engine of souls | forum 2

mre · Senior Member

Assignment #5: The Cuban Missile Crisis

Tyler Allain · Veteran Member

Secuirity Expert:

Deplomacy is the ONLY way to solve a conflict of such proportions. Acting with peace is the only way to pursue peace and avoid the consequence of the destruction of the United States of America. The Soviet Union has claimed that the missiles in Cuba are only desensive and if this is true, then an aggressive aproach to the desired outcome in this situation could force them to also act agressively and they could use their nuclear missiles. We cannot take that risk. An air rade could only destory 95% of the missiles IF the missiles are not active. If the missiles are active, then there is no guarantee how many we will destroy and we cannot take the risk of leaving any missiles that they can use in retaliation. If they are lying and the missiles are for offensive purposes then the only way to change their apparently new attack first foreign policiy would be to confront them about this issue in the UN, and through world pressure force them to remove the missiles from Cuba. If we choose to strike Cuba with an air attack, then the world opinion could turn on the United States and further support for us in the war against the Soviets and communism could be destroyed. We cannot afford to lose our allies in this. Also, there is reason to believe that the Soviets may be trying to provoke a war in order to have reason to turn to war without looking unjust to the world. The only reason we know about these missiles in Cuba is because of low flying planes that have flown over Cuba and snapped pictures of Soviet operations. If the Soviets did not want us to see these weapons, then why would they not have shot down these planes if it would be easy to do so? Also we beleive they also have short range nuclear missiles along with their long range weapons that would tell us they are preparing for a ground attack from troops entering the island from the sea. We cannot guarantee any time frame before these weapons are active, and even if we can give ourselves a time frame, an attack is too risky. In any case attacking is a BAD OPTION. The Soviets will view aggressive action military on the part of the United States as threat enough to warrant a nuclear strike. If we allow this to happen, then we show that one of the strongest countries in the world is willing to allow the Soviets to get away with murder. The Soviets want an attack, and if we give it to them then they win. Aggressive military action is far too risky. We have a duty do protect our citizens first before all. If we attack or use and form of military action against the Soviets, then we are setting our self up for a major loss in terms of lifes lost in our own country, or allies in this war. Either way we lose if we attack. Consider your choice of action as potentially the most important in our history Mr. President.

-- Edited by Tyler Allain at 17:27, 2009-03-06

Brittney(: · Member

Pursuing diplomacy would be in the best interest for our country security and national welfare. In engaging in a war hundreds of thousands of American lives would be taken if the Soviets retaliate. If we engage in any type of war it could set off a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union and create massive damage to the United States and also so the ecosystem. The whole point of the meeting is to prevent any type of nuclear wars. In performing military action you are causing a higher rate that a nuclear war will form. Diplomacy would create the safest way to address this issue. Any type of warfare could call in theory a Domino Effect. In which retaliations could happen in different parts of the world, which may even result to another World War. Because the rash actions in Cuba and their threats against Berlin, we are in grave danger of upsetting the nuclear balance.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk described a very important point I think also that we ought to consider getting some word to Castro. Get him privately and tell him that this is no longer support for Cuba, that Cuba is being victimized here, and that the soviets are preparing Cuba for destruction or betrayal. In doing this we could privately without the Soviets realizing, in all realization change Castros mind about allowing this nuclear base. If we show him that he is being deceived, that this kind of base is intolerable and not acceptable. This would be in the best welfare for the security and safety of Americans.
Also diplomatic efforts would help build world opinion. Other countries will see that we are willing to create a negotiation that would help both nations. It will show we are strong just not in our military but also in our social communication. In using this we can also build opinion on the side of the United States in the United Nations and the Organization of America States. In doing this it may possibly build our creditability in the United Nations. This will help in case of a war; the other nations will be in our favor. Creating more allies is the best way that we could make the Soviets see that we are strong , without even performing any military actions we could scare them showing that one wrong move they make it will not just be the United States will be after them .
Diplomacy gives the United States time to evaluate this crisis in a more effective matter. It will elongate our time in this matter, and create a more sufficient way without using warfare by changing the minds of these leaders those nuclear weapons is not an answer. That in doing this it will hurt the security and well being of all the citizens that live on these lands.
It has been several days now that we have learned of these nuclear weapons located in Cuba. All we have learned from Mr. V. A. Zorin that these weapons are not to attack but for defense. We can not truly believe this because the Soviets have lied in the first place about even having missiles in Cuba. Mr. President there is nuclear warheads at our doorstep the best in insuring our security and the lives of thousands of Americans is by pursuing Diplomacy

kristenrush · Member

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

Kristen! · Member

Diplomacy is the best way for this situation with the Cuban Missile Crisis because the military tactics have failed in the past. For in instance on December 7, 1945 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in fear of the US attacking them first. In an end result we bomb Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki . This later lead to us being in a major involvement in World War II. This could have been prevented by diplomacy and having an assigned agreement, and instead of fighting. The Military is not always a way to look for answers, it brings innocent people at risk when it could be prevented at anytime. With this being said there are nuclear weapons being made onto Cuban territory by the Soviet Union. By the US attacking them what are we solving? We would just be beginning a War, and with war theirs money lost, and people lost. Also we would be hurting innocent people in Cuba that shouldnt be harmed. Due to the Soviets putting their weapons in Cuba after, they said they were not doing so. Khrushchev is the leader of the Soviets and he sends telegrams to John F. Kennedy , one said that they will make add mends and get out of Cuba as long as they do not invaded on them. But the second telegram was a little different it was saying that the US has no right getting involved with this and that they should get there weapons out of Turkey. After this being said JFK didnt know what to believe with the Soviets. The military believed that they should act now but with acting with violence comes consequences. They will be another world war, nuclear weapons being attacked on the US from Russia. Now is that really worth the risk, when you have the choice of diplomacy and settling agreements, rather than fire at the enemy.

shannon43 · Member

Cuban Missile Crisis Group 3 On the Blockade
I think that the blockade that the US put against Cuba was a good strategy. This blockade wouldnt let the Soviets bring in more missiles or weapons. Also I think that this allowed the US military to be prepared, and it showed Cuba and the Soviet Union that they wanted them to stop. This just shows that the US wanted to protect itself which is a good defense. Also I think that this is not a physical attack. Many other military officials and leaders that were helping Kennedy did not think that this would be a military problem. This caused Khrushchev who was the premier of the Soviet Union to want to prepare to launch missiles at the US. So I think that the blockade was a good decision on President Kennedys part and it was also a nonviolent way of telling Cuba and the Soviet Union that we were not afraid of them and we wanted to fight back and protect ourselves. The Secretary of Defense, who was Robert McNamara helped Kennedy decide that there should be a naval blockade against Cuba. He said that this showed that the US was somewhat in control because they didnt want any more weapons placed on Cuba from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did see this as an act of aggression and even Khrushchev said that the Soviet ships would just ignore the blockade. An example of this was when a USS tanker went through the blockade. It was inspected by the military soldiers who after found that there was no military material on it or weapons was allowed to pass through the blockade. I think that this showed how prepared that the US was and that they were telling the Soviet Union that they felt threatened. This blockade helped to pressure the Soviets to remove their missiles. Robert McNamara thought that the blockade was a better idea than all out attacking the Cubans and the Soviets. Most of the people who were working with Kennedy agreed that this was must better than being foolish and starting the war without thinking through what would happen. Also I think that the US would have been blamed for starting this and fighting against the enemy before standing their ground and trying not to anger the Soviets anymore. Some of the things that I think that Kennedy had to deal with and argue with himself about was whether he should attack Cuba before they attacked the US. Also President Kennedy didnt know if in fact all of the missiles were ready to be launched, but he didnt want to take any chances. I think that the decision of the blockade was very effective. In that it wasnt meant to harm anyone and it showed the US was willing to fight for themselves without being hostile. It let people to have a chance to discuss what they were going to do further and also it was helping to protect the US.

MitchellA · Member

This option will best suit U.S./Soviet relations because: it is peaceful, it allows more time for peaceful tactics, and will not push the Soviets to the brink of war. With the Blockade in place, we cannot anger the Soviets to the point of war. The blockade will not allow any more weapons on to Cuban soil. Though the Soviets will be slightly angered by the inconvenience, but will not be pushed to take hostile action. With the Soviet operations slowed, we will be able to settle this problem peacefully. We can take the battle of words to the U.N. with the extra time given by the Quarantine. In the U.N. we can expose them amongst the other countries of the world. At this point in time, we could not afford a battle with such a super-power as the USSR, especially not a nuclear one. Many of the people in both of our countries would be killed and would suffer. American blood would be safe with a peaceful option such as the Quarantine. If we were to use the military response to this predicament the world would end as we know it, Americans would die and our cities would burn. Mr. President, I do not believe that you would have your people die, so choose the peaceful option, the blockade.

P.S.

-- Edited by MitchellA at 02:15, 2009-03-09

vanessa · Member

Diplomacy should be the tactic that the United States uses in this very difficult situation. This is an especially delicate situation and the wrong move could be disastrous. I think what we need to do is look out for our own interest but consider the interests of the Soviet Union as well. By pursuing diplomacy with the Soviets we can avoid a nuclear disaster. Even though the Soviets are behind us in the nuclear arms race, they can still cause great harm to the United States with their nuclear capability. The placement of missiles in Cuba shows that they are now within striking distance of the United States. The Soviets dont agree with the way we run our country and disagree with some of our policies. They may be very upset with how successful our country has been compared to theirs. It seems that they dont have as much money as us and their economy isnt doing as well. They may feel like they have to show their strength by placing missiles in Cuba pointed towards the U.S. But how would it benefit the U.S. to strike Cuba or the Soviets? We are already ahead in the nuclear arms race and our capitalist economy is doing well compared to their communist country. I really dont see any benefit to striking first or striking at all. Many innocent people would be affected by this. There is probably more to lose than gain for the United States if we launch nuclear missiles. If we launch, other countries may become involved and a very terrible world war could be the result. This is why it is my strong suggestion to pursue diplomacy. Taking this course of action would certainly benefit both sides. If we can pursue the Soviets to remove their missiles and come to some kind of peaceful agreement, this would be a successful conclusion to this crisis.

vanessa · Member

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Tyler Allain · Veteran Member

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

Tyler Allain · Veteran Member

shannon43 wrote:

Cuban Missile Crisis Group 3 On the Blockade
I think that the blockade that the US put against Cuba was a good strategy. This blockade wouldnt let the Soviets bring in more missiles or weapons. Also I think that this allowed the US military to be prepared, and it showed Cuba and the Soviet Union that they wanted them to stop. This just shows that the US wanted to protect itself which is a good defense. Also I think that this is not a physical attack. Many other military officials and leaders that were helping Kennedy did not think that this would be a military problem. This caused Khrushchev who was the premier of the Soviet Union to want to prepare to launch missiles at the US. So I think that the blockade was a good decision on President Kennedys part and it was also a nonviolent way of telling Cuba and the Soviet Union that we were not afraid of them and we wanted to fight back and protect ourselves. The Secretary of Defense, who was Robert McNamara helped Kennedy decide that there should be a naval blockade against Cuba. He said that this showed that the US was somewhat in control because they didnt want any more weapons placed on Cuba from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did see this as an act of aggression and even Khrushchev said that the Soviet ships would just ignore the blockade. An example of this was when a USS tanker went through the blockade. It was inspected by the military soldiers who after found that there was no military material on it or weapons was allowed to pass through the blockade. I think that this showed how prepared that the US was and that they were telling the Soviet Union that they felt threatened. This blockade helped to pressure the Soviets to remove their missiles. Robert McNamara thought that the blockade was a better idea than all out attacking the Cubans and the Soviets. Most of the people who were working with Kennedy agreed that this was must better than being foolish and starting the war without thinking through what would happen. Also I think that the US would have been blamed for starting this and fighting against the enemy before standing their ground and trying not to anger the Soviets anymore. Some of the things that I think that Kennedy had to deal with and argue with himself about was whether he should attack Cuba before they attacked the US. Also President Kennedy didnt know if in fact all of the missiles were ready to be launched, but he didnt want to take any chances. I think that the decision of the blockade was very effective. In that it wasnt meant to harm anyone and it showed the US was willing to fight for themselves without being hostile. It let people to have a chance to discuss what they were going to do further and also it was helping to protect the US.

You spoke alot about how the Blockade would send a message to the Soviets. Yes it would send a message but how would this get anything done if the Soviets simply did not want to comply with whatever the message this blockade would send? A blockade is IMO far to passive and it doesn't actually get anything done. We might as well have just gone to the Soviets and said "Could you please remove those missiles from Cuba...because we are a wee bit scared....pretty please?" I also don't see how a blockade would actually prepare us for or put us in control of the situation. What are a bunch of Navy ships going to do about the launching of Nuclear missiles that are already there from the island? The points are valid but im simply trying to show you that points without anything behind them are weak and be a bit more specific if you can.

AlexPereira · Member

As the President of the United States of America, I have been faced with a very difficult decision to make. Cuba has been receiving missiles from the Soviet Union, being aimed and ready to launch toward our country. There are three options that I can choose from to help this nation come to a solution to the Cuban Missile conflict. Although each option comes with a consequence, a decision must be made. The first option is to create diplomacy with Cuba. This plan is strictly moving toward complete peace with them. Discussing and coming up with solutions through talk and reason. Using violence and threat could pursue an even bigger issue than the one we are faced with today. This plan states that if we take diplomatic actions, we could try and pressure the Soviet Union to remove their missiles from Cuba. This would reduce military conflict. The United States would be willing to remove our missiles from Turkey if the Soviet Union removes theirs from Cuba. The second option that I am given is to have the United States Navy blockade Cuba. This action would prevent the arrival of Soviet Union ships carrying the materials needed to operate the missiles in Cuba, but will not take the missiles completely out. This plan prevents us with both diplomatic and military tactics. We will be staying neutral, but yet if provoked we will the military actions necessary. The third option presented to me is to have an air strike over Cuba. This is a full out military pursuit. The results of this action could be extremely threatening to our country. We could start a new world war because of our decision to attack the area. I believe the best decision to make is to combine the first and second options: create diplomacy and have a blockade against Soviet ships. This does not provoke a threat against anyone, but we are still able to take necessary action if we are threatened first. This decision is one of the most difficult I have come across so far, but I believe the right one could make a huge difference for our country and the entire world. Every option I have been presented with comes with its own consequences, but I feel that one those, or a combination of the two, could stop the missile threats from our enemy country. One day, and one day soon, this will all come to an end.

CodyCarmo · Member

There were many options in the Cuban Missile Crisis. One of these options was diplomacy, this is a very good option because it will benefit our country on a global standpoint and could save the lives of many U.S citizens.

§ Premier Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces. With diplomacy many lives will be saved. The threat of a mini nuclear warhead is a great one that could lead to an even bigger attack. We do not want to aggravate the Soviets while we are on such thin ice.

§ The Russian Premier conceded to President Kennedy's demands by ordering all Soviet supply ships away from Cuban waters and agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba's mainland. This fact establishes the fact that the soviets are a reasonable people that can solve their problems with other tactics than that of physical warfare.

§ Soviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend the island if it was invaded. The soviets were expecting an all out attempt at invading the island, we as a well established nation should not let other countries belittle our war tactics and make assumptions that we are all violence. The U.S. will look better globally if this conflict is settled with diplomacy.

§ Soviet Union was desperately behind the United States in the arms race. Soviet missiles were only powerful enough to be launched against Europe but U.S. missiles were capable of striking the entire Soviet Union. The Soviets know they are beat in the arms race but even with their missiles that arent very long ranged, they had to come up with a new tactic. Their new location of warheads in Cuba has given them a severe advantage that we need take off of there hands with ways that will not anger them.

nora · Member

As a President of this country, I have been forced to make a decision regarding the crisis in Cuba. After much deliberation, the EXCOM came up with three main plans in which our nation can address this problem. Each of these strategies has its strengths as well as its weaknesses and consequences. The first plan is very forceful, and involves an air strike on the island of Cuba. This would certainly halt any missile production or preparation and send a message to the world that America is strong about fighting against nuclear missiles. However, this would also mean the suffering of our nation through expected retaliation from the Soviet Union and Cuba. The second plan is purely diplomatic, and involves the resolution of this issue using peace talks through the United Nations. This option also has drawbacks including the fact that the dangerous nuclear weapons would still be ready to fire just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. There is also the possibility that Nikita Krushchev would not comply with these deliberations. This diplomatic approach would rely on the Soviet Union and Cuba to allow peace talks. The final option is a neutral option, and the option which I have chosen to enforce. This plan is the quarantine of Cuba. This option requires both forceful and diplomatic measures including a blockade of the port of Cuba. Such a quarantine would prevent further Soviet aid in terms of any more weapons or goods being shipped to Cuba. No ships would be allowed to deliver any cargo to Cuba. Also, the US Navy will take force on any ships who fail to comply with these measures. This defensive measure would send a message to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the rest of the world that the US is serious about defending its people against nuclear missiles. The second part of this option is diplomatic and would require deliberations between the US, the Soviet Union, and Cuba through the United Nations. This option would be a neutral approach, taking the best aspects of the two other simply diplomatic and strictly military approaches. My job is to protect the people of these United States. So, I have decided, with the advice of my colleagues, to implement this quarantine immediately.

CodyCarmo · Member

MitchellA wrote:

This option will best suit U.S./Soviet relations because: it is peaceful, it allows more time for peaceful tactics, and will not push the Soviets to the brink of war. With the Blockade in place, we cannot anger the Soviets to the point of war. The blockade will not allow any more weapons on to Cuban soil. Though the Soviets will be slightly angered by the inconvenience, but will not be pushed to take hostile action. With the Soviet operations slowed, we will be able to settle this problem peacefully. We can take the battle of words to the U.N. with the extra time given by the Quarantine. In the U.N. we can expose them amongst the other countries of the world. At this point in time, we could not afford a battle with such a super-power as the USSR, especially not a nuclear one. Many of the people in both of our countries would be killed and would suffer. American blood would be safe with a peaceful option such as the Quarantine. If we were to use the military response to this predicament the world would end as we know it, Americans would die and our cities would burn. Mr. President, I do not believe that you would have your people die, so choose the peaceful option, the blockade.

P.S.

-- Edited by MitchellA at 02:15, 2009-03-09

Couldn't this option just anger the Soviets and cause an attack out of sheer frustration?

CodyCarmo · Member

Tyler Allain wrote:

shannon43 wrote:

Cuban Missile Crisis Group 3 On the Blockade
I think that the blockade that the US put against Cuba was a good strategy. This blockade wouldnt let the Soviets bring in more missiles or weapons. Also I think that this allowed the US military to be prepared, and it showed Cuba and the Soviet Union that they wanted them to stop. This just shows that the US wanted to protect itself which is a good defense. Also I think that this is not a physical attack. Many other military officials and leaders that were helping Kennedy did not think that this would be a military problem. This caused Khrushchev who was the premier of the Soviet Union to want to prepare to launch missiles at the US. So I think that the blockade was a good decision on President Kennedys part and it was also a nonviolent way of telling Cuba and the Soviet Union that we were not afraid of them and we wanted to fight back and protect ourselves. The Secretary of Defense, who was Robert McNamara helped Kennedy decide that there should be a naval blockade against Cuba. He said that this showed that the US was somewhat in control because they didnt want any more weapons placed on Cuba from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did see this as an act of aggression and even Khrushchev said that the Soviet ships would just ignore the blockade. An example of this was when a USS tanker went through the blockade. It was inspected by the military soldiers who after found that there was no military material on it or weapons was allowed to pass through the blockade. I think that this showed how prepared that the US was and that they were telling the Soviet Union that they felt threatened. This blockade helped to pressure the Soviets to remove their missiles. Robert McNamara thought that the blockade was a better idea than all out attacking the Cubans and the Soviets. Most of the people who were working with Kennedy agreed that this was must better than being foolish and starting the war without thinking through what would happen. Also I think that the US would have been blamed for starting this and fighting against the enemy before standing their ground and trying not to anger the Soviets anymore. Some of the things that I think that Kennedy had to deal with and argue with himself about was whether he should attack Cuba before they attacked the US. Also President Kennedy didnt know if in fact all of the missiles were ready to be launched, but he didnt want to take any chances. I think that the decision of the blockade was very effective. In that it wasnt meant to harm anyone and it showed the US was willing to fight for themselves without being hostile. It let people to have a chance to discuss what they were going to do further and also it was helping to protect the US.

You spoke alot about how the Blockade would send a message to the Soviets. Yes it would send a message but how would this get anything done if the Soviets simply did not want to comply with whatever the message this blockade would send? A blockade is IMO far to passive and it doesn't actually get anything done. We might as well have just gone to the Soviets and said "Could you please remove those missiles from Cuba...because we are a wee bit scared....pretty please?" I also don't see how a blockade would actually prepare us for or put us in control of the situation. What are a bunch of Navy ships going to do about the launching of Nuclear missiles that are already there from the island? The points are valid but im simply trying to show you that points without anything behind them are weak and be a bit more specific if you can.

Tyler does a very good job of emphasing the fact that the blockade doesn't solve the problem. More than just trying to prevent it needs to be done it needs to be stopped.

skyhawk0722 · Member

Patrick Schepis-military advisor

Im assuming the role of security advisor. Our topic is the air strike and invasion. the nature of a human is if you point a gun at me, I will point a gun at you. The Soviet Union was secretly working in Cuba. It is unclear whether or not they were going to fire their missiles at us butt he threat was definitely there. Their reasoning relied on the fact that the United States had missiles in Turkey which was threatening to the Soviet Union therefore they pointed missiles at us because we had missiles pointed at them.

We were at our highest form of national security. The presidents advisors estimated that the Cuban missiles would be operational in a week. I want to attack before they are operational so I can destroy the threat. Launching an air strike would ruin our relationship with the Soviet Union but we are at war. The air strike would most likely destroy a majority of the missiles and silos, leaving a small percentage left. That is where the invasion comes into play.

The advantages of this strategy include a worldwide realization that if you threaten the United States, we will retaliate against you. The threat of the missiles against the United States would be eliminated.

The disadvantages include U.S. casualties, war with the Soviet Union, and a nuclear threat from the Soviet Union.

CodyCarmo · Member

Tyler Allain wrote:

Secuirity Expert:

Deplomacy is the ONLY way to solve a conflict of such proportions. Acting with peace is the only way to pursue peace and avoid the consequence of the destruction of the United States of America. The Soviet Union has claimed that the missiles in Cuba are only desensive and if this is true, then an aggressive aproach to the desired outcome in this situation could force them to also act agressively and they could use their nuclear missiles. We cannot take that risk. An air rade could only destory 95% of the missiles IF the missiles are not active. If the missiles are active, then there is no guarantee how many we will destroy and we cannot take the risk of leaving any missiles that they can use in retaliation. If they are lying and the missiles are for offensive purposes then the only way to change their apparently new attack first foreign policiy would be to confront them about this issue in the UN, and through world pressure force them to remove the missiles from Cuba. If we choose to strike Cuba with an air attack, then the world opinion could turn on the United States and further support for us in the war against the Soviets and communism could be destroyed. We cannot afford to lose our allies in this. Also, there is reason to believe that the Soviets may be trying to provoke a war in order to have reason to turn to war without looking unjust to the world. The only reason we know about these missiles in Cuba is because of low flying planes that have flown over Cuba and snapped pictures of Soviet operations. If the Soviets did not want us to see these weapons, then why would they not have shot down these planes if it would be easy to do so? Also we beleive they also have short range nuclear missiles along with their long range weapons that would tell us they are preparing for a ground attack from troops entering the island from the sea. We cannot guarantee any time frame before these weapons are active, and even if we can give ourselves a time frame, an attack is too risky. In any case attacking is a BAD OPTION. The Soviets will view aggressive action military on the part of the United States as threat enough to warrant a nuclear strike. If we allow this to happen, then we show that one of the strongest countries in the world is willing to allow the Soviets to get away with murder. The Soviets want an attack, and if we give it to them then they win. Aggressive military action is far too risky. We have a duty do protect our citizens first before all. If we attack or use and form of military action against the Soviets, then we are setting our self up for a major loss in terms of lifes lost in our own country, or allies in this war. Either way we lose if we attack. Consider your choice of action as potentially the most important in our history Mr. President.

-- Edited by Tyler Allain at 17:27, 2009-03-06

You are very correct and in order to prevent WW3 we must put diplomacy into action. You make very good points about the Soviets and there aggression resolving the conflict without weapons would be our countries best move.

nickf13 · Member

Nick Fuller

I, John F. Kennedy, president of the United States have a crisis that I have to face. The Soviet Union has been sending nuclear weapons to Cuba and they are currently aimed in our countrys direction. My advisors have given me three scenarios or possible solutions to this problem. There are both positive and negative effects for all three reasons, but a decision must be reached quickly.

The first method is to pursue diplomacy. Using negotiation methods we could try to persuade the Soviet Union to take their nuclear bombs out of Cuba. This method would be the method least likely to provoke military actions by either us or the Soviets. However, this method might not show how sincere we are. Also, this plan does not have any effect on all the missiles that are already present in Cuba.

The second method would be to put a blockade, or quarantine, around the island of Cuba. This would mean to basically block the island from all incoming ships with ships from our navy. The reason behind this method is to stop the Soviet ships from transporting any more nuclear missiles/bombs to Cuba. This plan would prevent any further trade between Cuba and the Soviet Union, but it would not do anything about the missiles currently present in Cuba. With this plan, there is no way to get those out, and those are our biggest threat at the moment. This method would also prevent any military action by the Soviets, because we did not attack them in any way.

The third method is a method dealing with military action. I could authorize an all out air strike on Cuba. This is probably the most risky method. This would anger the Soviets and might result in a war. This is very dangerous because the war would be fought with nuclear missiles. This is not just dangerous to the United States and the Soviet Union, but to the whole world, because nuclear bombs leave devastating damage.Nick Fuller

I, John F. Kennedy, president of the United States have a crisis that I have to face. The Soviet Union has been sending nuclear weapons to Cuba and they are currently aimed in our countrys direction. My advisors have given me three scenarios or possible solutions to this problem. There are both positive and negative effects for all three reasons, but a decision must be reached quickly.

The first method is to pursue diplomacy. Using negotiation methods we could try to persuade the Soviet Union to take their nuclear bombs out of Cuba. This method would be the method least likely to provoke military actions by either us or the Soviets. However, this method might not show how sincere we are. Also, this plan does not have any effect on all the missiles that are already present in Cuba.

The second method would be to put a blockade, or quarantine, around the island of Cuba. This would mean to basically block the island from all incoming ships with ships from our navy. The reason behind this method is to stop the Soviet ships from transporting any more nuclear missiles/bombs to Cuba. This plan would prevent any further trade between Cuba and the Soviet Union, but it would not do anything about the missiles currently present in Cuba. With this plan, there is no way to get those out, and those are our biggest threat at the moment. This method would also prevent any military action by the Soviets, because we did not attack them in any way.

The third method is a method dealing with military action. I could authorize an all out air strike on Cuba. This is probably the most risky method. This would anger the Soviets and might result in a war. This is very dangerous because the war would be fought with nuclear missiles. This is not just dangerous to the United States and the Soviet Union, but to the whole world, because nuclear bombs leave devastating damage.

montille25 · Veteran Member

David Mendez

Max Montille

Cuban Missile Crisis

As Security Advisor in the U.S. response to the Soviet and Cuba missile threat, I will explain why our air strikes and invade plans will best come to security challenges the U.S. faces in Cuba. First off, invading Cuba will help us in the long term because Castro regime will end and we can spread democracy through the island. Also, our U.S. Air Force planed to destroy missile sites with an air strike in order to prevent operation of the missiles. Theres no idea of all the missiles sites being shut down. We believe doing this will show the enemies we are not backing down just because they have missiles pointing at us, securing our fear. After we invade Cuba we can start making peace treaty with the county. Failure to respond to the missile threat correctly will lead up to a loss of confidence around the world, and for not acting it would encourage pro-communist countrys to spread there ideas to other county like the domino effect. With out an air strike to Cuba we are risking American lives because the missiles that the Soviet gave to Cuba have a radius destroying about all the states.

Moussa · Veteran Member

The Cuban Missile Crisis is the closest the world has reached to nuclear war. We have to deal with a potentially fatal situation, and unless we act responsibly and not irrationally we can get out of this without harm. We have three options in front of us: an air strike, a blockade, and pursuing pure diplomacy. I strongly believe that a blockade is the best road to take in order to divert away from disaster. An air strike would have been overly aggressive and most likely have led to direct war with the Soviet Union. Direct military confrontation has led to war before as in World War II when Nazi Germany led the first attacks against France even after signing an agreement to no longer expand their borders. The U.S. can not afford a direct war with the Soviet Union because it would use too much of our resources and too high of a cost. Such a war would be irresponsible toward our people and our morals standing to create a more peaceful world.

Our other option of pure diplomacy which is as useless as a spoon used to cut steak; you will never achieve your main goal. As I mentioned before, a treaty was agreed upon before WWII between Germany and other European nations that stated it could retain the lands it had taken, but it would not expand further. As we now can tell, Adolf Hitler eventually ignored the agreement and launched a war that consumed the world. It is possible to have aggressive diplomacy, but it is never anything physical. Even aggressive diplomacy would only buy the Soviets more time to prepare and stall while it continues to import more weapons and materials.

Therefore, I can conclude that the best option we have at this moment, is to initiate a blockade around the Cuban island in order to stop all Russian transports from entering the island. While this blockade is in effect, we can purpose aggressive diplomacy with the Soviet Union to deal with the weapons already amassed there. The difference between pure aggressive diplomacy and the blockade followed with diplomacy is that with this option, the U.S. has a stronger standing. We can argue that the Soviets can not move forward without confronting us with direct war, something they arent going to want. They are as about as eager to go to war with the U.S. as we are to go to war with them. The Soviets dont want war, so they wouldnt provoke it and it would force them to at least talk to us whether on low or high level negotiations to deal with the crisis. The blockade allows the U.S. to tell the Soviets We want to talk to you and now your going to have to unless you want to provoke war. It forces the Soviets to the table and helps diplomacy take place. Such an option allows us to avoid a Versailles Treaty that was established with aggressive diplomacy but was never kept by Nazi Germany. It would also send the ball in the Soviets court to see if they want to provoke a war or seek a more peaceful trail.

Moussa.

Moussa · Veteran Member

montille25 wrote:

David Mendez
Max Montille
Cuban Missile Crisis


            As Security Advisor in the U.S. response to the Soviet and Cuba missile threat, I will explain why our air strikes and invade plans will best come to security challenges the U.S. faces in Cuba. First off, invading Cuba will help us in the long term because Castro regime will end and we can spread democracy through the island. Also, our U.S. Air Force planed to destroy missile sites with an air strike in order to prevent operation of the missiles. Theres no idea of all the missiles sites being shut down. We believe doing this will show the enemies we are not backing down just because they have missiles pointing at us, securing our fear. After we invade Cuba we can start making peace treaty with the county. Failure to respond to the missile threat correctly will lead up to a loss of confidence around the world, and for not acting it would encourage pro-communist countrys to spread there ideas to other county like the domino effect. With out an air strike to Cuba we are risking American lives because the missiles that the Soviet gave to Cuba have a radius destroying about all the states.

have you thought about the human loss from such an airstrike?

also have you thought about the implications of this airstrike. We're attacking Soviet military personell. Soviets that, when dead, will be used as an excuse to fight World War 3. Even if they soviets didn't want to go to war, they would be forced to after the airstrike as people in the soviet union would debate military reaction.

Moussa.

Moussa · Veteran Member

Tyler Allain wrote:

shannon43 wrote:

Cuban Missile Crisis Group 3 On the Blockade
I think that the blockade that the US put against Cuba was a good strategy. This blockade wouldnt let the Soviets bring in more missiles or weapons. Also I think that this allowed the US military to be prepared, and it showed Cuba and the Soviet Union that they wanted them to stop. This just shows that the US wanted to protect itself which is a good defense. Also I think that this is not a physical attack. Many other military officials and leaders that were helping Kennedy did not think that this would be a military problem. This caused Khrushchev who was the premier of the Soviet Union to want to prepare to launch missiles at the US. So I think that the blockade was a good decision on President Kennedys part and it was also a nonviolent way of telling Cuba and the Soviet Union that we were not afraid of them and we wanted to fight back and protect ourselves. The Secretary of Defense, who was Robert McNamara helped Kennedy decide that there should be a naval blockade against Cuba. He said that this showed that the US was somewhat in control because they didnt want any more weapons placed on Cuba from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did see this as an act of aggression and even Khrushchev said that the Soviet ships would just ignore the blockade. An example of this was when a USS tanker went through the blockade. It was inspected by the military soldiers who after found that there was no military material on it or weapons was allowed to pass through the blockade. I think that this showed how prepared that the US was and that they were telling the Soviet Union that they felt threatened. This blockade helped to pressure the Soviets to remove their missiles. Robert McNamara thought that the blockade was a better idea than all out attacking the Cubans and the Soviets. Most of the people who were working with Kennedy agreed that this was must better than being foolish and starting the war without thinking through what would happen. Also I think that the US would have been blamed for starting this and fighting against the enemy before standing their ground and trying not to anger the Soviets anymore. Some of the things that I think that Kennedy had to deal with and argue with himself about was whether he should attack Cuba before they attacked the US. Also President Kennedy didnt know if in fact all of the missiles were ready to be launched, but he didnt want to take any chances. I think that the decision of the blockade was very effective. In that it wasnt meant to harm anyone and it showed the US was willing to fight for themselves without being hostile. It let people to have a chance to discuss what they were going to do further and also it was helping to protect the US.

You spoke alot about how the Blockade would send a message to the Soviets. Yes it would send a message but how would this get anything done if the Soviets simply did not want to comply with whatever the message this blockade would send? A blockade is IMO far to passive and it doesn't actually get anything done. We might as well have just gone to the Soviets and said "Could you please remove those missiles from Cuba...because we are a wee bit scared....pretty please?" I also don't see how a blockade would actually prepare us for or put us in control of the situation. What are a bunch of Navy ships going to do about the launching of Nuclear missiles that are already there from the island? The points are valid but im simply trying to show you that points without anything behind them are weak and be a bit more specific if you can.

Tyler, if a blockade won't get results, how effective would "pure aggressive diplomacy" be? not much if partial military action won't get any results.

a blockade allows the U.S. to bring the Soviets to the table and say, "Unless you want war, let's talk about these missiles". once they start to talk, we can start a deal like taking all nukes from the base in Turkey.

Moussa · Veteran Member

Tyler Allain wrote:

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

pure negotiations, whether aggressive or not, can always be twisted. Lets say i'm the Soviet Union.

i can say, "Let's talk about this". we'll talk for about a week and during that week, your military will continue to watch me ship in more nukes and more weapons no matter the level of aggressive diplomacy.

Your trying to play poker without any chips. You have nothing to say "Let's be serious about these talks, unless you want war".

the soviets don't want war. many people tend to think they are war loving people. They don't want to be in direct war with the U.S.

a blocake forces them to come to the table and talk seriously. and it also allows diplomacy WITHOUT them buying time to ship more weapons materials, and personel into Cuba.

Moussa.

Moussa · Veteran Member

nickf13 wrote:

Nick Fuller

            I, John F. Kennedy, president of the United States have a crisis that I have to face. The Soviet Union has been sending nuclear weapons to Cuba and they are currently aimed in our countrys direction. My advisors have given me three scenarios or possible solutions to this problem. There are both positive and negative effects for all three reasons, but a decision must be reached quickly.
            The first method is to pursue diplomacy. Using negotiation methods we could try to persuade the Soviet Union to take their nuclear bombs out of Cuba. This method would be the method least likely to provoke military actions by either us or the Soviets. However, this method might not show how sincere we are. Also, this plan does not have any effect on all the missiles that are already present in Cuba.
The second method would be to put a blockade, or quarantine, around the island of Cuba. This would mean to basically block the island from all incoming ships with ships from our navy. The reason behind this method is to stop the Soviet ships from transporting any more nuclear missiles/bombs to Cuba. This plan would prevent any further trade between Cuba and the Soviet Union, but it would not do anything about the missiles currently present in Cuba. With this plan, there is no way to get those out, and those are our biggest threat at the moment. This method would also prevent any military action by the Soviets, because we did not attack them in any way.
The third method is a method dealing with military action. I could authorize an all out air strike on Cuba. This is probably the most risky method. This would anger the Soviets and might result in a war. This is very dangerous because the war would be fought with nuclear missiles. This is not just dangerous to the United States and the Soviet Union, but to the whole world, because nuclear bombs leave devastating damage.Nick Fuller

            I, John F. Kennedy, president of the United States have a crisis that I have to face. The Soviet Union has been sending nuclear weapons to Cuba and they are currently aimed in our countrys direction. My advisors have given me three scenarios or possible solutions to this problem. There are both positive and negative effects for all three reasons, but a decision must be reached quickly.
            The first method is to pursue diplomacy. Using negotiation methods we could try to persuade the Soviet Union to take their nuclear bombs out of Cuba. This method would be the method least likely to provoke military actions by either us or the Soviets. However, this method might not show how sincere we are. Also, this plan does not have any effect on all the missiles that are already present in Cuba.
The second method would be to put a blockade, or quarantine, around the island of Cuba. This would mean to basically block the island from all incoming ships with ships from our navy. The reason behind this method is to stop the Soviet ships from transporting any more nuclear missiles/bombs to Cuba. This plan would prevent any further trade between Cuba and the Soviet Union, but it would not do anything about the missiles currently present in Cuba. With this plan, there is no way to get those out, and those are our biggest threat at the moment. This method would also prevent any military action by the Soviets, because we did not attack them in any way.
The third method is a method dealing with military action. I could authorize an all out air strike on Cuba. This is probably the most risky method. This would anger the Soviets and might result in a war. This is very dangerous because the war would be fought with nuclear missiles. This is not just dangerous to the United States and the Soviet Union, but to the whole world, because nuclear bombs leave devastating damage.

you state the options, but it doesn't seem like you've made a decision about which one you choose.

Dokolski · Member

Many of you know that I, as the president, need to come to a decision quickly about what needs to be done with the cuban missle crisis. The soviet union is bringing in nuclear missles and I feel very strongly that affirmative action needs to be taken. I believe that this needs to, by any means necessary be done in a non passive way, that we as america can not show a weekness or else the soviet union will capitalize on it. First I propose that we try and set diplomacy, we keep it very peacefull. We do not want to force ourselves into a war. Cuba claims that they are keeping the missles for defensive purposes only, so by sending in an air strike we will be provoking them into a nuclear war, because we would only be able to destroy about 95% of these missles, so they will still have 5% and this is not a case in which i am ready to gamble. The plan i had just explained may seem passive but i will be enforcing it by employing a blockade to keep it forcefull. we are for peace, as long as we come to an agreement on the missles. We understand that not all of these missles are operational yet, so by stopping ships containing equipment needed to get these operational will greatly help our effort towards this crisis. This can take care of the missles already there while we stop anything new from coming in. We would be creating peace as long as possible, or if they procede past our blockade, in which we will take military actions that will we need to enforce what we have stated.

-- Edited by Dokolski at 02:26, 2009-03-10

mpounds · Member

Cuban Missile Crisis:

The option of a blockade of Cuba provides better benefits for all parties involved than the options of an airstrike and pursuing diplomacy. The most important thing is for the US to keep their relationship with the Soviet Union on the good side. The blockade is a good decision to make because it satisfies this need.
If the US had made the decision to invade Cuba and organize and airstrike to remove the missiles, the Soviets would without a doubt retaliate. Since we couldn't be sure how many missiles there were total, an invasion could have put the lives of many Americans in danger. The Soviets could have more missiles than we thought and could then use them against us resulting in devastating effects. This would also greatly affect our relationship with the Soviet Union. There would no longer be an option for a peaceful negotiations which makes an airstrike a very bad idea.
Pursuing diplomacy is good option to preserve our relationship with the Soviets. However, trying to persuade the Soviet Union to remove their missiles from Cuba might take too long and not even work. If diplomacy fails to yield positive results, the Soviets will still be assembling missiles in Cuba. A blockade is the only good option because it's not as violent as an airstrike, but is still aggressive enough to show the Soviets that we are prepared to take action against them. This will discourage them from trying to take advantage of us. However, this option still leaves us with the ability to peacefully negotiate with the Soviet Union if they are willing to compromise.

TAYLORgarron · Member

As many of you know, I, President Kennedy, have a major and imminent decision to make. The current conflict between the Soviet Union and our United States has grown increasingly more threatening. As of this moment, a peak has been hit. The Soviet Union is hoarding nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba. Said missiles are nearly complete, and fully prepared to be launched at the United States at a moments notice. An estimate has been made that we have less than two weeks until these missiles will be ready and able to be launched at the U.S. in a nuclear attack, which would surely mean peril for the vast majority of the country. However, there is hope.
I have been presented with three options for as solutions to this issue. My first option would be to implement an air strike on the Soviet Unions occupations in Cuba. Although initially effective at preventing an attack on the U.S., I feel that taking such a drastic action would infuriate the Soviets into taking such severe action in the U.S. in vengeance. This action could also sour our image in other countries, who would surely view it as excessively malevolent and brutish.
The second option I have been presented with is to employ diplomacy, and use the United Nations Forum as an outlet to discuss peace negotiations with the Soviet Union and attempt to create a non-violent, passive resolution to this problem. In hypothetic, I agree with and support the idea of this option, but, in reality, it is highly unlikely that this plan would be of any positive effect. In all actuality, by putting this plan into action, we would essentially be buying the Soviets time to enhance and make ready their missiles for a nuclear attack. Also, as discussed in the first option, it could potentially damage our image in other countries, which see the United States as the strong super power nation. Taking such action would make us look weak, at a point where we need every ally acquirable.
The third option I was pitched was the possibility of a naval blockade, or quarantine of the island of Cuba. This action would prevent the docking of Soviet ships, which, in turn, would thwart the potential delivery of parts needed for the successful completion and launch of the missiles. It also gives us the time to practice assertive diplomacy and negotiate peace options with the Soviet Union, while leaving us the option of instituting a military attack should they not cooperate. This is the option I plan to put into effect, immediately. Some may argue that since the Soviets already have nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba, this plan is worthless and futile in that it doesnt prevent the possible deployment of said missiles; it only prevents more of them from entering the island. However, in the research presented to me, it is stated that the missiles in Cuba are awaiting valuable parts arriving from the Soviet Union that are vital to their successful launch. So, at this time, and in my thoroughly researched and educated opinion, I find that option number three, A U.S. naval blockade on the coast of Cuba, as well as strategic negotiating is the best option for The United States as a whole.

4shl3y · Member

Air strike is the best option for this country to do at this time because the communists are not very good to persuade, it will not be easy for us to appease them. For the reason of using the air strike option will give us reassurance that we have gone after the fact of their missiles being an offensive strategy instead when they are trying to pursue that their missiles are only defensive. Before when we tried to appease Munich, it was all hell. For the fact of this being the communists hold on the missiles if they follow through with this action. If we dont act on this now those communist are going to take advantage on the time and its going to look like the U.S. is not taking care of their country.

Moussa · Veteran Member

4shl3y wrote:

Air strike is the best option for this country to do at this time because the communists are not very good to persuade, it will not be easy for us to appease them. For the reason of using the air strike option will give us reassurance that we have gone after the fact of their missiles being an offensive strategy instead when they are trying to pursue that their missiles are only defensive. Before when we tried to appease Munich, it was all hell. For the fact of this being the communists hold on the missiles if they follow through with this action. If we dont act on this now those communist are going to take advantage on the time and its going to look like the U.S. is not taking care of their country.

why can't we persuade the soviets to do otherwise?

jessicalol · Veteran Member

mre wrote:

Objectives: Students will be able to 1) analyze the causes of the Cuban Missile Crisis to determine if it could have been prevented, 2) examine the possibility of nuclear war between the US and the USSR (Socviet Union) and make a determination about the decisions considered and made by both President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev and 3) identify and explain the effects of the crisis on the Cold War as well as the world today.

Sources: http://www.engineofsouls.com/file-130.pdf, http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/index.html, http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/forrel/cuba/cubamenu.htm

Background: The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to a full nuclear war. The Soviets had placed nuclear missiles in Cuba and the Kennedy administration attempted to have them removed without provoking a war. It was a tough problem to solve, and the world held its breath for 14 days.

Assignment: So, using your research of the Cuban Missile Crisis (from your option packet, the books, and the links above) take a position on the crisis and defend your position with evidence. Here's how it is going to work:

Step 1: You are assigned an option to defend. It will be one of the following: Option #1) Pursue Diplomacy, Option #2) Blockade Cuba, and Option #3) Airstrike and Invade.

Step 2: In each group, you are assigned a role to play. It will be one of the following: 1) the security advisor [military]- explaining why your option best addresses the security challenges of the US, 2) the Soviet expert [diplomacy] - explaining why your option best serves the US in its relation with the Soviet Union , and 3) the historian - explaining how the lessons of history justify the position of your option.

Step 3: You will conduct research to support your position (Step 1) from your role (Step 2). Use the links above and your reading of the position, belief and assumptions, supporting arguments, and evidence from the historical record to build your case.

Step 4: You will write a 500 word paragraph supporting your position from your role. It must include the following 1) a thesis statement and supporting evidence, and 2) primary source information from the people who were there. I recommend doing your work in MS Word and then cutting and pasting it here.

Step 5: Have a discussion/debate about the options. Direct questions at one another, make comments and suggestions based on the information researched and speculate how this could have been better addressed (depending on your point of view).

Evaluation: You will be graded on your essay using the following rubric: http://engineofsouls.com/file-32.pdf. The essay is worth 75 points. You will be given 5 points for posing a question, comment or suggestion to a fellow student and 5 points for a response to another student's post. You are encouraged to ask questions and respond as many times as possible to equal 25 points.

-- Edited by mre at 14:58, 2009-03-06

My opinion on the Cuban Missile Crisis its a way that i think things would get better if we were to do.Pursuing diplomacy is good option to preserve our relationship with the Soviets. In Order to persuade the Soviet Union to remove their missiles from Cuba might take too long and not even work. If diplomacy fails to yield positive results, the Soviets will still be assembling missiles in Cuba. A blockade is the only good option because it's not as violent as an airstrike, but is still aggressive enough to show the Soviets that we are prepared to take action against them. This will discourage them from trying to take advantage of us.The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

jessicalol · Veteran Member

nickf13 wrote:

Nick Fuller

            I, John F. Kennedy, president of the United States have a crisis that I have to face. The Soviet Union has been sending nuclear weapons to Cuba and they are currently aimed in our countrys direction. My advisors have given me three scenarios or possible solutions to this problem. There are both positive and negative effects for all three reasons, but a decision must be reached quickly.
            The first method is to pursue diplomacy. Using negotiation methods we could try to persuade the Soviet Union to take their nuclear bombs out of Cuba. This method would be the method least likely to provoke military actions by either us or the Soviets. However, this method might not show how sincere we are. Also, this plan does not have any effect on all the missiles that are already present in Cuba.
The second method would be to put a blockade, or quarantine, around the island of Cuba. This would mean to basically block the island from all incoming ships with ships from our navy. The reason behind this method is to stop the Soviet ships from transporting any more nuclear missiles/bombs to Cuba. This plan would prevent any further trade between Cuba and the Soviet Union, but it would not do anything about the missiles currently present in Cuba. With this plan, there is no way to get those out, and those are our biggest threat at the moment. This method would also prevent any military action by the Soviets, because we did not attack them in any way.
The third method is a method dealing with military action. I could authorize an all out air strike on Cuba. This is probably the most risky method. This would anger the Soviets and might result in a war. This is very dangerous because the war would be fought with nuclear missiles. This is not just dangerous to the United States and the Soviet Union, but to the whole world, because nuclear bombs leave devastating damage.Nick Fuller

            I, John F. Kennedy, president of the United States have a crisis that I have to face. The Soviet Union has been sending nuclear weapons to Cuba and they are currently aimed in our countrys direction. My advisors have given me three scenarios or possible solutions to this problem. There are both positive and negative effects for all three reasons, but a decision must be reached quickly.
            The first method is to pursue diplomacy. Using negotiation methods we could try to persuade the Soviet Union to take their nuclear bombs out of Cuba. This method would be the method least likely to provoke military actions by either us or the Soviets. However, this method might not show how sincere we are. Also, this plan does not have any effect on all the missiles that are already present in Cuba.
The second method would be to put a blockade, or quarantine, around the island of Cuba. This would mean to basically block the island from all incoming ships with ships from our navy. The reason behind this method is to stop the Soviet ships from transporting any more nuclear missiles/bombs to Cuba. This plan would prevent any further trade between Cuba and the Soviet Union, but it would not do anything about the missiles currently present in Cuba. With this plan, there is no way to get those out, and those are our biggest threat at the moment. This method would also prevent any military action by the Soviets, because we did not attack them in any way.
The third method is a method dealing with military action. I could authorize an all out air strike on Cuba. This is probably the most risky method. This would anger the Soviets and might result in a war. This is very dangerous because the war would be fought with nuclear missiles. This is not just dangerous to the United States and the Soviet Union, but to the whole world, because nuclear bombs leave devastating damage.

your statement is a bit undecise but i understand were u stand in a way also!

-- Edited by jessicalol at 16:09, 2009-03-10

Brittney(: · Member

shannon43 wrote:

Cuban Missile Crisis Group 3 On the Blockade
I think that the blockade that the US put against Cuba was a good strategy. This blockade wouldnt let the Soviets bring in more missiles or weapons. Also I think that this allowed the US military to be prepared, and it showed Cuba and the Soviet Union that they wanted them to stop. This just shows that the US wanted to protect itself which is a good defense. Also I think that this is not a physical attack. Many other military officials and leaders that were helping Kennedy did not think that this would be a military problem. This caused Khrushchev who was the premier of the Soviet Union to want to prepare to launch missiles at the US. So I think that the blockade was a good decision on President Kennedys part and it was also a nonviolent way of telling Cuba and the Soviet Union that we were not afraid of them and we wanted to fight back and protect ourselves. The Secretary of Defense, who was Robert McNamara helped Kennedy decide that there should be a naval blockade against Cuba. He said that this showed that the US was somewhat in control because they didnt want any more weapons placed on Cuba from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did see this as an act of aggression and even Khrushchev said that the Soviet ships would just ignore the blockade. An example of this was when a USS tanker went through the blockade. It was inspected by the military soldiers who after found that there was no military material on it or weapons was allowed to pass through the blockade. I think that this showed how prepared that the US was and that they were telling the Soviet Union that they felt threatened. This blockade helped to pressure the Soviets to remove their missiles. Robert McNamara thought that the blockade was a better idea than all out attacking the Cubans and the Soviets. Most of the people who were working with Kennedy agreed that this was must better than being foolish and starting the war without thinking through what would happen. Also I think that the US would have been blamed for starting this and fighting against the enemy before standing their ground and trying not to anger the Soviets anymore. Some of the things that I think that Kennedy had to deal with and argue with himself about was whether he should attack Cuba before they attacked the US. Also President Kennedy didnt know if in fact all of the missiles were ready to be launched, but he didnt want to take any chances. I think that the decision of the blockade was very effective. In that it wasnt meant to harm anyone and it showed the US was willing to fight for themselves without being hostile. It let people to have a chance to discuss what they were going to do further and also it was helping to protect the US.

If we are using this as a defense couldn't Cube and the Soviet Union take it in a way which they may want to get back. If they did have missiles they could shoot our boats ,

Brittney(: · Member

4shl3y wrote:

Air strike is the best option for this country to do at this time because the communists are not very good to persuade, it will not be easy for us to appease them. For the reason of using the air strike option will give us reassurance that we have gone after the fact of their missiles being an offensive strategy instead when they are trying to pursue that their missiles are only defensive. Before when we tried to appease Munich, it was all hell. For the fact of this being the communists hold on the missiles if they follow through with this action. If we dont act on this now those communist are going to take advantage on the time and its going to look like the U.S. is not taking care of their country.

IF we did this it would give them a reason to attack and then instead of preventing a nuclear war we could create one.

Brittney(: · Member

montille25 wrote:

David Mendez
Max Montille
Cuban Missile Crisis


            As Security Advisor in the U.S. response to the Soviet and Cuba missile threat, I will explain why our air strikes and invade plans will best come to security challenges the U.S. faces in Cuba. First off, invading Cuba will help us in the long term because Castro regime will end and we can spread democracy through the island. Also, our U.S. Air Force planed to destroy missile sites with an air strike in order to prevent operation of the missiles. Theres no idea of all the missiles sites being shut down. We believe doing this will show the enemies we are not backing down just because they have missiles pointing at us, securing our fear. After we invade Cuba we can start making peace treaty with the county. Failure to respond to the missile threat correctly will lead up to a loss of confidence around the world, and for not acting it would encourage pro-communist countrys to spread there ideas to other county like the domino effect. With out an air strike to Cuba we are risking American lives because the missiles that the Soviet gave to Cuba have a radius destroying about all the states.

Invading will cause thousand of americans to be shoot down before they even reach the beach. It would not be successful.

Tyler Allain · Veteran Member

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

shannon43 wrote:

Cuban Missile Crisis Group 3 On the Blockade
I think that the blockade that the US put against Cuba was a good strategy. This blockade wouldnt let the Soviets bring in more missiles or weapons. Also I think that this allowed the US military to be prepared, and it showed Cuba and the Soviet Union that they wanted them to stop. This just shows that the US wanted to protect itself which is a good defense. Also I think that this is not a physical attack. Many other military officials and leaders that were helping Kennedy did not think that this would be a military problem. This caused Khrushchev who was the premier of the Soviet Union to want to prepare to launch missiles at the US. So I think that the blockade was a good decision on President Kennedys part and it was also a nonviolent way of telling Cuba and the Soviet Union that we were not afraid of them and we wanted to fight back and protect ourselves. The Secretary of Defense, who was Robert McNamara helped Kennedy decide that there should be a naval blockade against Cuba. He said that this showed that the US was somewhat in control because they didnt want any more weapons placed on Cuba from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did see this as an act of aggression and even Khrushchev said that the Soviet ships would just ignore the blockade. An example of this was when a USS tanker went through the blockade. It was inspected by the military soldiers who after found that there was no military material on it or weapons was allowed to pass through the blockade. I think that this showed how prepared that the US was and that they were telling the Soviet Union that they felt threatened. This blockade helped to pressure the Soviets to remove their missiles. Robert McNamara thought that the blockade was a better idea than all out attacking the Cubans and the Soviets. Most of the people who were working with Kennedy agreed that this was must better than being foolish and starting the war without thinking through what would happen. Also I think that the US would have been blamed for starting this and fighting against the enemy before standing their ground and trying not to anger the Soviets anymore. Some of the things that I think that Kennedy had to deal with and argue with himself about was whether he should attack Cuba before they attacked the US. Also President Kennedy didnt know if in fact all of the missiles were ready to be launched, but he didnt want to take any chances. I think that the decision of the blockade was very effective. In that it wasnt meant to harm anyone and it showed the US was willing to fight for themselves without being hostile. It let people to have a chance to discuss what they were going to do further and also it was helping to protect the US.

You spoke alot about how the Blockade would send a message to the Soviets. Yes it would send a message but how would this get anything done if the Soviets simply did not want to comply with whatever the message this blockade would send? A blockade is IMO far to passive and it doesn't actually get anything done. We might as well have just gone to the Soviets and said "Could you please remove those missiles from Cuba...because we are a wee bit scared....pretty please?" I also don't see how a blockade would actually prepare us for or put us in control of the situation. What are a bunch of Navy ships going to do about the launching of Nuclear missiles that are already there from the island? The points are valid but im simply trying to show you that points without anything behind them are weak and be a bit more specific if you can.

Tyler, if a blockade won't get results, how effective would "pure aggressive diplomacy" be? not much if partial military action won't get any results.

a blockade allows the U.S. to bring the Soviets to the table and say, "Unless you want war, let's talk about these missiles". once they start to talk, we can start a deal like taking all nukes from the base in Turkey.

Why would the Soviets place missiles in Cuba if not to ensure the ability to perform a Nuclear Strike on the United States? Whether this is defensive or offensive action on their part we can not take the risk of blockading the island as that might anger them or cause them to feel threatened and warrant an attack. We have invaded the Island once already, and the Soviets may be alerted to an invasion that is not happening. What can navy ships do about missiles already on the island? Nothing, and what can they do about the new missiles arriving if the Soviets refuse to turn them back? Nothing. Therefore a blockade does nothing, and it will not do anything except possibly force the Soviets to take military action on their part aswell.

-- Edited by Tyler Allain at 16:55, 2009-03-10

Tyler Allain · Veteran Member

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

pure negotiations, whether aggressive or not, can always be twisted. Lets say i'm the Soviet Union.
i can say, "Let's talk about this". we'll talk for about a week and during that week, your military will continue to watch me ship in more nukes and more weapons no matter the level of aggressive diplomacy.
Your trying to play poker without any chips. You have nothing to say "Let's be serious about these talks, unless you want war".

the soviets don't want war. many people tend to think they are war loving people. They don't want to be in direct war with the U.S.

a blocake forces them to come to the table and talk seriously. and it also allows diplomacy WITHOUT them buying time to ship more weapons materials, and personel into Cuba.

Moussa.

Really? They don't want war? They've brought war on themselves and have shown the world they will do what they want when they want, and as for saying im trying to "play poker with no chips" this isn't a game and if they think it is we aren't playing. It doesn't matter how many more nukes they build if they don't want war because then they won't use them will they? If your saying they don't want war then why does it matter how many nukes there are there if our goal is to elminiate all of them. You partially blew up your own point. We are here to get done what needs to get done and to do it in a way that shows the world we are responsible and will use tactics to get what we want without endangering ourselves or others. A blockade can only anger them, and if they intend to use the missiles offensivley then the blockade will do nothing to prevent the launch of whats already there.

TAYLORgarron · Member

Tyler Allain wrote:

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

pure negotiations, whether aggressive or not, can always be twisted. Lets say i'm the Soviet Union.
i can say, "Let's talk about this". we'll talk for about a week and during that week, your military will continue to watch me ship in more nukes and more weapons no matter the level of aggressive diplomacy.
Your trying to play poker without any chips. You have nothing to say "Let's be serious about these talks, unless you want war".

the soviets don't want war. many people tend to think they are war loving people. They don't want to be in direct war with the U.S.

a blocake forces them to come to the table and talk seriously. and it also allows diplomacy WITHOUT them buying time to ship more weapons materials, and personel into Cuba.

Moussa.

Really? They don't want war? They've brought war on themselves and have shown the world they will do what they want when they want, and as for saying im trying to "play poker with no chips" this isn't a game and if they think it is we aren't playing. It doesn't matter how many more nukes they build if they don't want war because then they won't use them will they? If your saying they don't want war then why does it matter how many nukes there are there if our goal is to elminiate all of them. You partially blew up your own point. We are here to get done what needs to get done and to do it in a way that shows the world we are responsible and will use tactics to get what we want without endangering ourselves or others. A blockade can only anger them, and if they intend to use the missiles offensivley then the blockade will do nothing to prevent the launch of whats already there.

Tyler, if i may get a word in edgewise, our reading material DID say that the ships were carrying parts of missiles, not missiles themselves. If I am accurate in saying this, and did not misread, then this means that the missiles already on the island were not complete, and therefore unable to be launched. It was also said that we had about two weeks until a tentative attack. If the Soviets wanted imminent war, and the missiles already on the island were ready and able to be launched, (like you said) then why would this amount of time be allotted? It seems as though they wouldn't have given us this time unless they wanted some kind of resolution.

On a completely different note, constructive criticism and being condescending and rude are two totally different things. Just pointing that out...

Tyler Allain · Veteran Member

TAYLORgarron wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

pure negotiations, whether aggressive or not, can always be twisted. Lets say i'm the Soviet Union.
i can say, "Let's talk about this". we'll talk for about a week and during that week, your military will continue to watch me ship in more nukes and more weapons no matter the level of aggressive diplomacy.
Your trying to play poker without any chips. You have nothing to say "Let's be serious about these talks, unless you want war".

the soviets don't want war. many people tend to think they are war loving people. They don't want to be in direct war with the U.S.

a blocake forces them to come to the table and talk seriously. and it also allows diplomacy WITHOUT them buying time to ship more weapons materials, and personel into Cuba.

Moussa.

Really? They don't want war? They've brought war on themselves and have shown the world they will do what they want when they want, and as for saying im trying to "play poker with no chips" this isn't a game and if they think it is we aren't playing. It doesn't matter how many more nukes they build if they don't want war because then they won't use them will they? If your saying they don't want war then why does it matter how many nukes there are there if our goal is to elminiate all of them. You partially blew up your own point. We are here to get done what needs to get done and to do it in a way that shows the world we are responsible and will use tactics to get what we want without endangering ourselves or others. A blockade can only anger them, and if they intend to use the missiles offensivley then the blockade will do nothing to prevent the launch of whats already there.

Tyler, if i may get a word in edgewise, our reading material DID say that the ships were carrying parts of missiles, not missiles themselves. If I am accurate in saying this, and did not misread, then this means that the missiles already on the island were not complete, and therefore unable to be launched. It was also said that we had about two weeks until a tentative attack. If the Soviets wanted imminent war, and the missiles already on the island were ready and able to be launched, (like you said) then why would this amount of time be allotted? It seems as though they wouldn't have given us this time unless they wanted some kind of resolution.

On a completely different note, constructive criticism and being condescending and rude are two totally different things. Just pointing that out...
_________________________________________________________

The information i have says that they beleived the missiles on the Island were not operable but that was wrong. Everything i said was direct to his comments so i don't feel i was at all being rude but if i came off that way i apologize.

-- Edited by Tyler Allain at 17:38, 2009-03-10

-- Edited by Tyler Allain at 20:47, 2009-03-10

KLeite89 · Member

Kayla Leite

March 9,2009

The Cuban Missile Crisis:

As a historian studying and researching the Cuban Missile Crisis I have learned thoroughly the process and the repercussions of this grave epidemic. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a confrontation between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Cuba that occurred in the early 1960s during the Cold War. This crisis ranks with the Berlin Blockade as one of the major confrontations of the Cold War, and is often regarded as the moment in which the Cold War came closest to a nuclear war.

In Havana, there was a fear of military intervention by the United States in Cuba. In April 1961, the invasion of a force of CIA-trained Cuban exiles landed at the Bay of Pigs was quickly stopped by Cubas military forces due to a lack of support and poor management by the US. When the Brigade 2506 failed, Fidel Castro felt that the United States would invade Cuba to finish what it started. Castro declared Cuba as a socialist republic, and with this the United States began to fear the Soviet expansion of communism or socialism.

In September 1962, the Cuban government saw significant evidence that the US would invade, including a joint US Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Cuba if American interests were threatened. On October 14 United States saw that missile bases were being built in Cuba. The crisis ended two weeks later when the current President John F. Kennedy and the Unites Nations Secretary, General U Thant reached an agreement with the Soviets to dismantle the missiles in Cuba in exchange for a no invasion agreement. Khrushchev's request that the Jupiter and Thor missiles in Turkey be removed was ignored by the Kennedy administration and not pressed on by the Soviet Union.

Kennedys government later received repeated news from Soviet diplomatic disclaimers that there were neither Soviet missiles in Cuba, nor plans to install any. In late August, a reconnaissance flight photographed a new series of SAM sites being built, but on September 4, 1962, Kennedy told Congress that there were no offensive missiles in Cuba. Days later, another reconnaissance flight photographed the building of a submarine pen disguised as a fishing village. On September 11, the Soviets publicly stated that they had no need to install nuclear weapons outside the USSR, including Cuba. Unanimously, the Joint Chiefs of Staff later made an agreement to establish a full-scale attack and invasion as their only solution. They agreed that the Soviets would not act to stop the US from conquering Cuba, Kennedy became skeptical of this.

A naval blockade by the US Navy was then formed against Cuba. This blockade represents a combination of diplomatic and military response, but without the danger that would be caused by an immediate US attack. On the other hand, an unannounced US attack against Cuba holds the disadvantage of losing the moral high ground for the United States.

KLeite89 · Member

Brittney(: wrote:

4shl3y wrote:

Air strike is the best option for this country to do at this time because the communists are not very good to persuade, it will not be easy for us to appease them. For the reason of using the air strike option will give us reassurance that we have gone after the fact of their missiles being an offensive strategy instead when they are trying to pursue that their missiles are only defensive. Before when we tried to appease Munich, it was all hell. For the fact of this being the communists hold on the missiles if they follow through with this action. If we dont act on this now those communist are going to take advantage on the time and its going to look like the U.S. is not taking care of their country.

IF we did this it would give them a reason to attack and then instead of preventing a nuclear war we could create one.

I agree with your take on the whole "if we don't act quickly then they will think that the U.S. is not taking care of their country" but if we act too quickly and irrationally then it could lead to a possible nuclear war that we actually tried to avoid.

Moussa · Veteran Member

TAYLORgarron wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

pure negotiations, whether aggressive or not, can always be twisted. Lets say i'm the Soviet Union.
i can say, "Let's talk about this". we'll talk for about a week and during that week, your military will continue to watch me ship in more nukes and more weapons no matter the level of aggressive diplomacy.
Your trying to play poker without any chips. You have nothing to say "Let's be serious about these talks, unless you want war".

the soviets don't want war. many people tend to think they are war loving people. They don't want to be in direct war with the U.S.

a blocake forces them to come to the table and talk seriously. and it also allows diplomacy WITHOUT them buying time to ship more weapons materials, and personel into Cuba.

Moussa.

Really? They don't want war? They've brought war on themselves and have shown the world they will do what they want when they want, and as for saying im trying to "play poker with no chips" this isn't a game and if they think it is we aren't playing. It doesn't matter how many more nukes they build if they don't want war because then they won't use them will they? If your saying they don't want war then why does it matter how many nukes there are there if our goal is to elminiate all of them. You partially blew up your own point. We are here to get done what needs to get done and to do it in a way that shows the world we are responsible and will use tactics to get what we want without endangering ourselves or others. A blockade can only anger them, and if they intend to use the missiles offensivley then the blockade will do nothing to prevent the launch of whats already there.

Tyler, if i may get a word in edgewise, our reading material DID say that the ships were carrying parts of missiles, not missiles themselves. If I am accurate in saying this, and did not misread, then this means that the missiles already on the island were not complete, and therefore unable to be launched. It was also said that we had about two weeks until a tentative attack. If the Soviets wanted imminent war, and the missiles already on the island were ready and able to be launched, (like you said) then why would this amount of time be allotted? It seems as though they wouldn't have given us this time unless they wanted some kind of resolution.

On a completely different note, constructive criticism and being condescending and rude are two totally different things. Just pointing that out...

exactly Taylor. a blockade stops the completion of such missiles and therefore their launch.

Moussa · Veteran Member

Tyler Allain wrote:

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

pure negotiations, whether aggressive or not, can always be twisted. Lets say i'm the Soviet Union.
i can say, "Let's talk about this". we'll talk for about a week and during that week, your military will continue to watch me ship in more nukes and more weapons no matter the level of aggressive diplomacy.
Your trying to play poker without any chips. You have nothing to say "Let's be serious about these talks, unless you want war".

the soviets don't want war. many people tend to think they are war loving people. They don't want to be in direct war with the U.S.

a blocake forces them to come to the table and talk seriously. and it also allows diplomacy WITHOUT them buying time to ship more weapons materials, and personel into Cuba.

Moussa.

Really? They don't want war? They've brought war on themselves and have shown the world they will do what they want when they want, and as for saying im trying to "play poker with no chips" this isn't a game and if they think it is we aren't playing. It doesn't matter how many more nukes they build if they don't want war because then they won't use them will they? If your saying they don't want war then why does it matter how many nukes there are there if our goal is to elminiate all of them. You partially blew up your own point. We are here to get done what needs to get done and to do it in a way that shows the world we are responsible and will use tactics to get what we want without endangering ourselves or others. A blockade can only anger them, and if they intend to use the missiles offensivley then the blockade will do nothing to prevent the launch of whats already there.

if, to you, soviet nukes in Cuba signal the Soviet's eagerness to war, than our nukes in Turkey are equally as eager. that going along the lines of your train of thought.

Are we eager to go to war? i don't think we ever were, and i hope you can see the misconceptions that may float in the Soviet Union. The U.S. has nukes in Trukey who's soul purpose is the destruction of the Soviet Union.

my point is, just because they are setting up nukes in Cuba doesn't mean they are eager to go to war. If they were they would have started fighting our troops in Berlin a long time ago.

Blockading more parts from entering cuba to make the missiles work is the only way we can force the Soviets to talk. The poker analogy wasn't an attempt to say this is all a game.

but usually international politics and foreign policy is associated with either chess or poker. each side making a move. I still believe that pure diplomacy is basically saying "Come and talk" when the Soviets can just ignore the U.S. why would they come and talk to the U.S. if they could continue what they are doing? they have nothing really bringing them to the table. a blockade forces them to at least stop and think "We either go to war (which is not what they want) or we talk".

mre · Senior Member

Grades Updated 3/13/09
Great discussion everyone...

Keep posting comments to boost your grades!

mre · Senior Member

If anyone wants to do some cross-post commenting, my AP US History class is discussing (acting out) the Cuban Missile Crisis here: http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=125126&p=3&topicID=25835976

Walter · Veteran Member

mre wrote:

If anyone wants to do some cross-post commenting, my AP US History class is discussing (acting out) the Cuban Missile Crisis here: http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=125126&p=3&topicID=25835976

can i bring my delta force into this discussion mr. everett?

Tyler Allain · Veteran Member

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

pure negotiations, whether aggressive or not, can always be twisted. Lets say i'm the Soviet Union.
i can say, "Let's talk about this". we'll talk for about a week and during that week, your military will continue to watch me ship in more nukes and more weapons no matter the level of aggressive diplomacy.
Your trying to play poker without any chips. You have nothing to say "Let's be serious about these talks, unless you want war".

the soviets don't want war. many people tend to think they are war loving people. They don't want to be in direct war with the U.S.

a blocake forces them to come to the table and talk seriously. and it also allows diplomacy WITHOUT them buying time to ship more weapons materials, and personel into Cuba.

Moussa.

Really? They don't want war? They've brought war on themselves and have shown the world they will do what they want when they want, and as for saying im trying to "play poker with no chips" this isn't a game and if they think it is we aren't playing. It doesn't matter how many more nukes they build if they don't want war because then they won't use them will they? If your saying they don't want war then why does it matter how many nukes there are there if our goal is to elminiate all of them. You partially blew up your own point. We are here to get done what needs to get done and to do it in a way that shows the world we are responsible and will use tactics to get what we want without endangering ourselves or others. A blockade can only anger them, and if they intend to use the missiles offensivley then the blockade will do nothing to prevent the launch of whats already there.

if, to you, soviet nukes in Cuba signal the Soviet's eagerness to war, than our nukes in Turkey are equally as eager. that going along the lines of your train of thought.

Are we eager to go to war? i don't think we ever were, and i hope you can see the misconceptions that may float in the Soviet Union. The U.S. has nukes in Trukey who's soul purpose is the destruction of the Soviet Union.

my point is, just because they are setting up nukes in Cuba doesn't mean they are eager to go to war. If they were they would have started fighting our troops in Berlin a long time ago.

Blockading more parts from entering cuba to make the missiles work is the only way we can force the Soviets to talk. The poker analogy wasn't an attempt to say this is all a game.

but usually international politics and foreign policy is associated with either chess or poker. each side making a move. I still believe that pure diplomacy is basically saying "Come and talk" when the Soviets can just ignore the U.S. why would they come and talk to the U.S. if they could continue what they are doing? they have nothing really bringing them to the table. a blockade forces them to at least stop and think "We either go to war (which is not what they want) or we talk".

While the U.S does, just like the Soviets, have strategically positioned missiles. We are not like the Soviets in that we are not containing our own people and forcing those unwilling into living under communism. They are oppressive, and they clearly show aggression in how they go about getting what they want. A country who is like that i feel cannot be put into a position where military action against an enemy that appears to also be using military actions (the blockade) could be in anyway justifiable to themselves or the rest of the world. If like you said, they are not eager to go to war, then why should we be worried at all about these missiles? What would be the point in the blockade if theres really nothing to be so urgent about? So I stand by my point in saying that the blockade either does nothing (since what can navy ships do about nuclear missiles on the island), or it hurts the United States (By allowing the enemy an opportunity to go on the offensive). Bringing this up and showing the World that an aggressive enemy oppressive to even its own people, is building missiles for offensive purposes, will bring political pressure to resolve the conflict without the need for any military action on either our part or the Soviet Union's. I stand by what I have said and strongly beleive you cannot prevent military action with military action.

nadia33 · Member

Security expert

I think as a security expert the best option is diplomacy because it is peaceful and wont cause a big war. If we try to attack they might shoot their missiles at us. The missiles were only in Cuba because they were using it as a defense against us. If we had attacked them in air strike and invaded them it could have caused great damage and everyone would probably turn against us and we would loose our allies and we couldnt afford that. A war is this worst position you can put your country in. If we had attacked they would have a reason to attack back and we would look like he bad country because we attacked first. We have already engaged in many wars and have lost already many troops. If we attack it could set off any nuclear weapons and could cause danger not only to the U.S but also to the rest of the world. If we invade them we could be there for a long time and never accomplish anything and we would just be hurting the land and killing more and more people.

Cameron · Member

As the historian I found that airstrike and invasion is the best option for protecting the country from nuclear attack and preventing the Russians from gaining any advantages in this Cold War. From my research, I have seen that the World War II bombings in Japan were similar to the situation now. The U.S action to attack before the enemy can attack us caused Japans surrender. If we were to follow out with an invasion, we would have prior advantage and if they were to attack us back, we could defend ourselves with great retaliation. Another historic event in where we attacked first was the Mexican War. Our attack caused the Mexicans to give up New Mexico. Therefore our actions may solve the problem and cause the Soviets to end their operations in Cuba.

Moussa · Veteran Member

Tyler Allain wrote:

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

Moussa wrote:

Tyler Allain wrote:

vanessa wrote:

kristenrush wrote:

Diplomacy would be best suited to this situation dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis because diplomacy wouldnt lead to an attack on the Unites States, Berlin or NATO bases in Turkey. Since nuclear weapons are being built on Cuban land, an attack on them would be a bad idea for fear of them launching the missiles and attacking the United States. If we went with a military strategy there could be millions of lives taken, which is clearly not what we want to happen. If we take into account past experiences we can realize why diplomacy would be the best idea. Take Pearl Harbor for instance; the Japanese attacked us first so we wouldnt take action in the war they wanted to wage in Southeast Asia which just led to major United States involvement in World War 2. If we were to bomb to nuclear missiles it could just lead to another unnecessary battle to solve something that can be solved just as easily with diplomacy. If we want to fix this we need to send officials to Castro and Khrushchev were we can begin to uncover the motives and objectives of the Soviets. We need to understand that this is the Soviets doing and not the Cubans. The Soviets promised that they would not build any nuclear weapons in Cuba, but they clearly are. Since this is diplomacy, we have to be willing to eliminate our Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the elimination of their missiles in Cuba. This gives the United States more time to assess the situation and find information before any hasty action is taken. We dont want to be that nation known as the one who fired the first shot to start a nuclear exchange and bring damage to not only the United States, but at several other countries as well.

I agree with Kristen. I believe that we should solve things in a passive way not an aggressive way. We wouldn't want to be the country responsible for the third World War. I feel if we can find out what the Soviets want we can come to an agreement without violence.

Just because we solve something without violence does not necessarily mean it was passively. We could be aggresive in our negotiations, but i see what your trying to say.

pure negotiations, whether aggressive or not, can always be twisted. Lets say i'm the Soviet Union.
i can say, "Let's talk about this". we'll talk for about a week and during that week, your military will continue to watch me ship in more nukes and more weapons no matter the level of aggressive diplomacy.
Your trying to play poker without any chips. You have nothing to say "Let's be serious about these talks, unless you want war".

the soviets don't want war. many people tend to think they are war loving people. They don't want to be in direct war with the U.S.

a blocake forces them to come to the table and talk seriously. and it also allows diplomacy WITHOUT them buying time to ship more weapons materials, and personel into Cuba.

Moussa.

Really? They don't want war? They've brought war on themselves and have shown the world they will do what they want when they want, and as for saying im trying to "play poker with no chips" this isn't a game and if they think it is we aren't playing. It doesn't matter how many more nukes they build if they don't want war because then they won't use them will they? If your saying they don't want war then why does it matter how many nukes there are there if our goal is to elminiate all of them. You partially blew up your own point. We are here to get done what needs to get done and to do it in a way that shows the world we are responsible and will use tactics to get what we want without endangering ourselves or others. A blockade can only anger them, and if they intend to use the missiles offensivley then the blockade will do nothing to prevent the launch of whats already there.

if, to you, soviet nukes in Cuba signal the Soviet's eagerness to war, than our nukes in Turkey are equally as eager. that going along the lines of your train of thought.

Are we eager to go to war? i don't think we ever were, and i hope you can see the misconceptions that may float in the Soviet Union. The U.S. has nukes in Trukey who's soul purpose is the destruction of the Soviet Union.

my point is, just because they are setting up nukes in Cuba doesn't mean they are eager to go to war. If they were they would have started fighting our troops in Berlin a long time ago.

Blockading more parts from entering cuba to make the missiles work is the only way we can force the Soviets to talk. The poker analogy wasn't an attempt to say this is all a game.

but usually international politics and foreign policy is associated with either chess or poker. each side making a move. I still believe that pure diplomacy is basically saying "Come and talk" when the Soviets can just ignore the U.S. why would they come and talk to the U.S. if they could continue what they are doing? they have nothing really bringing them to the table. a blockade forces them to at least stop and think "We either go to war (which is not what they want) or we talk".

While the U.S does, just like the Soviets, have strategically positioned missiles. We are not like the Soviets in that we are not containing our own people and forcing those unwilling into living under communism. They are oppressive, and they clearly show aggression in how they go about getting what they want. A country who is like that i feel cannot be put into a position where military action against an enemy that appears to also be using military actions (the blockade) could be in anyway justifiable to themselves or the rest of the world. If like you said, they are not eager to go to war, then why should we be worried at all about these missiles? What would be the point in the blockade if theres really nothing to be so urgent about? So I stand by my point in saying that the blockade either does nothing (since what can navy ships do about nuclear missiles on the island), or it hurts the United States (By allowing the enemy an opportunity to go on the offensive). Bringing this up and showing the World that an aggressive enemy oppressive to even its own people, is building missiles for offensive purposes, will bring political pressure to resolve the conflict without the need for any military action on either our part or the Soviet Union's. I stand by what I have said and strongly beleive you cannot prevent military action with military action.

i know this whole assignment is done, but i still feel the need to respond. The Soviet Union has the FULL right to place nuclear weapons on Cuba if you're justifying the U.S. missiles in Turkey. I see no difference in what your saying. Your saying the Soviet Union oppresses their people..etc, but what you don't understand, is that especially at the time, the Soviets were VERY VERY proud of their country and their fight against the U.S. And your basically saying, They're 'oppressive' so they can't handle these weapons, but who are we to tell them!?!? the only country in the world to use one. The Soviets, if any, have much more justification to have the weapons than the U.S. does on this premise.

As for the Soviet 'oppression'. I fear your under the impression that the U.S. was (or is) a gleaming 'city' of freedom. the ONLY difference between the U.S. and the Soviets, is that the Soviets oppress their people (or minorities) openly since they are communist in government form. In the U.S. they oppress their people secretly. There is no difference otherwise, therefore we are in no way more justified to have the weapons then they are.

If the Soviets have 'shown aggression' to get what they want, then clearly the U.S. also has (Vietnam..etc) we've been very aggressive for 'good causes' to GET OUR WAY. So i don't get your point on that. The reason we should be worried about all these missiles, is because of the simple fact, that we have nuclear weapons at our doorstep from our enemies (soviets and cuba). The reason Soviets are so scared are because of U.S. nukes in Turkey. We support the anti-communists in Turkey, and They support the communists in Cuba. It's that simple.

Your seeing the blockade in a 1D view. It isn't just a blockade. The blockade, stops any new weapons, tech..etc from entering the Island. It also sends the ball in their courts saying "If you want war (which they dont) then it's up to you to make the next move" the blockade (if attacked ) will make the Soviets look aggressive, not the U.S.

Once the blockade is in place, we can begin 'aggressive diplomacy" similar to what you were advocating. The diplomacy would center around the nukes already on the island. Therefore problem solved. We deal with any new weapons comming in, and we deal with those already on the island.

your pure diplomacy, deals with the island nukes, but doesn't deal with new and incomming nukes. Pure diplomacy buys them time, and is ineffective.

Moussa.