October 16, 1962: You are the President of the United States, and American intelligence reports that the Soviet Union is planting missile silos in Cuba, only ninety miles from US shores. Your response will determine the fate of the world. Any single miscalculation could increase global tensions to a boiling point and cause nuclear war. On the other hand, political concerns at home mean that any position too weak for US voters will be rejected in the upcoming midterm elections. Your advisers are split into three factions: the doves, the hawks, and the owls. The doves, lead by UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, propose immediately negotiating with the Soviets to withdraw the silos in exchange for a withdrawal of defunct US missiles in Italy and Turkey. The hawks lead by General Curtis LeMay argue that the US must quickly invade Cuba and destroy the silos from the air. However, the owls in the Presidential Cabinet, such as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, push for a naval blockade of Cuba combined with diplomatic overtures to the USSR to stand down. Without considering the decisions made by US leaders in OTL, what course of action would you personally have taken in the heat of the moment as the American President?
How Would You Have Handled the Cuban Missile Crisis?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Its too late at that point for my preferred approach, which is to recognize that putting American nukes in Turkey is essentially the same thing as Russian nukes in Cuba and that both are bad for the Cold War temperature. Considerations of credibility and international prestige would probably demand option 3. Thing is Americans in general recognize that THEY have a sphere of influence (they get super touchy any time any extra-regional power gets involved anywhere in the Americas, but they are singularly unwilling to allow any other nation a similar sphere of influence (Turkey and Syria are deep in the traditional Russian/USSR sphere).
RousseauX
Donor
So do we have the benefit of hindsight? Because US at the time didn't know that there were already tactical nukes on Cuba and that there were 10ks of Soviet troops as well. They didn't know Soviet commander had orders which could be interpreted as authorization for using nuclear weapons if under attack as well.
Because that would make military option significantly less appealing.
Because that would make military option significantly less appealing.
Unfortunately no. I understand it's hard not to make these judgements about history without hindsight, but the purpose of this exercise is to place yourself in that time and place to see what decision you would have made under the circumstances.
For an argument that a public agreement to trade the Jupiters for the Cuban missiles would not have been politically fatal, see my post at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...issile-crisis-going-hot.336178/#post-10006914
Nephi
Banned
Otherwise being stabed in the back at Yalta had nothing to do with it, Roosevelt really did believe Stalin valued his relationship with him and the United States enough not to do what he did to Eastern Europe, that was weariness.
Knowing the massive superiority we had in nuclear weapons--which Kennedy and his advisors DID--I would have given the Soviet Union a 24 hour ultimatum, and if they didn't back down I would have launched a massive, all-out first strike on the Soviet Union.
Even an inferior nuclear power could inflict a lot of damage on the West. But even if it couldn't, I sort of prefer the "don't kill millions of civilians--even Russian ones--if you can avoid it by diplomacy" approach. But that's just me, I guess.
RousseauX
Donor
the problem is that even if you wipe out the ussr 95% they still have 50 or so icbms and the missles on cuba, plus bombers, so you'll prob lose like 50 US largest cities + london/paris etc, probably not worth it
All things considered, even without hindsight, I'm still going option 1. Not just because it's what I think is right, but I really don't want to be playing chicken with the end of the world. If I'm president I'm steering towards aggressive detente with or without the crisis. Nuclear weapons aren't toys for geopolitical leverage.
Take your nukes out of Cuba we take ours out of Turkey. Simple.
Sure we'll stay on high alert but no blockades, no clandestine operations and sure as hell no actual attacks on Cuban/Soviet forces on the island. How things went in our time is kind of a fluke. Without the hindsight to know that pushing the envelope might not blow up the world I'd never let it get that close in the first place.
Take your nukes out of Cuba we take ours out of Turkey. Simple.
Sure we'll stay on high alert but no blockades, no clandestine operations and sure as hell no actual attacks on Cuban/Soviet forces on the island. How things went in our time is kind of a fluke. Without the hindsight to know that pushing the envelope might not blow up the world I'd never let it get that close in the first place.
Marc
Donor
Do you really think that American intelligence on the USSR was that good? Gosh, and here I thought Langley had chronic problems with hard data in regards to Russia on just about everything, just about forever.
Why there actually was some real life caution from Truman's people to Reagan's.
We clearly owe some people drinks and steaks at J. Gilbert...
Last edited:
Under the circumstances as they existed in 1962 I would have likely blockaded Cuba and played chicken with the Soviets from there.
Not to mention that if you and/or your family don't make it to an underground bunker in time, you could very well be killed in a decapitation strike that in any case would incinerate most members of Congress and the Supreme Court. Beyond that, fallout would kill many more millions while radiation makes much of the world uninhabitable. Some would survive and arguably the US would tactically win due to its nuclear superiority, but at that point your own country is destroyed so it's not worth it. Even if you "win", you still lose.
RightHoJeeves
Banned
The blockade and negotiate option of course turned out to be the best decision since it put the ball back in the Soviet's court and would make them the aggressors if it escalated. The biggest concern was the possibility that Khrushchev had either gone insane or had been deposed in a coup by hardliners who believed the propaganda about Soviet military might despite its marked inferiority to the US.
As for the hawk option, IIRC the Soviet ICBM force at this time took hours to fuel and get ready for launch. Now I'm not advocating this option *BUT* if Kennedy had ordered a full-on nuclear assault on the Soviet Union it's very likely their ability to hit the US with ICBMs is completely destroyed leaving the job to their long range bombers, which would likely see significantly less success. In Cuba, maybe a few launchers survive the conventional bombing and are able to hit the US invasion forces or launch a blind shot at the continental US.
So to quote General Buck Turgidson: "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks."
As for the hawk option, IIRC the Soviet ICBM force at this time took hours to fuel and get ready for launch. Now I'm not advocating this option *BUT* if Kennedy had ordered a full-on nuclear assault on the Soviet Union it's very likely their ability to hit the US with ICBMs is completely destroyed leaving the job to their long range bombers, which would likely see significantly less success. In Cuba, maybe a few launchers survive the conventional bombing and are able to hit the US invasion forces or launch a blind shot at the continental US.
So to quote General Buck Turgidson: "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks."
On top of that, although their ICBM options from across the world may be limited, in these early hours of the crisis, you don’t know if there are other sites in Cuba, so it’s possible some first strike missiles which are operational that you don’t know about. Kennedy and his advisors knew we had a nuclear advantage but did not know just how stark it was. However, everyone involved knew that the USSR could wreck Europe. Is it worth risking a handful of the world’s great cities and hundreds of millions of people before exploring other options?
Given that the result OTL was as good as could be expected, only a few people died, no WWIII started, and the missiles left Cuba (and ours in Turkey were superfluous), why do anything different - the results could only be worse. An added benefit was that Khruschev found out that JFK had a pair of brass balls, and was not some naive kid. Now if the question is should the US have provided more support and better planning etc to the Bay of Pigs episode, perhaps there is room for debate there. Once Castro has been in power a while, and you have the Russians/missiles there what JFK did was optimal (not perfect but optimal).
Had the USA gone for a massive first strike, it is entirely probable that the number of atomic hits on the USA would have been small, perhaps approaching zero. The number of hits in Europe hard to say - IMHO had the USA struck as soon as the evidence was found, perhaps addressing the UN as the missiles and bombers were on the way, the USSR would have been caught flat footed. Few if any ICBMs would have launched, and even IRBMs aimed at Europe/NATO would have been launched. The Soviet nuclear strategic bombers with US targets mostly had to stage to forward bases even for one-way missions, and the Badgers and Beagles for Europe were not on strip alert with weapons loaded. The KGB had possession of the weapons, so the process of getting them out of storage, checking them out, pre-arming and loading them was not all that swift. Having said that, while it would be the USSR and to a lesser extent the WP that got really trashed, NATO and the USA would "have their hair mussed" to use a quote from "Dr Strangelove". Tens of millions would die, swiftly if lucky and slowly if not, and the long term environmental consequences for the world, especially the northern hemisphere, would be significant for folks in countries not even touched by a single act of war. Once the first nuke went off, whether against US forces landing in Cuba, a sub launched torpedo, or whatever, things were going bad rapidly.
Had the USA gone for a massive first strike, it is entirely probable that the number of atomic hits on the USA would have been small, perhaps approaching zero. The number of hits in Europe hard to say - IMHO had the USA struck as soon as the evidence was found, perhaps addressing the UN as the missiles and bombers were on the way, the USSR would have been caught flat footed. Few if any ICBMs would have launched, and even IRBMs aimed at Europe/NATO would have been launched. The Soviet nuclear strategic bombers with US targets mostly had to stage to forward bases even for one-way missions, and the Badgers and Beagles for Europe were not on strip alert with weapons loaded. The KGB had possession of the weapons, so the process of getting them out of storage, checking them out, pre-arming and loading them was not all that swift. Having said that, while it would be the USSR and to a lesser extent the WP that got really trashed, NATO and the USA would "have their hair mussed" to use a quote from "Dr Strangelove". Tens of millions would die, swiftly if lucky and slowly if not, and the long term environmental consequences for the world, especially the northern hemisphere, would be significant for folks in countries not even touched by a single act of war. Once the first nuke went off, whether against US forces landing in Cuba, a sub launched torpedo, or whatever, things were going bad rapidly.
The RAND corporation gave the Kennedy administration at the start of the crisis a report and repeated this during strategic talks that the placing of nukes in Cuba, changed absolutely nothing in the global militairy strategic situation. It also stated that there was a one in ten change any militairy action like the blockade led to an all out destruction of the USSR with 380 million death estimated and no possible retaliation. They were wrong by lack of information on two points. The change was higher than 0.1 and there would be a possible retaliation from submarines.
That's why i unequivocaly choose option 1
That's why i unequivocaly choose option 1
Oh, I agree absolutely--but the premise of the OP is that you don't know what actually happened in OTL. I know that's like trying not to think of an elephant...
JFK did not have hindsight. He knew that WWIII would be a bad thing, and worked to get a solution that was acceptable without ramping up the risk of war to the almost for sure level. Hindsight and better intel let us know how bad a landing in Cuba could go, and also that for the USA a WWIII in 1962 might have been relatively soft. I still say given the info at hand he made the right choices, and pretty much anything else he could have done would have been worse - even if not a single nuke landed in the USA, a nuclear WWIII would have been a much worse result than OTL.