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

Mfischhoff · Joined: 14 Sep 2009 Posts: 51

Please reflect on your reading and write at least 100 to 200 words in response. Include at least one question for your peers. Please try to respond to someone else's post. Here are some questions to get the juices flowing:

How did our class debate and Kennedy decision compare to the "real thing"? Why do you think Kennedy chose (in both situations) to impose a blockade? Was that the best option? What were the lasting effects of this decision?

Free Forum

eeschneider · Joined: 16 Oct 2009 Posts: 30

Our class debate went the same way as it did in the reading. Kennedy decided to go with the blockade (or "quarantine") method of dealing with the Cuban missile crisis. After this reading I can see how this was an effective method, but in the beginning when Khrushchev was at first angry I thought there was no way we'd get out of this alive and there was going to be a nuclear war. Well obviously not, but I read history books like I read fiction novels (I never know how it's going to end). In the end though we see that the U.S. and the Soviets both don't want to start a nuclear war, which I found pleasing knowing there is some hope for humanity and not all leaders of countries are crazy war heads. I think the blockade option and the diplomacy option were both the best way equally. Without the blockade I don't think the United Stated would have gotten the Soviet Unions full attention. In the end I think the United States used the diplomatic route. The lasting effects of the Kennedy-Khrushchev decision was that the Soviet Union and the U.S. we're left on pretty good terms, they got that hotline put into their presidential buildings so they can call each other to clear things up, and Cuba was left feeling betrayed by the Soviet Union and still hating the United States. In my opinion the whole Soviet Union, U.S., Cuba thing sounds like a drama you'd see on television or some teen movie.

Does anyone think Cuba will someday not hate the United States?

wquinn · Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 15 Location: undisclosed, MA.

By now, Cuba hating the United States is a time-honored tradition. i don't think it'll ever end.

anyway, The debate went pretty closely with the actual thing, i think. I like how 'blockade is considered an act of war' came up right in the first paragraph: good researching, Alec.

I think blockade is the option any sane man would have chosen. that doesn't mean it was better, but both the other options were too drastic. Too much was left up to dice-rolls. As a 'quarantine', the U.S. gets into a good military position without causing an actual war (well, almost causing one...)

At the end of the cuban missile crisis, Fidel Castro, rather then being relieved, felt betrayed by Khrushchev. This follows the same pattern of Latin America not having any real friends in the war. How do you think this will hurt Cuban relations with the U.S.S.R? How will the other Latin American countries see Cuba

P.S. Actually, i read some political cartoons from the early sixties that talked about this. Castro and Khrushchev were a goat and a pig. Khrushchev was pretending to be Castro's friend but eventually abandons him when they are being chased by a large tabby cat representing the united states. The goat Castro declares 'Five years i wait for you... Nothing!' (of course i had no idea what this was about when i read it in middle school)

mmcgowan18 · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 27

Like Emily said, our debate ended up just like the real Crisis. Almost everything in the first few paragraphs, were points the blockade team used. The events of the Cuban Missile Crisis were the best possible outcome of the situation; so many factors depended on so many different things. If one tiny thing had ended differently, then a nuclear war could have erupted. I think every country ended up making the best decisions for their people. Also like Emily said, neither leader wanted a nuclear war. They didn’t want their people to die or to kill anyone else. Khrushchev wanted to even the playing field when it came to nuclear weapons. But he also exaggerated the strength of their nuclear weapons arsenal, which could have changed the U.S.’s mind about how to deal with the Crisis. The blockade could be represented as a card tower, if one of the cards were out of place the whole thing would have fallen apart.

To answer Will’s question, I think the other Latin American countries were pissed that Cuba put them in that much danger without them knowing about the weapons. They were also afraid that Castro would support “communist guerrilla movements in other Latin America countries.

My question is- Do you think Khrushchev’s motives for putting nuclear weapons in Cuba were just?

cfairless · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

Kennedy's decision to use a blockade as the solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis was definitely the right one. It was incredibly lucky that there wasn't a nuclear war, and I believe that if he had chosen one of the other two options there would have been a nuclear WWIII.

The fact that WWIII was diverted is definitely evidence to support Kennedy's decision. Another confirmation of this is how there were very few lasting effects of this conclusion. The US made peace (sort of) with the Soviet Union, at least to the point where neither was willing to start a nuclear war. The only lasting effect that I can see is the tension that remains between the US and Cuba. This is unfortunate, but really not all that problematic. Cuba is too weak to attack the US, and we don't need to trade with Cuba because we have many other trading partners. Cuba is in no way significant to the US economy.

How important do you think US/Cuba tensions are? As in, how much effort do you think the US should spend to remedy the relationship?

jpressman · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

Wow, Kennedies, we did a good job and picked the real option!

I think Kennedy did the right thing by picking the blockade option. Negotiating through the UN would have given too much power to the Soviets/probably wouldn't have been very effective. Invading Cuba would have been way too drastic of an option to choose, because we would have had no way to predict the outcome of an air raid. The blockade is a good middle ground option.

I can see how Castro felt betrayed by Khrushchev. He was counting on Khrushsev to help him get Cuba out of the United States' shadow. Before the missile crisis, the US made unfair treaties with Cuba/tried to exert control on their government, economy, etc, so I can understand why Castro wanted Khrushchev to help him really make an impression on the US by doing something drastic like negotiating arms deals. But Cuba was left in an even worse position than it had been in before once the missile crisis ended--- the USSR had abandoned it and the US was watching its every move like a suspicious parent. Cuba was protected from invasion, but it's relationship with the USSR was ruined. Plus, it's neighboring countries probably weren't too happy about all the hulabaloo that the missile crisis caused. They too probably wanted some degree of independence from the US, but Cuba's mishandling of the whole situation cast them in a bad light by association.

My question...
Why did Kennedy and Khrushchev make their deal in secret?

helens · Joined: 22 Nov 2009 Posts: 25

Yay! They chose option two anyways. Glad to know I was on that team. But anyways back to the most important things. This reading really explained a lot . In the end this whole problem was caused over misunderstandings. The U.S thought Russia had a lot of bombs when in reality they only had 75 while the U.S had 226! That is quite a difference in my opinion. It got me wondering that if this war actually happened, it would’ve just been based on the fact that each country was threatened by the other (none of them having complete facts). Honestly I’m still not understanding Castro and his intentions. So I just want to clear up, does the U.S have any relations to Cuba? Like do we trade with them at all? Castro just seems stubborn and still threatened. He was prepared even after the Soviet and the U.S came to a compromise.

helens · Joined: 22 Nov 2009 Posts: 25

Oops, I forgot to respond to a question in my last post so I’m now doing that.

To Julia:

I was wondering the same thing, but then I thought of the Americans and how freaked out people were about the idea of a war. Like the part where the little girl was talking about never seeing another Halloween again. I think the idea of the secrecy so that it was just them talking/communicating with each other and with no other influence. I feel as if they made it into a big conference an agreement would have taken longer and other people would have put so many inputs in it.

blee · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

Our class debate and Kennedy's real decision was the same. As one of the Kennedys, I chose option 2 because it had a solid plan for the future and recognized the current problem mostly with reality. Also, other options lackekd information to process the plan. The "real" Kennedy, too, realized that Option 3 and 1 did not have a good grasp of information. He was worried to go on a war or to go and attack Cuba without sufficient information about nuclear weapons. Option 1 seemed to be a world trade that Kennedy didn't want other nations to recognize it as a public trade.

Althought, Option 1 was suuitable for the first step for the action, it gave too much power and responsibility to Soviet Union and Option 3 did not know the enough informationt to attack Cuba. Therefore, I think Option 2 was the best solution for this situation. After Kennedy chose the blockade, the lasting effect was the cold and stuck relationship between U.S. and Cuba.

My Question: What is nuclear imbalance? in page 76. How well did Blockade work?

rbennett · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 39

To answer Helen’s question, I’m pretty sure we still traded with them. We had large investments in the sugar and banana industry in Cuba, and I’m assuming they still did after the crisis? But I’m not totally sure. But even though Castro was still threatened and angry after the crisis, I think that both the U.S. and Cuba had a lot invested in each other in terms of trade etc, so if they tried to stop trading they would both lose a lot of money. But again, I’m not totally sure, so let’s ask Martha tomorrow!

I thought it was very clever of Kennedy to rename the blockade as a “quarantine.” The fact that this took away it’s technical definition as an act of war was important to the situation. In this way the U.S. was able to show the Soviets that they didn’t want to start a War, but they still got to implement the option that they decided was the best.

I am wondering what you think about the letters that Khrushchev sent to Kennedy? Why do you think he sent the first letter and then changed his mind about what he said he would agree to, and sent the second letter?

soldsman · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

im pretty impressed with our accurate debate.

i'm still unsure whether or not i agree with Kennedy choosing blockade ...(even though it worked so it was the right decision). Cuba couldve taken that as a big threat and decided to use their nuclear weapons against our army. In response to your question maggie: i think that the Soviets were just in putting their weapons in Cuba for protection. It def. got our attention and made us a little less powerful for the time being. Their missiles balanced ours in Turkey.

my question is about the aftermath of all of this..

After the missiles were gone, it seems that Kennedy and then Reagan still kept strong with the anti communist stuff but didnt that keep them from having any good relations with the Soviets?

RRubbico · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 23

I have to say that after the debate in class today I was leaning towards option 1, but after I saw how the events unfolded when Kennedy had chosen to follow option two I realized how quiet the first option would have been. Kennedy’s choice dodged the international law stating that they would be declaring war, gets the USSR’s attention and showed the world that the US would not give in. I thought it was interesting that the USSR’s first response to the quarantine was to send many of their ships over to Cuba for no other reason than to disregard the US’s attempts and to start a fight. Then when the US went to DEFCON 2 and the USSR realized that their actions might spark nuclear war, many of their ships turned back.
Rachel, in response to your question, I think that he sent the first letter out of his initial fear of an attack on Cuba. As the reading states it was not as hard-line as the second and full of his emotions. I think he sent this first letter in order to make sure that the US didn’t invade while he consulted on the terms of the second letter. The second letter was his attempt at composing himself and making calculated forceful terms for a new agreement. The US only responded to the first of these letters because it indicated Cuba’s actual fears of which the US could take advantage.
My question is: do you think that Cuba is justified in the means that they took in order to communicate with the US?

azellweger · Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Posts: 20

I think that the debate wasn’t very similar to actual events because in our debate we assumed that the Soviets wanted to use the weapons against us and start this huge nuclear war, and that we were trying to prevent this. But in the reading it seemed like everyone was on edge. So many empty threats were made, because no one wanted to make the first move. In the end when they came to an agreement it almost seemed that they were relieved. Cause once you make the first move it warrants a retaliation and then you put yourself at such a great risk. Both the US and the Soviet Union used the weapons more as a scare tactic, both had them, but who would use them first? Some examples were when the quarantine was in place Soviet ships were already on way they first threatened to sink any U.S. vessel that tried to prevent their passage to Cuba. But then the boats on route to Cuba turned around.
Ryan’s question is “Do you think that Cuba is justified in the means that they took in order to communicate with the US?” So basically do I think secretly installing weapons as a means of defense, was an appropriate way of Cuba communicating their fear of a U.S. invasion. I think it was definitely a strong message that was taken very seriously but their supposed reasoning was blurred and not communicated. Keeping it a secret mission was definitely a bad idea, mainly because it scared the crap out of everyone. Cuba wasn’t justified not only because it caused major conflict but they continued to encourage the use of nuclear weapons when plans to settle the conflict were being made.
My question is: Do you actually think Cuba wanted the weapons as a means of defense?

jcho · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 22

The "real thing" turned out to be similar to the outcome of the debate we had in class. I think it was wise for Kennedy to choose the blockade over the other two options. Like the reading said, the failure at the Bay of Pigs might have suggested a full out frontal attack, but I think naming it quarantine to the UN and approaching it more diplomatically was the right choice. I think Kennedy chose this option since his pure diplomatic attempt led to the Bay of Pigs.
For the answer to the question about Khrushchev's motives, I think that the Soviet Union didn't have much choice. I think they noticed that with the way the US was going, that they were going to fall behind the US in military capabilities. With nuclear warheads pointing at their faces, the US's advantage was clear. Since the Soviet Union lacked any real threat, other than invading the other half of Europe, that they were desperate trying to get an edge over the US. The US probably had a better reputation compared to the US, since the US had many more allies. With the whole world seeming to be against them, I think the Soviet Union had no other choice but to secretly assemble nuclear warheads in Cuba.

Why does the US seem so jumpy at everything the Soviet Union does? I mean why didn't the US know that they had the superior military capabilities compared to the Soviet Union after the Cuban Missile Crisis?

asilver · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 28

To answer the question of “Why does the US seem so jumpy at everything the Soviet Union does?” I think that the US must have suspected that our nuclear capabilities were far greater then that of the USSR’s. But the cost of underestimating the Soviet Union would be far greater then the cost of over estimating it. Besides a small nuclear threat is still a huge threat.
What seemed strange to me about the reading was that for all the countries involved in the crisis, appearing week to other countries seemed as much of a threat as a nuclear war, For instance when Kennedy was negotiating the removal of the missiles fro Cuba. I understand that appearing weak may hurt forin relations, but that seems like a small price to pay for the prevention of a hot war.
My question is why do you think the US and the USSR put so much importance on appearing powerful.

Free Forum