4 ms·

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 mentali

by dpweb 11y 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.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fredkbloggs 11y 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.
- arethuza 11y 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.
arethuza 11y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap
VLM 11y 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 11y 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).
  - 11y ago
veddox 11y 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.
IkmoIkmo 11y 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.

by dpweb 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fredkbloggs 11y 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.

arethuza 11y 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.

arethuza 11y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap

VLM 11y 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 11y 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).
- 11y ago

veddox 11y 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.

IkmoIkmo 11y 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.