free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

carterp · Joined: 22 Nov 2009 Posts: 6

Even though I was in the blockade option group, I honestly believe that it was the best option. As is outlined in the reading the U.S. is unsure of what it is up against, and the blockade leaves the most room for maneuvering depending on what the situation turns out to be. The blockade demonstrated a strong resolve by the U.S. to not tolerate nuclear missiles in Cuba, and apparently surprised Khrushchev as he "had simply not considered the possibility that the United States would react as strongly as it did." I see the results of the blockade as the best possible outcome that we could have hoped from such a dire situation. We successfully negotiated with the U.S.S.R. for the removal of the missiles while still maintaining or position of power and most importantly without loss of life. Also the negotiations left hope of further talks with the Soviets.
But while I read this I was dissapointed that the United States was so conceded that it was not willing to sacrifice a few land based missiles that were already becoming outdated to prevent a possible nuclear world war. If it were not for Khrushchev recognizing that his decision meant either peace or certain destruction for the modern world then the situation could have rapidly turned into a escalating eye for an eye contest that would inevitable result in the use of nuclear weapons. Kennedy choose to gamble with the lives of the american people on the Soviet leaders good will, while he had the opportunity for the guaranteed solution of sacrificing missiles in Turkey. To me this seems irresponsible and reckless, and all for the purpose of showing the world that you are superior to a country on the other side of the planet.
Referring to Junes question, I think the U.S. knew it had greater nuclear capabilities but it was not really about the nuclear weapons, it was about who could manipulate who, and the U.S. did not want to look inferior by playing into the U.S.S.R.s manipulation. As was mentioned towards the end of the packet, "Khrushchev felt Soviet missiles in Cuba would serve as a response to the deployment of U.S. missiles in Turkey." And of course having nuclear missiles 90 miles of the shore of a country allows you to have leverage over them, thus he could use them as bargaining chips to have the U.S. do what he needed. But Kennedy sidestepped this thought process with the strong (and angry) response of a blockade.

Do you think that the Cuban Missile Crisis would have had the same results had the U.S. approached the situation purely diplomatically?

spsmith · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 8

To Anna’s question, I think that Cuba did want the weapons as a means of defense. The whole this seemed like a miscommunication to me. The Cubans and Russians thought that the US was going to attack again, which does not seem unreasonable seeing as they had tried it once and failed. I think that installing the weapons in Cuba made the most sense to that country at the time. I think that if that had been known to the US then a more diplomatic route would have been taken to clear up the miss communication.

I think that it’s interesting that the US is fine with pointing their military at any one but as soon as we are in danger, the whole situation is out of control and we need to take action.

I don’t understand why the US kept the blockade up even after an agreement was in place with the Soviet Union. That seemed like overkill to me— Also, with the letters that Khrushchev sent to Kennedy, why did Kennedy choose to ignore the second letter and only respond to the first?

Free Forum