Essay on Cold War and Us Diplomacy

The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. What was at stake in the crisis, and how do you assess President Kennedy’s response to Khrushchev’s provocation? Was Kennedy prudent or rash, suitably tough or needlessly belligerent?

In the early days of the crisis, JFK made a formal declaration to both the nation and to the U.S.S.R that any nuclear weapons launched from Cuba onto any target in the Western Hemisphere would be considered an attack on the US and would warrant a full retaliatory response (“The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962”). He followed up that statement by blocking the transfer of all offensive weapons in route to Cuba (Freidel and Sidey). Kennedy showed the people that he wasn’t going to sit idly by while there was such a large threat to the nation’s safety, he was going to act boldly. After many more stressful days passed, JFK, in an attempt to ensure that the situation didn’t escalate any further, agreed to not attack Cuba if the Soviet Union withdrew all weapons from the island nation (Swift). After 13 grueling days of diplomatic actions, the Soviet Union’s ships left Cuba with their hatches open in order to show the Americans that they were carrying the missiles with them (Swift). Kennedy’s choice to pursue a peaceful end to the Cuban Missile Crisis, despite intense Soviet aggression, may have saved countless American lives. John F. Kennedy’s actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis boosted his reputation considerably and steered America away from a war with the

President Kennedy came to office with warnings of a missile gap. The Soviets had achieved or were achieving a significant advantage in strategic nuclear weapons. Though tensions ran even higher, "Eisenhower’s strategy of massive retaliation made little sense and did not account for the rapidly growing Soviet nuclear arsenal4. Kennedy's nuclear strategy became known as flexible response. The idea was to acquire the military forces that could deal flexibility with varying levels of Soviet Aggression3. The most serious confrontation between Russia and the US was the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Link to Stephanie's page) Soviet leader Khrushchev attempted to place intermediate range missiles in Cuba. Kennedy responded by imposing a quarantine on Cuba. This resulted in the removal of the Soviet missiles and led to Kennedy making the decision to dismantle U.S. missiles based in Turkey. Some analysts argue that the successful outcome was due to the United States’ nuclear superiority, which proved that strategic superiority offered important political advantages5.

Some experts believe that U.S. foreign policy used greater toughness and more threats of force after the Cuban Missile Crisis (The World Book, 1180).

Kennedy seemed prepared for war, dedicating billions of dollars to defence spending. This was something that the Soviet Union had not been investing in, thus further widening the gap in the Arms Race. If Kennedy anticipated a nuclear attack and was, in some way, prepared for Soviet aggression, then Khrushchev and the Soviet Union would have even less to gain by firing nuclear missiles at the USA (who would have, of course, retaliated). As already established, the Soviet Union would never have been able to win a nuclear war and Kennedy’s preparation and defence spending shows that a nuclear war would not even do as much damage to the USA as the Soviet Union had hoped. In summary, Kennedy had called Khrushchev’s bluff and stood up to him, and consequently Khrushchev needed a new idea because he could never afford to make a nuclear attack on the

The Kennedy Doctrine, which was to “Respond flexibly to communist expansion, especially guerrilla warfare” (Roskin & Berry, 2010, p. 58), was executed in this history-making event to the letter. Kennedy could have, and had the power to cease the unfolding events with an all out air strike on the Soviet Union. Some say it is due to bureaucratic politics and the accessibility of information that was provided to the National Security Council by the CIA and air force that this did not occur. In responding flexibly to what The Soviet Union and Cuba were planning, America assessed the volatile situation, forethought possible outcomes and negated all their options albeit under a tight time constraint. America’s forces were mobilized and ready to strike, had word been given nuclear war was on the cards. Kennedy wanted to give The Soviet Union an out and put a halt to a possible war, rethink the situation and allow an alternative to occur. Due to this diplomacy, The Soviet Union entered into negotiations “the Kremlin offered a deal: no Soviet missiles in Cuba if Washington promised not to invade” (Roskin & Berry, 2010, p. 87). By using the flexible response tactic, Kennedy was

In his article, “The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Marc Trachtenberg considers three historical approaches to the role that nuclear arms played during the 1962 conflict: first, the view that nuclear arms played no role at all, with U.S. and Soviet weapons cancelling each other out, second, the interpretation that the risk involved with nuclear warfare heavily influenced policy making, and finally the view that the strategic imbalance of nuclear force, characterized by a substantial American advantage, significantly impacted the outcome of the crisis. In weighing the three interpretations, Trachtenberg dismisses the first in supporting the existence of the second, using a variety of primary sources to identify instances when decision-makers were influenced by the risk of nuclear warfare. The focus of the article, however, is on advancing and complicating the third approach, which Trachtenberg claims is congruous with the second. In this third section, Trachtenberg advances the approach that the imbalance of nuclear capabilities impacted Soviet strategy but not American decision making. Accordingly, Trachtenberg’s article is characterized by two central claims: that risk of nuclear war influenced policy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that American nuclear superiority disproportionately affected Soviet decision-making.

Without the precise and cautious actions of President Kennedy the World as we know it today may not exist. One of the many ironies of the crisis is how uninformed the public was of the boiling situation, until the President addressed the nation on the night of October 22nd. America watched as President Kennedy spoke sternly yet eloquently about the possible days ahead, publicly warning the Soviet and Cuban leaders of the retaliations that would inevitably follow if not resolved properly. United States Foreign Policy thrived at that very moment because of the monumental effect the President’s words had on the entire

Beschloss, M. R., & Talbott, S. (1993). The inside story of the end of the Cold War: At the highest levels. Canada: Little, Brown and Company.

During World War II, the United States, Britain, and Russia all worked together to take down Hitler. Although after the war, the coordination between the U.S. and Russia became extremely tense which inevitably lead to the Cold War. The U.S. was worried that Russia would spread communism after World War II. Russia was concerned with the U.S. arms increase and intervention in international affairs. The distrust between the two nations resulted in the Cold war which lasted until 1991.

On October 22 JFK announced that the Soviets had long range missiles in Cuba, which posed a dangerous threat to the United States. Kennedy ordered a naval blockade to stop Soviets from delivering more missiles. The Soviets on the other hand were heading right for the blockade and Americans prepared for war. Kennedy and the Soviets had secret negotiations were at the end the Soviets offered a deal. The deal was the Soviets would remove missiles from Cuba if the US promised to not invade Cuba and they had to remove their missiles from Turkey. On October 28 both Kennedy and Khrushchev came to an agreement because neither one wanted nuclear war. Kennedy’s quick thinking and his willingness to negotiate with the Soviets was the only reason the US was able to avoid going to nuclear war. Kennedy after the Cuban missile crisis had many ideas that he wished to implicate but sadly he was assassinated before he could do

The role of America at the end of World War II was where the origins of policing the world originate. America had been engaged in a very costly war in terms of dollars as well as lives. But, despite the expense the United States came out of World War II better than any other nation that was involved. The Second World War was a battle between the Allied and Axis Powers. The Allied Powers consisted of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, and France. This war was seen as the fight against Nazi Germany, and therefore resulted in a majority of the battles fought on German and Russian soil. The aftermath left the Soviet Union in bad shape. Close to twenty million Russians

The end of the Cold War brought about the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, paving the way for an unprecedented new paradigm – one characterised by the end of hostilities between the two dominant ideologies: Soviet communism and American liberal capitalism. This dominant new paradigm encouraged the homogenisation of ideas, in the form of exchanging ethos and values along former cultural, ideological and geographical divides. As such, this integration of world societies has earned the title ‘globalisation’, forcing the global community to appear so united as to warrant the metaphor of a global village. (Note: This paragraph pains me to read – I will eventually re-write it.)

After World War II, the United States had effectively become the most powerful and influential country in the world both militarily and politically. During America’s rise to power, however, hostilities mounted between America and the Soviet Union, resulting in a fierce rivalry. The Cold War, which never involved direct military confrontations between the two nations, involved of the struggle to contain the spread of communism, extreme anti-communist attitudes in America, and a reemergence of the civil rights issue.

Revisionist view regarding the Kennedy’s administration regarding the actions he took during the Cuban Missile Crisis describes his actions when emphasizing the danger of the situation was unnecessary because the missiles that were placed in Cuba didn’t affect the nuclear balance between the Soviet Union and the United States because the United states was not under any greater threat than the soviets were because of the similar missile placements in Turkey by the U.S. The blockade enacted by Kennedy and making the crisis public made the situation more dangerous. People saw Kennedy making the crisis public as a plan to increase appeal for his administration in order to increase personal and national prestige. Today, new interpretations and evidence shows that Kennedy attempted to act diplomatically and statesmanlike, he attempted to compromise and was not motivated by self interest and succeeded. He acknowledged the dangers of a nuclear war and the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) Kennedy would go behind ExComm (The Executive Committee of the National Security Council) and had the secret agreement with the Soviets to remove the warheads in Turkey. Additionally, it was revealed in 1987 that he had a backup option regarding an “if all else fails ” plan, the United Nations Secretary General was to suggest a Turkey - Cuba trade off that Kennedy would then