By Andrea Dantzer
January 6, 2012
The Cuban Missile Crisis has been hailed as one of the
biggest triumphs in our modern day history, and it is certainly the closest
this country has ever come to a nuclear war. However, recently America has
increased aggressions against Iran and has received warnings from both China
and Russia. Russia and China have said they will not tolerate a preemptive and
aggressive attack against Iran by the United States. Are we headed for another
nuclear war and are there lessons we can learn from the Cuban Missile Crisis?
If we listen to each Presidential candidate, we are led to
believe a nuclear attack from Iran is imminent and we have no choice but to
preemptively attack them, except for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is one voice of sanity
amidst the screams for war. Ron Paul has taken the time to read DoD reports,
CIA findings and the IAEA reports regarding the threat of Iran.
In these findings, there is nothing to lead America into
believing that Iran has a desire to use a nuclear weapon against any other
country. Based on these findings, we must ask ourselves if there is a better
way to handle Iran other than imposing sanctions that hurt the Iranian people
or pursuing acts of aggression. Can we learn a valuable lesson in diplomacy
from the past?
Let’s look back at what happened in the 1960s. The world was
on the brink of a nuclear war, the United States Armed Forces were readied for
action and the Soviet Commanders, stationed on the island of Cuba, were
prepared to defend the island with nuclear weapons, if necessary.
By the early 60s, the United States was well ahead of the
Soviet Union in the race for arms. The Soviets were only equipped with missiles
that could reach Europe, but nothing powerful enough to reach North America.
The United States, on the other hand, was well stocked with weapons that could
reach the Soviet Union. In the spring of 1962, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev conceptualized the idea of
installing missiles capable of hitting the United States in Cuba. Fidel Castro
was the Prime Minister of Cuba at that time, and he was receptive to this Khrushchev.
He had just experienced an attack by America during the failed Bay of Pigs
invasion just one year before. Castro was convinced that another attack
perpetuated by the United States was imminent. As a result, Castro agreed to
Khrushchev’s plan and in 1962, the Soviets secretly and quietly began
installing intermediate-range missiles in Cuba.
The Cuban Missile
Crisis began on October 15, 1962 for the United States as recon photos
showed weapons that had the capability of reaching the United States were under
construction. President John F Kennedy was informed of the photos early the
next morning. The EX-COMM, a group of twelve of the President’s most trusted
advisors, was organized and assembled. After a week of guarded debates,
meetings and talks with the upper echelons of the United States government and
military, Kennedy approved of imposing a naval blockade around Cuba in order to
prevent any new arms from reaching Cuban shores.
President Kennedy announced to the public that Cuba had
nuclear weapons installed on their island and they were capable of reaching the
United States on October 15, 1962. During his address to the public, Kennedy stated
that a launch of any nuclear weapon from Cuba would be deemed an attack on the
United States by the Soviet Union, and the United States would act accordingly.
He also demanded that the Soviets remove all offensive weapons from the island.
With this public announcement, tensions swiftly increased on
both sides and the situation became increasingly precarious. After the
announcement, Kennedy ordered low-level recon missions every two hours in an
effort to be fully prepared in case of a missile launch. On October 25th,
President Kennedy had the naval blockade pull the quarantine line back and
raised the military alert to DEFCON 2. Defcon is a defense condition alert system
used by the United States Armed Forces. Defcon 5 is the least severe readiness
level while Defcon 1 is the most severe in relation to military situations. The
United States was on the brink of a nuclear war.
President Kennedy also made it clear during his announcement
that the United States had no desire for war against the Soviet Union and would
be open to hearing any proposals for peace at any time and in any forum.
President Kennedy was prepared to defend the nation as necessary, but he was
open to peace talks and treaties, and agreeable to concessions from both sides
in order to avoid a catastrophic war unlike the world has ever known. He
expressed that the United States was a peaceful country and wished to live in
peace with the world and with the Soviets, but he must also defend his country
when threatened and required.
President Kennedy showed great strength, leadership and diplomacy.
Are there lessons that our current political leaders could learn from Kennedy
and his actions over the course of thirteen days? One must compare the foreign
policy beliefs of the Presidential candidates to the leader Kennedy was during
the Cuban Missile Crisis. His goal was not a victory of might, but the
vindication of right, not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and
freedom.
President Kennedy showed great diplomacy as tensions rose
and the situation grew dire. He was willing to talk and make concessions on
behalf of peace. It wasn’t appeasement, and it wasn’t surrender; it was a way
in which both parties could come together to establish peace. On October 26,
Khrushchev contacted President Kennedy in an impassioned letter with the
proposal that upon the United States promising to not invade Cuba, they would
remove all Soviet missiles and forces.
October 27th marked the worst and most intense
day of the Cuban Missile Crisis. A U2 had been shot down over Cuba and Kennedy
received a second letter from Khrushchev with further demands in regards to the
US missiles in Turkey. Khrushchev wanted the US to remove all missiles from
Turkey in exchange for the dismantling of the Soviet offensive missiles in
Cuba. In a bold move that is still debated today, President Kennedy, on advice
from Attorney General Robert Kennedy, responded with an agreement to the first
letter guaranteeing the United States would not invade Cuba and essentially
ignoring the second letter.
October 28th would mark the end of the Cuban
Missile Crisis as Khrushchev announced his agreement to the terms of the first
letter and would begin the immediate dismantling of Soviet weapons in Cuba. He
also expressed his trust that the United States would keep their word to not invade
Cuba. Negotiations were eventually held that strengthened the agreement reached
on the 28th.
John F Kennedy was a war hero, had a quiet steel strength
and understood the value of diplomacy over the show of force. With the threat
of nuclear weapons pointed at the United States, he was still able to calmly
and diplomatically offer a hand of peace and a willingness to negotiate in
order to avoid a devastating war.
Today, we hear all of the Presidential candidates talk about
the growing threat of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, despite evidence to the
contrary, except for one man, Congressman Ron Paul. Of the remaining
candidates, only Ron Paul has shown the same kind of quiet steel strength and
diplomatic abilities as John F Kennedy did in the sixties. Ron Paul is also the only candidate to have
served this country in the military as Kennedy did. He was an active duty
flight surgeon during 1963-1965 and in the Air National Guard from 1965-1968.
Preemptive strikes
and acts of aggression against Iran can only lead this country to an inevitable
third world war. We must ask ourselves which Presidential candidate we would
put in Kennedy’s place if we could. Which candidate would have the military knowledge,
the diplomacy and the desire for peace rather than a show of might as John F
Kennedy did. In listening to their words, their actions and their policies,
only Ron Paul rings of the same virtues Kennedy possessed.
Ron Paul is often labeled as an isolationist, although
nothing could be further from the truth. An isolationist is one who takes a
protectionist stance, closing borders and hindering free trade so that their
nation is secure and closed with no diplomatic relations. A non-interventionist
believes in a policy of free and open trade, non-aggression, not policing the
world and opening up diplomatic talks. If it wasn’t for John F Kennedy’s
willingness to open the lines of communication with Khrushchev, the United States likely would have fought in the
first nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis can teach us valuable lessons in
the proper approach to dealing with foreign threats, if we take care to learn
from them.
Andrea Dantzer is an advocate for the return of our Constitutional Republic and is on a self described quest to educate Americans on the issues of free markets, non interventionist foreign policy, and civil liberties. Andrea is a home-schooling mother of three who enjoys being active in the home-schooling revolution and reading www.mises.orgdaily. She can be contacted at AndreaDantzer@yahoo.com.
Most of the media would have one believe the June 5th Presidential primary is a mere formality. With Newt Gingrichand Rick Santorum dropping out of the race the establishment has anointed Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee and have now turned their attention to the general election. Ron Paul supporters are used to being ignored by the mainstream media but this latest slots has them seeing red. Over the last week or so Dr. Paul has amassed several delegate victories including Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Alaska.
