewers are more likely to accept its version of history, no matter how slanted.

veddox4• 11 years ago

Vasili was not the only one to avoid nuclear war:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/stanislav-petrov_n_...

tl;dr Stanislav Petrov was a Soviet officer working in a satellite recon unit tasked with discovering US nuclear missile launches. One day the system told him that five American rockets had been launched. Proper procedure would have been to inform his superiors so they could strike back. However, he speculated that the warning system was malfunctioning (it was) and did nothing.

Shtirlic2• 11 years ago

it's interesting, because they are doing it again via placing missile defense complexes with attacking potential in Europe.

sgt101• 11 years ago

How can missile interceptors be used to attack an enemy power?

Shtirlic2• 11 years ago

"On 13 December 2001, President of the US, George W. Bush gave Russia a 6-month notice of US intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty so that the United States could pursue development of the program at that time known as National Missile Defense (NMD)-already under way, in potential violation of US INF treaty obligations"

Synaesthesia2• 11 years ago

They could prevent a retaliatory strike and thus are a first strike weapon.

emp_zealoth• 11 years ago

The bigger issue is that Russians now have midrange nuclear capable missiles right outside EU, never mind flying nuclear bombers from museum all the way to UK

uniformlyrandom• 11 years ago

It is a stance toward the world that can easily doom the United States to military commitments and interventions in strategically insignificant places over intrinsically trivial issues

Can?

curiousjorge2• 11 years ago

Read this in the book about him, Kennedy also had a "back pain" problem originating from the time where his patrol boat capsized and he barely lived through the WW2 war with Japan, and that drove him to stardom when he hit it off well with the moms who had their sons lost in the war.

The self prescription for Kennedy's back pain? Pussy from many different women.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was directly on Kennedy's hands, he directed the bombers and invasion based on his time zone and forgot to adjust it for cuban which resulted in b-52 bombers being decimated and the entire invasion blowing up.

greedo• 11 years ago

Sigh. B-52 bombers were not used in Cuba. B-26/A-26 were. Please try to at least be marginally accurate, lest the rest of your points be ignored.

D-Coder• 11 years ago

Also, I doubt that the President set up the hour-by-hour invasion planning.

tome• 11 years ago

The leap from the specific to the general is enormous here. It's certainly an interesting account of how the Cuban missile crisis became a crisis because of the Kennedys' political aspirations, not because of the machinations of the Soviets. However, there is then what seems to be a completely unjustified jump to the criticism of American global military strategy in general and I can't see how that's warranted.

EDIT: BTW, there are lots of interesting dissenting opinions in the comments section of the article.

The Real Cuban Missile Crisis (2013)

Related Stories