What can we learn from the Cuban missile crisis 50 years after the fact? From the realities of containment to the need for a strong Navy to the role of multilateralism in a crisis, these nine insights get at the heart of what America can learn today from its closest brush with nuclear war.
For the 50th anniversary of what historians agree was the most dangerous moments in human history, Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Foreign Policy magazine sponsored a contest for scholars and citizens to reflect on the lessons of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and its lessons for challenges the U.S. faces today. Today, we’re happy to announce our three winners: Zachary Elias, Reid Pauly, and Eden Rose Niles. Their challenge was to present the most persuasive, original lesson flowing from the confrontation that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war over 13 days in October 1962. Below, we’ve collected the top three finalists in three categories — the general public, scholars, and students — and presented their insight into the crisis.
Category #1: General Public
Winner: Zachary Elias, Dartmouth College, undergraduate, Hanover, NH
Lesson: The Cuban missile crisis taught the United States what containment feels like.
The lesson from the crisis is the extent to which containment is terrifying for the country being contained. Because the U.S. had been a global military superpower since the end of World War II, it had never faced an existential threat close to its borders. At the time, U.S. nuclear missiles were stationed in range of Soviet cities as a means of containment — but, for U.S. policymakers, it was unthinkable that the U.S. could end up in a similar position. So, when the USSR decided to raise the stakes by placing its own nuclear missiles in range of American cities, U.S. policymakers were inclined to compromise with the Russians on containment policy — trading nuclear warheads in Turkey for those in Cuba — to lessen the direct military threat posed to each nation by one another.
This is a lesson to keep in mind when deliberating the best means of dealing with rising powers. When making policy concerning the rise of China, for example, one would do well to remember that military containment and antagonism makes the contained country feel threatened, which in turn makes aggression more likely in response to U.S. provocations. It took trust, diplomacy, and compromise to resolve a crisis that was precipitated by military buildup, as dictated by standard realist power calculus. While it is unlikely that China will be able to challenge U.S. power as the USSR did during the Cold War, one should remain cognizant of the fact that surrounding another state with military threats is less likely to spur long-term trust and cooperation — which, in an era of cooperative globalization, is more important than ever.
Robert Walsh, global financial crime officer, AXA Group, New York, NY
Lesson: In a democracy, the need for broad public support to engage in a dangerous confrontation can have lasting unintended foreign policy consequences. One example is foreign policy tunnel vision that can last for generations because of "accepted truths" trumpeted to justify the confrontation.
Since 1962 U.S. foreign policy stewards have been hamstrung on Cuba, because so much patriotic capital was invested in villainizing Soviet Cuba and Fidel Castro. The martyrdom of JFK compounded this by making it unholy to question his taking us to the brink. It remains near-treasonous to suggest negotiations with Fidel Castro. Two comparisons help make this argument: Vietnam and Japan. While the Vietnam War traded on American patriotism in a similar way to the Missile Crisis, the success of that rallying cry was mixed, and petered out feebly at the end. Yet that enabled, in only 40 years, the U.S. to make friends with the same regime in Vietnam as was in power at the end of that war. Contrast that with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. patriotism necessarily invoked at that time, and since, has rendered it verboten in polite company to ask if perhaps the U.S. should not have dropped those bombs. It is not politically astute to disagree with the notion that the use of such bombs "is justified in the right circumstances." Today the U.S. enjoys tremendous solidarity with the EU, the U.N. and other countries on international embargo programs regarding Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Sudan — but the U.S. stands alone on Cuba. Not even our closest allies agree with the U.S. sanctions on Cuba. In 1962, in priming its population for a dangerous confrontation, the U.S. painted itself into a corner with respect to future dealings with Cuba and Fidel Castro.
Jacob Schroeder, advertising copyeditor, Chicago, IL
Lesson: As a conflict develops, minor actors play the biggest roles. A man who made one of the most remarkable decisions during the Cuban missile crisis did not have the famed name of John Kennedy or Nikita Khruschev, but rather the unremarkable name of Vasili Arkhipov. As deputy commander of a Soviet submarine in need of oxygen and perilously encircled by the U.S. Navy, he urged his superior to take the vessel to the surface for air instead of engaging American warships with its armed nuclear torpedo in an attempt to flee. What if Arkhipov had chose to say nothing? That alternative outcome is easy, yet horrific, to imagine. It is true, a single man smoking a cigarette can burn an entire parched forest and likewise, during crisis, one minor actor can effect major sequences. While world leaders command in crises, they do not sail the ships or pull the triggers. Thus, it is imperative that statesmen be aware of minor actors in the background or better yet, in military terms, the minor actors on the ground — be it generals or privates, diplomats or secretaries, or in today’s interconnected world galvanized by social media, a single citizen — and the roles that they play. Inevitably, they are bigger than one would surmise. Unfortunately, however, the name of an actor like Arkhipov will always live in obscurity under the shadow of actors named Kennedy or Khruschev.
Category #2: Scholars/Practitioners
Winner: Reid Pauly, research assistant to Scott Sagan at Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford, Stanford, CA
Lesson: Multilateralism is key. One rarely hears scholars or policymakers cite the CMC as a success of multilateralism, but we would be wise to reflect on its importance during October 1962. While hindsight can tell us that a naval blockade of Cuba was a good decision, recall that blockades constitute acts of war. The ExComm thus made two important decisions on October 22, 1962 regarding the blockade: (1) they softened the label to "quarantine" (also the term "blockade" brought back memories of 1948 Berlin); (2) they sought legal justification of the quarantine through the Organization of American States. Of course, the U.S. could have imposed a blockade without approval, but instead it aligned its decision with international norms by invoking the OAS charter’s right to take collective action in the face of an "armed attack or…an act of aggression that is not an armed attack" in the hemisphere. These nuanced decisions made it difficult for Khrushchev to justifiably interpret American actions as escalatory acts of war. Furthermore, Adlai Stevenson’s presentation of photographic evidence to the U.N. Security Council legitimized American military mobilization by framing the crisis as an act of Soviet aggression in front of, as Stevenson said, "the court of world opinion." The U.S. then made good use of U.N. channels to facilitate clear communication of messages to the Soviets, like specifications for the size of the quarantine zone. These decisions, while minimized in the retelling of such a dramatic tale, were crucial to the successful receding of tensions. Multilateralism provides added benefits, such as creating a marketplace of policy ideas, testing the morality of alternatives, and the legitimating of threats and the use of force. While there are many important lessons to learn from the dark days of October 1962, one we often ignore is that multilateralism is key.
Lieutenant Douglas Gates, Instructor, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Lesson: A flexible and varied military force, including a strong navy, gives policymakers a wide range of response options.
A few years before the Cuban missile crisis, the military underwent a significant debate to determine its post-war future. Would the advent of new technologies, specifically strategic bombers and nuclear weapons, make other weapons obsolete, or would there continue to be a role for the infantry and warships?
The Cuban missile crisis demonstrated that continuing to equip the nation’s military with a vast array of capabilities and warfare specialties was still valuable because it gave the president several options with which to respond to the situation. While the Air Force immediately demanded offensive air strikes and the Army suggested a ground invasion, the Navy provided a scaled response that sent an effective signal without the use of violence. A naval option kept Americans off of Cuban soil and out of immediate danger, and yet showed enough American resolve to convince the Soviets that the battle wasn’t worth fighting. Because the American response was offshore and out of sight of the Cubans, it deescalated tensions while simultaneously applying pressure on Soviet leadership."
Dr. Christopher Bright, staffer on Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives, Oakton, VA
Lesson: Crisis management may require upending long-established military doctrine, plans, and policies.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, thousands of nuclear antiaircraft weapons were deployed around dozens of cities and defense sites in the United States. These surface-to-air missiles and air-to-air arms existed because the large and lethal aerial blast they produced offered the greatest chance of destroying nuclear-laden attacking Soviet bombers. The military had the authority to use these weapons without presidential consultation if commanders believed an attack was underway. For five years, the widespread and ready expenditure of defensive nuclear arms to counter a nuclear air raid had been the basis upon which air defense units had been trained, equipped, and operated.
The crisis spurred military leaders to make changes. The discovery of IL-28 bombers (erroneously believed to be conventionally armed) in Cuba induced quick preparations to guard against a non-nuclear strike on the southeastern U.S. Existing arrangements, with the possibility of defensive nuclear expenditure, dangerously raised the risk of escalation. This was so, especially if nuclear use resulted from a lower-level decision, and even if it occurred over the United States.
Therefore, despite objections from the North American Air Defense Command, air defense forces protecting Florida were prohibited from using nuclear arms. Unlike units at permanent emplacements in other states, the Army antiaircraft battery hurriedly established near Miami was equipped only with conventional missiles. Similarly, Air Force fighters flown to Florida did not carry nuclear weapons like those fitted to the balance of the interceptor force. These actions required overcoming many challenges, including instituting new directives and obtaining sufficient munitions.
The new arrangements contravened long-standing procedures. However, leaders thought they were necessary. Rather than being rigidly devoted to existing plans, officials acutely perceived their limitations and deftly ensured that alternatives were properly developed and implemented.
Category #3: Grades 6-12
Winner: Eden Rose Niles, Colorado Academy High School, Denver, CO
Lesson: During a crisis, when military action is viable as a first response, the morality of using weapons to reach a resolution must be considered in order to prevent a catalyst for greater conflict and subsequent death.
RFK initially believed an air strike was the only option. However, after considering the morality of a strike, RFK recognized that it could turn crisis into global conflict. Consequently, his decision to oppose the strike allowed for a patient approach and consideration of the broader moral issue. This provided time for Kennedy’s administration to weigh non-lethal options, eventually culminating in the quarantine, and more importantly allowing for international diplomacy to be the source of resolution. My lesson draws from how missiles and other modern weapons do not require tedious preparations but rather can be deployed at the push of a button. Accordingly, leaders must consider morality carefully before choosing military action as a first response. This ensures that empathy for fellow humans remains in our actions. Due to the empathy cultivated through the moral question, Kennedy knew violent actions would receive violent reactions. Deciding to refrain from weapons and working with the Soviets diplomatically resolved tensions without losing lives.
In today’s crises, weapons evolve to allow even less connection between those who employ violence and those who receive its consequence. Maintaining the question of morality is increasingly important to ensure that military action does not abandon the human element and thus inspire new enemies. This is especially true when there is seemingly less time to consider non-lethal options before media and politics drown out sober and patient approaches to resolution.
Marija Trajanoska, NOVA International School, Skopje, Macedonia
Lesson: Avoidance of nuclear confrontation has no alternatives and therefore alternatives to nuclear confrontation should be sought; forethought leaders know that some decisions may as well be — final.
My lesson from the crisis is reduced to a universal truth that the world just cannot afford to resort to nuclear confrontation. All other lessons are secondary: no subsequent lesson holds any worth if reckless decisions lead to self-destruction.
Fifty years since the Cuban missile crisis, however, this universal truth is still not universal enough as the world continues to be terrified from the power of weapons for mass destruction. In 1962, key players took their time to think about the alternatives, see through what was not obvious, and respond with foresight and leadership. Back then, people seemed to have gone back to their senses.
Today, 50 years of high technology and innovation in between, statesmen can still choose to appeal to their own reason to decide what decisions they make. Today, more than ever, leaders should be reminded that some decisions can only be made once and for all. Evidently, some human species-generated decisions may as well turn out to be truly and finitely — final.
So, statesmen should remember to seek creative solutions to the peace and war challenges of today, while honoring the lessons from the Cuban missile crisis and keeping consequences in perspective. A sense of urgency is due, of course, before we all face one nuclear crisis too many.
Oliver Xie, Newton South High School, Newton, MA
Lesson: Have a nuke to grind? Think again…
My lesson from The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 is that valuing pride and zero-sum mentality will only result in apocalyptical events. The engine that choo-choo’ed the Cold War to the Missile Crisis was pride. As Russia and the United States fought their zero-sum game of proxy wars that would later devastate Pakistan and create Al Qaeda, they were blinded by nationalism and pride. Had Russia and America come to cooperate earlier, hegemony and psychological, soft power would no longer be the current day criterion for success.
As such, American statesmen of today should learn that cooperation is the only path to a brighter tomorrow. Today’s Congress shows what happens when the quest for pride supersedes cooperation. The recent political deadlock is caused by statesmen who reject or pass bills before even reading them because they simply have no intention in letting the opposing party gain power. This zero-sum mentality cannot sustain itself over long periods of time without bipartisanship.
The scope of such a lesson should be further extended into foreign policy. Whether it be the conflicts with our frenemy, China, or the Middle East, statesmen must always recognize that countries can mutually benefit from diplomacy. During the Cuban missile crisis, the effective negotiations between RFK and Dobrynin were possible because they valued common ground, allowing them to set aside win-loss mentality and nationalistic pride for a desperate yet effective solution.
The Cuban missile crisis was not an issue of good versus evil. It stands now as a test of how far Humans would go before abandoning zero-sum mentality and pride. However, it shouldn’t take risking millions of lives before coming to an agreement. Find the common ground right from the beginning.
Tags: Default, Feature, Free, History, Latin America, Military, National Security Slider, North America, Nukes, Web Exclusive
More from Foreign Policy
The Study of Berlin Blockade and Cuban missile Crisis
- Length: 553 words (1.6 double-spaced pages)
- Rating: Excellent
The Study of Berlin Blockade and Cuban missile Crisis
The USSR never wanted a well-built Germany. They had been invaded
twice by Germany, and the thought of building up her strength alarmed
When the Deutschmark was introduced as legal tender throughout Western
Germany and Western Berlin, the Soviets drew the line. The USSR cut
off all road and rail routes that led to allied controlled sectors of
Berlin. The allies were unsure as to how to respond to this. If they
left West Berlin, the Soviets would invade without doubt. They had to
decide carefully, having just come out of a world war, they had no
intention of dragging themselves into a serious situation. There was a
tiny air corridor that led from the Western sectors of Germany, into
the heart of Western Berlin. The allies decided to use this air
corridor to transport rations by plane. This was risky for both sides;
the allies could not determine the USSR’s response. However, the only
way for the Soviets to stop this transportation of food was to shoot
the plane down. As the air corridor was not restricted air space, this
would be an act of war. Whether the Soviets wanted war or not, was
The airlift operation was called “Operation Vittles.” Massive ten ton
capacity C-54s began to supply the 2,500,000 civilians in western
Berlin with food. Soon enough, planes were flying into Berlin every 3
minutes delivering 5,000 tons of food, a day! In May 1949, Stalin had
little choice but to lift the blockade.
However shocking this may seem, I think personally, it doesn’t even
come into the same league as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
On October 22nd, 1962, a U2 spy plane photographed evidence that
showed the Soviet Union building secret missile bases on Cuba, just 90
miles away from the coast of Florida. Kennedy was produced with a
number of solutions, each one with its practicalities, and severe
risks. It was down to Kennedy to weigh out his options, and decide
between an armed invasion, an air strike on all missile bases or a
How to Cite this Page
| Crisis and Aversion - The Story of Kennedy Essays - Crisis and Aversion - The Story of Kennedy Regarding presidents that have come to pass in the United States, one stands out as the finest. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, known simply as JFK to the public, partook in numerous accomplishments making him one of the best leaders in the history of America. As the only president to win a Pulitzer Prize, Kennedy stands unchallenged with the amount of achievements in his single term. He established the Peace Corps, launched the first man to the moon and resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis.... [tags: peace corps, space, cuban missile crises]|
:: 8 Works Cited
| Essay on Strategizing Through a High-Pressure Period of Time: JFK - Looking at the past presidents in the history of the US, John Fitzgerald Kennedy is easily one of the finest considering his accomplishments. He was known for establishing the Peace Corps, launching the first man to the moon and strategizing his way through the Cuban Missile Crisis. The only president to win a Pulitzer Prize, Kennedy knocks other leaders out of the water with the amount of achievements in his single term. American's today are grateful for Kennedy’s actions during the crisis, whereas the world could have been deceased if one wrong move was made.... [tags: cuban misile crisis, John Kennedy]|
:: 8 Works Cited
| The Significance of the Cuban Missile Crisis Essay - When speaking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy said, "It is insane that two men, sitting on opposite sides of the world, should be able to decide to bring an end to civilization” (“Nuclear Test Ban Treaty” 1). the Cuban Missile Crisis was a time where these two men, Kennedy and Khrushchev, had the power in their hands to end civilization. In order to understand the importance of the Cuban Missile Crisis one must understand, the Cold war drama; the dangerous crisis; and its importance today.... [tags: Cold War, Crisis, Kennedy]|
:: 7 Works Cited
| The Cuban Missile Crisis Essay - In 1962 nuclear war seemed inevitable to the world, it was the first time nuclear war was hanging on a thread. The Cuban Missile Crisis presented a threat to the world, in which the USSR planted nuclear missiles on Cuba. America’s response was to threaten launching nuclear missiles at the Russians. This incident launched the world into a new time, which presented nuclear weapons as a source of power. The incident of the Cuban Missile Crisis still connects with us today because the power nuclear weapons present, which provides incentives for countries to want them.... [tags: crisis, war]|
:: 23 Works Cited
| Unilateral Decision: The Naval Blockade on Cuba Essay - Unilateral Decision: The Naval Blockade on Cuba The naval blockade of Cuba was retaliation from John F Kennedy finding out about the Soviet Union creating secret nuclear missiles on Cuba. The time is October 22, 1962; the State of Union is not at peace. The United States and Soviet Union are in what is known as The Cold War, which lasted from 1945-91. The war leads to international crisis with alliances, naval battles and the Soviet Union, our biggest threat. The peace of the country was not existent at this time, because the naval blockade, which was implemented because John F.... [tags: international crisis, soviet union]|
:: 10 Works Cited
|Crucial Effect Of The Cuban Missile Crisis Essay - Since the Cuban Revolution of 1959, tension and problematic situations have arose between the United States and Cuba (US-Cuba Relations 1). Before America helped Cuba fight of the Spanish for their independence, the Americans had strong political and economical affairs within the island (US-Cuba Relations 1). But, since the Cubans created a nation of their own, they blocked the Americans from many freedoms within Cuba (US-Cuba Relations 1). Although there are many examples of the tension between America and Cuba, the Cuban Missile Crisis had the most crucial effect on their long lasting feud.... [tags: History, Nuclear War, Cuban Revolution]||1220 words|
|Thirteen Days: The Cuban Missile Crisis Essay - For thirteen days, the United States held its breath, fearing the ultimate destruction of the nation by nuclear weapons. This was the Cuban missile crisis, a struggle fought between the world's two largest superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, which nearly provoked a nuclear catastrophe on both sides from October 16, to October 28, in 1962. This crisis had been brewing for many years and was sparked by previous issues between the two nations. The United States had been at odds with Communist ideals for many years beginning with the onset of the Cold War.... [tags: Cold War Missile Crisis US History]||1277 words|
|Cuban-Russian Relations Essay - Cuba’s unpredictable shift toward socialism and its growing dependence on the Soviet Union divided both the leadership and the country at large. With a relationship dating back to before Fidel Castro’s installment into power, Russia and Cuba have both played major roles in the development and regression of each other’s economies and societies. The first official diplomatic relationship between the Soviet Union and Cuba began developing during World War II, in 1943. With the establishment of the first Soviet embassy by Maxim Litvinov, stationed in Havana, Cuba; this was after Cuba gained its independence from the United States in 1902 and the Russian Revolution in 1917.... [tags: cuban revolution, cold war]||1721 words|
| Essay on The Cuban Missile Crisis - The Cuban Missile Crisis The Cold War was a time in history when intense rivalry overcame two nations. Many historians agree that the Cold War began in 1945, the end of World War II, and lasted through the late 1980’s. The two opposing sides were the Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States. The Cold War was not a battle involving guns; in fact it was more about power and competition between two groups. Each side thought its political and economic systems were superior to the other. The competition between the Soviet Union and the United States increased which made settling disputes difficult.... [tags: American History Historical Essays]|
:: 4 Works Cited
|Cuban Missile Crisis Analysis Essay - Cuban Missile Crisis Analysis Works Cited Missing The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the most important events in United States history; it’s even easy to say world history because of what some possible outcomes could have been from it. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was a major Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. After the Bay of Pigs Invasion the USSR increased its support of Fidel Castro's Cuban regime, and in the summer of 1962, Nikita Khrushchev secretly decided to install ballistic missiles in Cuba.... [tags: History Historical Cuba Essays]||1445 words|
naval blockade of all further nuclear weapons entering the country.
With an invasion, Russian troops would be killed, and Khrushchev would
be sure to retaliate Soviet loses. An air strike wouldn’t guarantee
the destruction of all missiles, any remaining could easily be
launched, and again retaliation from the USSR would be expected.
Therefore, J. F. Kennedy decided to enforce a naval blockade, whilst
political solutions were traded. In the end, an agreement was reached
by the two countries. The missiles on Cuba were dismantled and shipped
back to the Soviet Union. In return, America had to retrieve their
missiles from Turkey.
What was a bigger threat to world peace, “The Berlin Blockade” or “The
Cuban Missile Crisis?”
Although Stalin enforced the Berlin blockade, a ruthless modern
attempt to cause mass famine to achieve political power, I think that
the Cuban missile crisis was a lot more serious. Not only was the hold
world holding its breath for seven days, but even the strongest
political powers on earth were quiet and bewildered. The options that
Kennedy was produced with were complicated, and the aftermath could
have been devastating. Had Kennedy chosen to launch an armed invasion,
Khrushchev gave orders that nuclear missiles should be fired at
America. An air strike would only have lead to many more problems. The
blockade was risky, whether or not the Soviet ships would stop at the
line was unsure, and if they didn’t the American ships would have to
retaliate or else they would appear incredibly weak, with no backup to
their authority. The Soviet ships did stop however. But when trying to
compromise, denial to the UN and inconsiderable alternative
cooperation’s occurred, making everything very difficult. In the end
an agreement was reached and the world could breathe again. Despite
the shocking motives of the Berlin Blockade, at no point was there
such a difficult decision to make, like the one made by Kennedy in
October 1962. The Berlin Blockade was nowhere near being such a tense
situation as the Cuban missile crisis, and at no point in history has
the world been so close to nuclear war.