The Cuban Missile Crisis BEGIN. Bay of Pigs Next

The Cuban Missile Crisis

BEGIN

Bay of Pigs

Next

Cuba provided with armsAfter the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Soviet arms flooded into Cuba. The Soviet Union publicly announced that it was supplying Cuba with arms in May 1962. By September, Cuba had thousands of Soviet radar vans, missile erectors, jet bombers, jet fighters, tanks, and patrol boats, as well as 5000 Soviet technicians to help maintain the weapons.

Next

So near America?Whilst conventional arms were being supplied to Cuba, an island next door to the USA, the Americans watched with great alarm, the question being whether the USSR would dare put nuclear missiles on Cuba. On 11 September, Kennedy warned the USSR, and on the same day, the USSR assured the USA that they had no intention of placing nuclear missiles on Cuba.

Next

BUT…

On Sunday, 14 October 1962, an American U-2 spy plane was sent to Cuba, flying over and taking amazingly detailed photographs of missile sites in Cuba. It was obvious to all US military experts that these were nuclear missile sites, and that they were being built by the USSR. Over the next few days, it was confirmed that some sites were already supplied with missiles, and 20 Soviet ships carrying missiles were also on the way to Cuba.

Next

Nuclear launch sites in Cuba, 1962

Next

What should America do?

As both the USA and USSR were now in possession of many nuclear weapons, Kennedy had five main choices, put forward by his advisors. What should he do?

Click on each of the choices for the pros and cons of each choice.

Do nothing Surgical attack

Invasion

Diplomatic pressures Blockade

Do nothingPROS

• The Americans knew that their nuclear power was much greater than the Soviet Union

• The USA could still destroy the USSR, and the USSR knew this, meaning that the USSR would never use the missiles

• The biggest danger to world peace would be to overreact to the discovery of the missiles on Cuba

CONS• The USSR had lied about

the missiles in Cuba, and Kennedy had already issued a warning to the USSR

• Doing nothing could be, and would be, interpreted as a sign of weakness by other countries

Back Confirm this choice

Attack from air

Next

Surgical air attack

PROS• It would destroy the

missiles on Cuba before they were ready to use

CONS• The destruction of all the

sites could not be guaranteed, and if even only one site was left undamaged, the USSR would be able to launch a counterattack against the USA

• The attack would kill Soviet soldiers, causing the Soviet Union to retaliate at once

• The attack would be seen as immoral

Back

Confirm this choice

All-out invasion by air and sea

Next

Invasion

PROS• An all-out invasion of Cuba

by both air and sea would get rid of both the missiles and Castro

• The American forces were already trained and available to carry out the invasion

CONS• The USSR would either

respond immediately to protect Cuba, or would respond within the Soviet sphere of influence, with a possible take-over of Berlin


United Nations meeting to discuss Cuba

Next

Diplomatic pressures

PROS• By getting the United

Nations or other countries to intervene, or negotiate, it would avoid conflict

CONS• If the USA was forced to

back down, it would be interpreted as a sign of weakness by other countries


American blockade

Next

BlockadePROS

• Banning the Soviet Union from bringing in any further military supplies to Cuba by using the US navy to stop and search Soviet ships would show that the USA was serious, without using a direct act of war

• Blockading the Soviet ships going to Cuba would put the burden on Khrushchev

• If this option did not work out, even though the USA had a strong navy, they could still take other options

CONS• A blockade would not solve

the main problem as the missiles were already on Cuba, and could be used within one week

• The USSR may choose to retaliate by blockading Berlin, as it had already done so before in 1948


Weak America

The USSR have not used the missiles, but America is now seen as a weak country, and Kennedy is seen as a pushover, and America is therefore more vulnerable.

Next

Soviet RetaliationIt was inevitable that at least one of the nuclear bases would be missed. However, America now has to face the consequences of its actions. The Soviet Union retaliate at once as America’s attack without advance warning is seen as immoral, and this may be the very beginning of World War III.

Next

Defense and retaliationThe USSR respond immediately to the all-out invasion on Cuba, to protect it, and also take over Berlin. Numerous lives are lost on both sides. Both the USSR and USA are still in possession of nuclear missiles, and are ready to fire them at each other.

Should the USA fire?

Click on each of the choices for the pros and cons of each choice.

No Yes

The USA do not firePROS

• The potential World War is avoided for now.

• Neither America, the Soviet Union, nor other countries are reduced to almost nothing by nuclear missiles.

CONS• The USSR may see

the USA doing nothing about it (not firing their weapons) as a weak thing to do.


The USA firesPROS

• This will show the Soviet Union the extremities that the USA are willing to go to in order to have the USSR remove the nuclear weapons from Cuba, and may threaten the USSR.

CONS• World War III can no

longer be avoided.• Many innocent lives are

taken, and many once lively places destroyed.

• The USSR will no doubt retaliate by firing their own missiles even before the American nuclear missiles have reached the USSR, causing further damage.


World War III avoided

World War III is avoided as the nuclear weapons are not fired, and there is no mass waste of life, time, and effort. However, lives are still being lost because of the take-over of Berlin, and the original invasion of Cuba.

Next

All is lost

All hope is lost, and so are numerous amounts of lives, as soon as the USA press the buttons and fire their nuclear missiles at the USSR. The two countries, America and the Soviet Union, will soon be reduced to almost nothing, and other countries will get involved, making this World War III.

Next

The United Nations

As a well respected member, your choice will make a great deal of difference for America. Your choice will influence that of many others.The United Nations can either intervene or negotiate, or force the USA to back down.What is your choice?Click on each of the choices for the pros and cons of each choice.

Intervene Back down

Intervene

PROS• Can help to avoid

conflict.• There may be no

more needless loss of lives.

CONS• The United Nations’

intervention could anger the USSR.

• In the event that intervention and negotiation are not a success, more lives may be lost.


Back down

PROS• Conflict could be

avoided.• USSR would not be

angered.• No further lives would

be lost.

CONS• The USA would be

seen as a weak country as being forced to back down would be interpreted as a sign of weakness by other countries.


Angered USSR

The intervention has angered the USSR, and more innocent lives are gone to waste, and lost. As the USSR and USA still have nuclear weapons in their possession, and the Soviet Union is angered, there may still be a chance of a nuclear war.

Next

No loss

By forcing the USA to back down, the USSR has not been angered, and are therefore not likely to unleash their nuclear missiles, and whilst the United Nations has power over the USA, their missiles will not be used either. Conflict has been avoided.

Next

Still advancing

The US Navy have blockaded Cuba, posted around the island to search any ships going in or out from Cuba, ensuring that no military supplies will reach Cuba. However, although the burden is now on Krushchev, Soviet ships carrying military supplies, still advancing to Cuba, are spotted.

Next

Soviet shipsAmerica now has yet another decision to make. America can either assume that Krushchev is ignoring the blockade, and attempting to get the military supplies through all the same, or that message has not traveled to the ships yet, and they are soon to turn back. If it is decided that Krushchev is purposely ignoring the blockade, action will have to be taken.Click on each of the choices for the pros and cons of each choice.

Ignoring Turning back

Ignoring

PROS• America may use

Krushchev’s ignorance as a point in their desperate promotion of Capitalism.

CONS• More lives may be

lost due to the actions to be taken against Krushchev and the advancing Soviet ships.


Turning back

PROS• If the Soviet ships

receive the message to turn back, all conflict will be avoided.

CONS• It is a risk to believe

that the Soviet ships will turn back as the USSR had once lied about the missiles on Cuba.


Action

By deciding that Krushchev is purposely ignoring the blockade, countries now see Kennedy as a pushover, and America as weak. In taking action to prevent Krushchev from ignoring the blockade, more lives are lost.

Next

Turning point

The Soviet ships have indeed turned back after much patient waiting on the part of the Americans, and the nuclear missile sites on Cuba were later dismantled and taken away. World War III has been avoided, and so has further loss of life, and waste of time.

Next

CONGRATULATIONS

You have successfully avoided all conflict, and war throughout the crisis of missiles, that belonged to the Communist Soviet Union, being found on Cuba.

Play again

GAME OVER

You have made the wrong choice and caused World War III to begin, or caused numerous lives to be lost, and a countless amount of time and effort to be wasted. Had you made better decisions, this could have been avoided. Better luck next time.

Play again

GAME OVER

Bad luck! You were close! Think over your decisions again. Could they have been better?

Better luck next time.

Play again

CONGRATULATIONS

Whilst this is not the best possible set of decisions there are, they have still avoided conflict!

Perhaps after thinking over it, you will realize the better solution. Going to take up on the challenge?

Play again

Next

Next

Cuban Missile Crisis

A Brief Chronology

May, 1962: Khrushchev makes veiled references to a plot (How would the U.S. feel to have missiles pointing at them, as they have missiles pointed at us?)

September: JFK and Congress issue warnings to USSR that US will deal harshly with any threats to national security

October 14: U2 recon. flight over Cuba spots sites installing nuclear missiles

October 15: Presence of missiles is confirmed

The Missiles: One Site

Chronology, Continued

October 16: President Kennedy notified October 16-22: Secret deliberations on what

should be done October 22: Kennedy tells nation his plan for

blockade and quarantine October 23: OAS endorses naval quarantine October 24: Naval quarantine begins and

successfully changes course of many Soviet ships


October 25: One Soviet ship challenges naval quarantine; Kennedy lets it pass

October 25: At the UN, Adlai Stevenson directly challenges the Soviet ambassador to admit to the existence of missiles, when the ambassador refuses, Stevenson wheels out pictures of the missile sites

October 26: Soviets raise possibility for a deal: if we withdraw missiles will America promise not to invade Cuba?


October 27: Soviets demand that Americans also withdraw missiles from Turkey; Major Anderson’s plane is missing over Cuba, presumably shot down; U.S. recon plane strays over Soviet airspace…high tensions

Kennedy tells Khrushchev that he will accept the proposal of the 26th, Kennedy tells his brother to tell the Soviet Ambassador that though the Turkey missiles would not be part of the bargain, they would be removed in time

October 28: USSR agrees to withdraw missiles

Soviet Decisions

Motivations Close the missile gap—Currently far

behind U.S. in terms of number of missiles

Verbal threats no longer effective with overwhelming evidence of U.S. superiority

Protect Cuba Reciprocity: The U.S. has missiles

pointing at us, let’s see how they feel now

Soviet Decisions, Continued

Inability to use the missiles If fired a missile, repercussions would be

severe

Why Khrushchev Settled

Effectiveness of naval quarantine Conventional inferiority in the Caribbean No possible countermove Overwhelming world support for the U.S. Other possible reasons

Got what he wanted? No U.S. invasion of Cuba U.S. missiles withdrawn from Turkey

The American Decision

In September Kennedy had stated and Congress had passed a resolution saying that if the Soviet Union placed offensive weapons in Cuba we would not tolerate it.

Could we then rely solely on diplomacy? Kennedys thought John could be “impeached” if he didn’t act in accordance with his prior warnings

Determined in first 48 hours of crisis that the removal of missiles was the primary objective

This objective effectively ruled out isolated diplomacy, and left two options…

The American Decision cont.

Option 1 - Air Strike On October 17th, President Kennedy “made

the flat statement that there would definitely be an air strike, at least against the missile sites, and perhaps against wider targets” (Bundy 394)

Reservations from others, airstrike may be using a “sledgehammer” to kill a “fly

Later that day Robert McNamara suggests policy in between diplomacy and an air strike

The American Decision cont.

Option 2 – Blockade Advocated early on by McNamara and Robert

Kennedy, blockade would not require instant killing, but critics feared it would not remove the missiles and would allow Soviets time to complete what they already had in Cuba

Douglas Dillon strengthened blockade argument by suggesting that it would only be a first step, that if Khrushchev did not remove the missiles to lift it, then more could be done

By Friday the 19th, the committee working on the blockade adapted it into a quarantine, on Sunday Kennedy accepted their plan as the course of action

Could America have acted differently?

Could we have used the crisis to remove Castro? Our warnings all along had been against offensive

weapons so once that warning is tested if we use it to attack Castro are we sticking to our word?

Could we have tried diplomacy before resorting to the quarantine? If we didn’t keep secrecy, Khrushchev could have

proclaimed defiance, or denounced quarantine…then both countries would be in positions where they’re heading straight for each other and can’t just turn back

Castro’s Role

No real role in decision making

Apparently out of touch with the situation

Oct. 26: “Aggression imminent/imperialists disregarding world opinion”—Clearly not the case

Khrushchev plays along to some extent but it is clear he disagrees with him (“your suggestion would have started a thermonuclear world war”)

Questions Do you feel Major Anderson’s death justified

more aggressive action? Seeing as how our options in the crisis were

somewhat dictated by the warnings we issued in September…should we have issued those warnings?

Robert Kennedy likened an air strike to Pearl Harbor (Bundy 394), was that a fair analogy?

If the missiles in Cuba were conventional, and neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S. possessed any nuclear weapons, would the crisis have been avoided?

The Cuban Missile Crisis

Documents

The Cuban Missile Crisis BEGIN. Bay of Pigs Next