Regarding the Cuban missile crisis of 62

1. how well do you think the respective political administrations handled this?
2. how near were we to nuclear war at that stage?
3. and who came off best?

For the first part, remember that the US military were very hawkish pressing Kennedy to bomb the missile sites and invade Cuba, and the Russian’s shot down a U2 over Cuba contrary to Khrushchev’s wishes.

For the second, consider this extract from his new book, ‘One Minute to Midnight’, by Michael Dobb, which illustrates the stresses inflicted on a isolated Russian crew being simultaneously, depth charged, cooked to death, and suffocated in a submarine running out of air.

The Americans hit us with something stronger than a grenade, apparently some kind of practice depth charge, we thought, "that’s it that’s the end". After this attack a totally exhausted Savitsky [the commander of the submarine] became furious. In addition to everything else, he had been unable to establish communications with the General staff. He summoned the officer who was in charge of the nuclear torpedo, and ordered him to make it combat ready. "Maybe the war has already started up there while we are doing somersaults down here", shouted [the officer] Valentin Grigorievich emotionally, justifying his order. "Were going to blast them now. We will perish ourselves but we will sink the all we will not disgrace our navy"……. The commander of submarine B-59 had been tempted to use his nuclear torpedo to blast his tormentors out of the water, but his fellow officers had persuaded him to calm down

For the last part bear in mind Castro, the only hawk amongst the political chiefs, was humiliated by being circumvented in discussions by Khrushchev in his decision to withdraw the missiles. However, Castro was the only survivor of this crisis. Moreover, Castro obtained a guarantee of security for Cuba, and Khrushchev the withdrawal of NATO missiles from Turkey in return for withdrawing the missiles.

Well, it must have been handled fairly well, because we are still here, ain't we?

Originally Posted by perseus

Regarding the Cuban missile crisis of 62

1. how well do you think the respective political administrations handled this?
2. how near were we to nuclear war at that stage?
3. and who came off best?

1. What Del Boy said
2. Probably as close as we ever came, with the possible exception of the Berlin crises in 1948.
3. Since the Cold War continued for another 30+ years, neither.

Originally Posted by perseus

Regarding the Cuban missile crisis of 62

1. how well do you think the respective political administrations handled this?
2. how near were we to nuclear war at that stage?
3. and who came off best?

For the first part, remember that the US military were very hawkish pressing Kennedy to bomb the missile sites and invade Cuba, and the Russian’s shot down a U2 over Cuba contrary to Khrushchev’s wishes.

For the second, consider this extract from his new book, ‘One Minute to Midnight’, by Michael Dobb, which illustrates the stresses inflicted on a isolated Russian crew being simultaneously, depth charged, cooked to death, and suffocated in a submarine running out of air.



For the last part bear in mind Castro, the only hawk amongst the political chiefs, was humiliated by being circumvented in discussions by Khrushchev in his decision to withdraw the missiles. However, Castro was the only survivor of this crisis. Moreover, Castro obtained a guarantee of security for Cuba, and Khrushchev the withdrawal of NATO missiles from Turkey in return for withdrawing the missiles.

1. Del Boy said it, and it seems obvious, actually.

2. I was still a teen, but I recall our family separating (based on their WWII experince): My mother went with my sisters to Jugoslavia on her own, and my father took us boys to Switzerland (the idea was that both would be neutral in the upcoming war, and at least one half of the family would stand better chances).

These were times when ppl still thought a tin foil hat, a simple satchel held over you rhead, or even a towel would protect you from radiation if you survived the intitial blast:

Radioactive fall out had not made it to public knowledge yet (even in the German Army, a few years later, we still had the "ABC Schutzplane", a piece of reinforced textile fibre, that was supposed to protect you if you hid under it in case of "ABC Alarm"... . Supposedly you were (in maneuvers) dead when you did not manage to get under it in time, this was demonstrated hosing the platoon down with water: Who got wet was dead, the others survived...

So, my guess is, we were *very* close indeed, as everygody had already assumed nuclear war would break out.

3. Mankind (no Einsteinian Scenarios: ..."I have no clue with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with bows and arrows"...).

Rattler

Well everyone thinks they handled it well, but this is how events turned out, which is perhaps dictated more by chance than good management. As you can see from the quote in my post it could have led to a very different outcome.

Is there any way the RISK of nuclear war could have been avoided altogether? That this situation arose at all is unacceptable in my book.

1) Should the Russians have made sure they could camouflage the missiles more effectively before deciding to install them? (they could then have been announced at a time that suited the Russians, which is what they intended)

2) Should Khrushchev have been more aware how the US would react?

3) Should Kennedy have simply accepted the missiles in Cuba, since NATO had similar missiles actually on the Soviet Union's border in Turkey. In fact Kennedy was worried that the UN would think the US were hypocritical and playing bully boy.

4) Should Kennedy have taken Khrushchev aside and said here are the photo's, the Pentagon will force me to bomb them. Tell you what instead of this blowing up into something we can't handle, let's get both sets of missiles taken out before the public get to know.

Bear in mind that the US had a lead in ICBMs at that stage, perhaps that is why they thought it was unacceptable that missiles should be installed on Cuban soil within quick range of the US. This crisis led to Russia being determined to catch up, and they did to some extent.

Originally Posted by perseus

Well everyone thinks they handled it well, but this is how events turned out, which is perhaps dictated more by chance than good management.

Since there was no nuclear war then it seems it was handled OK.

Originally Posted by perseus

Is there any way the RISK of nuclear war could have been avoided altogether? That this situation arose at all is unacceptable in my book..

Yes, eliminate all nuclear weapons. Seems it was unacceptable to them also.

Originally Posted by perseus

1) Should the Russians have made sure they could camouflage the missiles more effectively before deciding to install them? (they could then have been announced at a time that suited the Russians, which is what they intended).

Sure that would have worked.

Originally Posted by perseus

2) Should Khrushchev have been more aware how the US would react?.

He was to busy at the UN pounding his shoe on a table and declaring "we will bury you".

Originally Posted by perseus

3) Should Kennedy have simply accepted the missiles in Cuba, since NATO had similar missiles actually on the Soviet Union's border in Turkey. In fact Kennedy was worried that the UN would think the US were hypocritical and playing bully boy..

No. Does not seem like he was too worried.

Originally Posted by perseus

4) Should Kennedy have taken Khrushchev aside and said here are the photo's, the Pentagon will force me to bomb them. Tell you what instead of this blowing up into something we can't handle, let's get both sets of missiles taken out before the public get to know. .

See answer to 2) above.

Originally Posted by perseus

Bear in mind that the US had a lead in ICBMs at that stage, perhaps that is why they thought it was unacceptable that missiles should be installed on Cuban soil within quick range of the US. This crisis led to Russia being determined to catch up, and they did to some extent.

Actually the nuclear arms race was in full swing and Russia needed somewhere to put the extra weapons that were being built. The race started in 1949 when Russia exploded their first nuclear weapon.

I just can't see that US could possibly allow such threats based in Cuba - that was how we saw it onthe streets at the time. So the elimination of that threat without a major catastrophe must have been a job well done, whatever the negative side effects which we lived with thereafter. And please remember that long-term, in the event, Russia blinked first. We tend to forget America's long term credits, such as disappearance of Soviet Union and relative pacificarion of Indo-China at great cost. Now we have other threats to deal with, and still we have to rely on US for handling matters - there are no other candidates.

Rattler reminds me of the our outrageous attitude to the atom bomb radiation in those days. When I took my platoon to play war on Salisbury plain, after 2 days , following an attack and a nearby explosion, I was informed that we had been wiped out by an atomic bomb. We had been taught to kneel down on one knee and face the explosion when it occurred, covering our face in our hands ; thereupon we stood and advanced upon the explosion site. I guess that must have been closing in on our own atomic attacks. In the event, the enemy got me without warning.
Now that just ain't cricket.

Strange...I was just thinking about what my family went through during the October crisis, and Kennedy assassination later on.

We were living in a city about 45 miles north of Dallas when the October crisis hit. First, they called in all the off base dependent family's, put them in the base theater, then told us we were all confined to the base for the duration. we were then shown films on fall out shelters, and then they played the "duck and cover" film, with the base commander telling us that a all out attack by the Russians was inevitable. we spent about 21 days confined to the base in a bunch of old WWII barracks they had. The weirdest thing was, we had no knowledge on what was going on outside the base. our fathers were involved in some kind of air craft arming and movement thing off the base, cause we could see the jets leaving, but none came back.

Thinking back over it, it was just a time of quiet hysteria. the moms weren't told a lot, just to watch the family's. it was like the base staff really expected the base to get blown off the face of the earth, but to be quiet about it, cause it would scare the kids. Most of what the guys here talking about, Kennedy and Khrushchev..we didn't know about. we didn't find out about the missiles until later, after we got off the base.

Then when Kennedy got assassinated..we wound up back in the base theater. same barracks. same films. only we only stayed a week that time.

It seems like the attitude was we were going to be bombed. but the ones left behind would be ok if we stayed on the base. kind of weird.

we were then shown films on fall out shelters, and then they played the "duck and cover" film, with the base commander telling us that a all out attack by the Russians was inevitable.

This must have been very frightening for the children, especially for those who could conceive what atomic weapons can do. Many politicians and generals sent their families away from the cities and military establishments during this period. A military base was about the last place you wanted to be. Perhaps the purpose was to isolate families so they wouldn't spread information to the civvies.

It wouldn't have happened if Kennedy didn't abandon all of those soldiers on the beach at the Bay of Pigs. And secondly, I don't think that I would've felt safer if there were missiles that could reach the US 90 miles off the shore or on some Russian boomer off of Long Island or for that matter Mother Russia herself.