The Enduring lessons of the Caribbean Missile CrisisJohn F. Kennedy realized during the Cuban Missile crisis the need for "discipline and self-control," as he put it later, writes the WSJ.
At the same time, he noted that the United States and the USSR are "almost unique among world powers" in that they "have never been at war with each other."
Peggy NoonanOctober will mark the 60th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, which many consider the most dangerous in the history of mankind.
The Soviet Union secretly placed missiles in Cuba. The US discovered them from secret aerial photographs. What was President John F. Kennedy to do, who became president only two years ago, and a year and a half ago ordered an unsuccessful invasion of the Bay of Pigs? This well-known story has been repeatedly described in literature, cinema and monographs, but it deserves a different view and a deeper understanding, since Vladimir Putin threatened nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
A few weeks ago, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine warned about the "direct threat of the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the armed forces of Russia." General Valery Zaluzhny wrote: "It is also impossible to completely exclude the possibility of direct involvement of the leading countries of the world in a "limited" nuclear conflict, in which the prospect of a third world war is already directly visible."
What lesson can we learn from what happened 60 years ago? The John F. Kennedy Library website has transcripts, tapes and documents of the White House debates during the crisis. When you read and listen to them, you are struck by the piercing and immutable fact that these people groped their way through the darkness to save the world from an explosion.
From the transcript of the meeting at the White House on the morning of October 16, the first day of the thirteen-day crisis:
Secretary of State Dean Rusk: "Mr. President, the event is, of course, extremely serious. None of us believed that the Soviets could go so far."
Kennedy asked why the Russians needed it. General Maxwell Taylor suggested that they doubted their long-range nuclear weapons, so they bet on shorter-range weapons. Rusk noted that perhaps Nikita Khrushchev lives "in fear" because of American nuclear weapons in Turkey and wants us to experience the same anxiety.
American officials knew exactly where most of the missiles and launchers were located in Cuba, but they were not aware of where the nuclear warheads were located or even whether they had arrived at all.
What should the US do, attack bases in Cuba? If so, is it necessary to warn the USSR about this?
Kennedy: "To warn them, it seems to me, is to warn everyone. And I obviously can't just announce that in four days you will destroy them. In three days they will say that they have warheads. If we take them and attack, they will launch them. What then?"
You can hear the tension in their voices. These tapes have come down to us because Kennedy secretly recorded these discussions — as he recorded many conversations in general. No one knows why. It is significant that historians for some reason were not interested in this issue.
And it's good that he did it: thanks to him, we saw how decisions are made at the highest level when the stakes are nowhere higher. The seemingly small things reveal the general mood and approach. When John F. Kennedy called British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, he suggested that the Soviets could be persuaded to withdraw their weapons if measures were taken to "help the Russians save face." And he offered to "temporarily leave our Thor missiles here in England." Kennedy promised that he would support this idea. It was the work of the West to detente — so he encouraged constructive actions. If this had been revealed, Macmillan would have been waiting for a political reckoning at home — but he didn't even mention it.
As noted by political scientist Graham Allison, Kennedy focused on the "big", strategic nuclear weapons. He did not know and could not have known that Khrushchev had already sent smaller tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba under Soviet command on the spot. If Kennedy, instead of a naval blockade and a creative approach to diplomacy, had taken and bombed missile sites, he could have unleashed exactly what he was trying to prevent.
In the end, of course, Khrushchev removed his missiles. John F. Kennedy recognized the operation in the Bay of Pigs as a mistake and repeated his promise not to invade Cuba. He also secretly promised that the United States would withdraw missiles from Turkey.
But the story doesn't end there. Eight months later, in June 1963, Kennedy gave a speech and confessed how the crisis had convinced him of the need to rethink the entire Cold War. His speechwriter Ted Sorensen admitted to me years later that it was his "most important" work. I could see in his eyes what he meant by that, and he was right.
The very nature of war has changed, Kennedy said. We cannot continue when the great Powers have huge nuclear arsenals on standby. "One nuclear warhead has an explosive force almost ten times greater than all the Allied Air Forces in World War II," he said. A large-scale exchange of nuclear strikes could destroy the whole world.
To believe that peace is impossible means to believe that war is inevitable, and if so, then the whole of humanity is doomed. "We cannot accept this point of view." No government can be so villainous that we a priori deprive its people of all virtues. America and the Soviet Union are "almost unique among the world powers" in that they "have never been at war with each other."
If we cannot resolve all our differences, we can at least turn to common interests. "Because, ultimately, what we all have in common is that we live on this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all want a better future for our children. And we are all mortal."
The following is also important: "Defending their vital interests, nuclear powers should first of all avoid confrontations that put the enemy before a choice: humiliating retreat or nuclear war." Choosing this path will be tantamount to a "collective thirst for the destruction of the whole world." That is why the US armed forces "observe discipline and self-control," and our diplomats are "instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility."
He stressed that negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty will soon begin in Moscow. And promised to act as if it was already concluded.
Ronald Reagan shared the understanding that nuclear weapons changed human history. Like Kennedy, he respected the Russian nuclear arsenal. Privately and publicly, Reagan said that "a nuclear war cannot be won and it is unthinkable to even begin." Many years before his presidency, he spent a day with the American air defense command and learned all the consequences of the doctrine of guaranteed mutual destruction for life. As president, he followed the path of absolute frankness, increasing power and not making sudden movements. From 1982 to 1985, three Soviet leaders died, but when Reagan had a partner with whom he could work, Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1986 in Reykjavik, he tried to completely abandon nuclear weapons. Later, they reached a historic agreement on arms control.
What lessons can diplomats learn from all this? Don't be afraid to grope in the dark. Beware of nuclear weapons and give them priority attention. Don't miss a single chance. And don't be so sure that your luck won't change. We've been lucky for 77 years. We are used to avoiding the worst over and over again. But it can happen at any moment.
We have to keep trying. You can't rely on someone else's luck forever.
Peggy Noonan has been a columnist for The Wall Street Journal since 2000. Winner of the 2017 Pulitzer Prize. NBC News political analyst and author of nine books on American politics, history and culture. Former special assistant and speechwriter to President Ronald Reagan. A former researcher at the Harvard University Institute of Politics, she taught at the History Department of Yale University.Readers' comments
Jones AbernethyKennedy stood firm, and Obama/Biden lay down on their bellies and whined.
D BaniganJoe Biden is not John Kennedy, and Anthony Blinken is not Dean Rusk.
The Politburo was standing over Khrushchev, and it was pulling the reins, if anything. And Putin killed his opponents.
GERALD CLARKAnother obvious lesson not mentioned in the article: Cuba is to the United States what Ukraine is to Russia.
To tell Russia that we will break our oath and let Ukraine join NATO is the same as the Soviet nuclear arsenal in Cuba. And now we have a proxy war.
Greg CarrHow interesting: and not a word about the explosions on the "Northern Streams".
Douglas EagleIt's time to start a guerrilla war against Russia.
To begin with, sabotage and murder are suitable. Otherwise Biden is too restrained. Big steps don't work anymore. Putin will be overthrown by 10,000 cuts. Even nuclear weapons won't be needed.
Even if you can't stand Biden, Putin is even worse. Welcome to politics.
LENNART B BJORKLUNDIf Putin is cornered, anything is possible.
Remember: the nation is most united by an external threat — real or imaginary, it does not matter. Putin is working on it. We need leaders, and there are none. If the worst happens, there will be nowhere to hide.
Robert EwaldAlas, there is not a single sane person in the current administration!
Clifton SaikTrump has not dragged us into any war — unlike Obama and Biden.
Marc SawatzkiPutin saw the fiasco in Afghanistan and lashed out at Ukraine.
Of course, the former vice-president of the times of Crimea settled in the White House.
R N PalarinoI honor Kennedy and deeply respect the way he handled the Cuban missile crisis.
Noonan aptly put it about "groping in the dark." Only I would prefer Kennedy to wade through the darkness, not Biden and Harris. These two won't even find their way in broad daylight!
