cuban missile crisis essay hooks

Essay: The Lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis

For 13 chilling days in October 1962, it seemed that John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev might be playing out the opening scenes of World War III. The Cuban missile crisis was a uniquely compact moment of history. For the first time in the nuclear age, the two superpowers found themselves in a sort of moral road test of their apocalyptic powers.

The crisis blew up suddenly. The U.S. discovered that the Soviet Union, despite repeated and solemn denials, was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. An American U-2 spy plane came back with photographs of the bases and their support facilities under construction: clear, irrefutable evidence. Kennedy assembled a task force of advisers. Some of them wanted to invade Cuba. In the end, Kennedy chose a course of artful restraint; he laid down a naval quarantine. After six days, Khrushchev announced that the Soviet missiles would be dismantled.

The crisis served some purposes. The U.S. and the Soviet Union have had no comparable collision since then. On the other hand, the humiliation that Khrushchev suffered may have hastened his fall. The experience may be partly responsible for both the Soviet military buildup in the past two decades and whatever enthusiasm the Soviets have displayed for nuclear disarmament.

Now, on the 20th anniversary of the crisis, six of Kennedy’s men have collaborated on a remarkable joint statement on the lessons of that October. It contains some new information, particularly in Point Eight, and at least one of their conclusions is startling and controversial: their thought that, contrary to the widespread assumption of the past two decades, the American nuclear superiority over the Soviets in 1962 had no crucial influence with Washington or Moscow at the time—and that in general, nuclear superiority is insignificant.

The authors are Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State; Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense; George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State; Roswell L. Gilpatric, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Theodore Sorensen, special counsel to the President; and McGeorge Bundy, special assistant to the President for national security affairs. Their analysis:

In the years since the Cuban missile crisis, many commentators have examined the affair and offered a wide variety of conclusions. It seems fitting now that some of us who worked particularly closely with President Kennedy during that crisis should offer a few comments, with the advantages both of participation and of hindsight.

FIRST: The crisis could and should have been avoided. If we had done an earlier, stronger and clearer job of explaining our position on Soviet nuclear weapons in the Western Hemisphere, or if the Soviet government had more carefully assessed the evidence that did exist on this point, it is likely that the missiles would never have been sent to Cuba. The importance of accurate mutual assessment of interests between the two superpowers is evident and continuous.

SECOND: Reliable intelligence permitting an effective choice of response was obtained only just in time. It was primarily a mistake by policymakers, not by professionals, that made such intelligence unavailable sooner. But it was also a timely recognition of the need for thorough overflight, not without its hazards, that produced the decisive photographs. The usefulness and scope of inspection from above, also employed in monitoring the Soviet missile withdrawal, should never be underestimated. When the importance of accurate information for a crucial policy decision is high enough, risks not otherwise acceptable in collecting intelligence can become profoundly prudent.

THIRD: The President wisely took his time in choosing a course of action. A quick decision would certainly have been less carefully designed and could well have produced a much higher risk of catastrophe. The fact that the crisis did not become public in its first week obviously made it easier for President Kennedy to consider his options with a maximum of care and a minimum of outside pressure. Not every future crisis will be so quiet in its first phase, but Americans should always respect the need for a period of confidential and careful deliberation in dealing with a major international crisis.

FOURTH: The decisive military element in the resolution of the crisis was our clearly available and applicable superiority in conventional weapons within the area of the crisis. U.S. naval forces, quickly deployable for the blockade of offensive weapons that was sensibly termed a quarantine, and the availability of U.S. ground and air forces sufficient to execute an invasion if necessary, made the difference. American nuclear superiority was not in our view a critical factor, for the fundamental and controlling reason that nuclear war, already in 1962, would have been an unexampled catastrophe for both sides; the balance of terror so eloquently described by Winston Churchill seven years earlier was in full operation. No one of us ever reviewed the nuclear balance for comfort in those hard weeks. The Cuban missile crisis illustrates not the significance but the insignificance of nuclear superiority in the face of survivable thermonuclear retaliatory forces. It also shows the crucial role of rapidly available conventional strength.

FIFTH: The political and military pressure created by the quarantine was matched by a diplomatic effort that ignored no relevant means of communication with both our friends and our adversary. Communication to and from our allies in Europe was intense, and their support sturdy. The Organization of American States gave the moral and legal authority of its regional backing to the quarantine, making it plain that Soviet nuclear weapons were profoundly unwelcome in the Americas. In the U.N., Ambassador Adlai Stevenson drove home with angry eloquence and unanswerable photographic evidence the facts of the Soviet deployment and deception.

Still more important, communication was established and maintained, once our basic course was set, with the government of the Soviet Union. If the crisis itself showed the cost of mutual incomprehension, its resolution showed the value of serious and sustained communication, and in particular of direct exchanges between the two heads of government.

When great states come anywhere near the brink in the nuclear age, there is no room for games of blindman’s buff. Nor can friends be led by silence. They must know what we are doing and why. Effective communication is never more important than when there is a military confrontation.

SIXTH: This diplomatic effort and indeed our whole course of action were greatly reinforced by the fact that our position was squarely based on irrefutable evidence that the Soviet government was doing exactly what it had repeatedly denied that it would do. The support of our allies and the readiness of the Soviet government to draw back were heavily affected by the public demonstration of a Soviet course of conduct that simply could not be defended. In this demonstration no evidence less explicit and authoritative than that of photography would have been sufficient, and it was one of President Kennedy’s best decisions that the ordinary requirements of secrecy in such matters should be brushed aside in the interest of persuasive exposition. There are times when a display of hard evidence is more valuable than protection of intelligence techniques.

SEVENTH: In the successful resolution of the crisis, restraint was as important as strength. In particular, we avoided any early initiation of battle by American forces, and indeed we took no action of any kind that would have forced an instant and possibly ill-considered response. Moreover, we limited our demands to the restoration of the status quo ante, that is, the removal of any Soviet nuclear capability from Cuba. There was no demand for “total victory” or “unconditional surrender.” These choices gave the Soviet government both time and opportunity to respond with equal restraint. It is wrong, in relations between the superpowers, for either side to leave the other with no way out but war or humiliation.

EIGHTH: On two points of particular interest to the Soviet government, we made sure that it had the benefit of knowing the independently reached positions of President Kennedy. One assurance was public and the other private.

Publicly we made it clear that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviet missiles were withdrawn. The President never shared the view that the missile crisis should be “used” to pick a fight to the finish with Castro; he correctly insisted that the real issue in the crisis was with the Soviet government, and that the one vital bone of contention was the secret and deceit-covered movement of Soviet missiles into Cuba. He recognized that an invasion by U.S. forces would be bitter and bloody, and that it would leave festering wounds in the body politic of the Western Hemisphere. The no-invasion assurance was not a concession, but a statement of our own clear preference—once the missiles were withdrawn.

The second and private assurance—communicated on the President’s instructions by Robert Kennedy to Soviet Ambassador Anatoli Dobrynin on the evening of Oct. 27—was that the President had determined that once the crisis was resolved, the American missiles then in Turkey would be removed. (The essence of this secret assurance was revealed by Robert Kennedy in his 1969 book Thirteen Days, and a more detailed account, drawn from many sources but not from discussion with any of us, was published by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in Robert Kennedy and His Times in 1978. In these circumstances, we think it is now proper for those of us privy to that decision to discuss the matter.) This could not be a “deal”—our missiles in Turkey for theirs in Cuba—as the Soviet government had just proposed. The matter involved the concerns of our allies, and we could not put ourselves in the position of appearing to trade their protection for our own. But in fact President Kennedy had long since reached the conclusion that the outmoded and vulnerable missiles in Turkey should be withdrawn. In the spring of 1961 Secretary Rusk had begun the necessary discussions with high Turkish officials. These officials asked for delay, at least until Polaris submarines could be deployed in the Mediterranean. While the matter was not pressed to a conclusion in the following year and a half, the missile crisis itself reinforced the President’s convictions. It was entirely right that the Soviet government should understand this reality.

This second assurance was kept secret because the few who knew about it at the time were in unanimous agreement that any other course would have had explosive and destructive effects on the security of the U.S. and its allies. If made public in the context of the Soviet proposal to make a “deal,” the unilateral decision reached by the President would have been misread as an unwilling concession granted in fear at the expense of an ally. It seemed better to tell the Soviets the real position in private, and in a way that would prevent any such misunderstanding. Robert Kennedy made it plain to Ambassador Dobrynin that any attempt to treat the President’s unilateral assurance as part of a deal would simply make that assurance inoperative.

Although for separate reasons neither the public nor the private assurance ever became a formal commitment of the U.S. Government, the validity of both was demonstrated by our later actions; there was no invasion of Cuba, and the vulnerable missiles in Turkey (and Italy) were withdrawn, with allied concurrence, to be replaced by invulnerable Polaris submarines. Both results were in our own clear interest, and both assurances were helpful in making it easier for the Soviet government to decide to withdraw its missiles.

In part this was secret diplomacy, including a secret assurance. Any failure to make good on that assurance would obviously have had damaging effects on Soviet-American relations. But it is of critical importance here that the President gave no assurance that went beyond his own presidential powers; in particular he made no commitment that required congressional approval or even support. The decision that the missiles in Turkey should be removed was one that the President had full and unquestioned authority to make and execute.

When it will help your own country for your adversary to know your settled intentions, you should find effective ways of making sure that he does, and a secret assurance is justified when a) you can keep your word, and b) no other course can avoid grave damage to your country’s legitimate interests.

NINTH: The gravest risk in this crisis was not that either head of government desired to initiate a major escalation but that events would produce actions, reactions or miscalculations carrying the conflict beyond the control of one or the other or both. In retrospect we are inclined to think that both men would have taken every possible step to prevent such a result, but at the time no one near the top of either government could have that certainty about the other side. In any crisis involving the superpowers, firm control by the heads of both governments is essential to the avoidance of an unpredictably escalating conflict.

TENTH: The successful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was fundamentally the achievement of two men, John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev. We know that in this anniversary year John Kennedy would wish us to emphasize the contribution of Khrushchev; the fact that an earlier and less prudent decision by the Soviet leader made the crisis inevitable does not detract from the statesmanship of his change of course. We may be forgiven, however, if we give the last and highest word of honor to our own President, whose cautious determination, steady composure, deep-seated compassion and, above all, continuously attentive control of our options and actions brilliantly served his country and all mankind. –

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The Reinvention of J.D. Vance
• Iran, Trump, and the Third Assassination Plot
• Welcome to the Golden Age of Scams
• Did the Pandemic Break Our Brains?
• 33 True Crime Documentaries That Shaped the Genre
• The Ordained Rabbi Who Bought a Porn Company
• Introducing the Democracy Defenders
• Why Gut Health Issues Are More Common in Women

Contact us at [email protected]

Cuban Missile Crisis: 4 SEQ Samples

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a tense 13-day confrontation between the USA and the Soviet Union (and Cuba). It is also believed the closest mankind came to destroying ourselves. You can download the pdf from the box below to find out how to answer questions from this topic.

Download Here!

1. Explain why there were escalating tensions between the USA and Cuba in the 1960s.

( P ) Economic pressure on Cuba led to escalating tensions between the USA and Cuba.

( E ) Traditionally, Cuba sold most of its sugar to the USA. This arrangement changed when Castro came into power. Castro wanted to break away from American influence and agreed to exchange Cuban sugar with Soviet oil. Thus, the USA tried to put economic pressure on Cuba to stop this agreement.

( E ) For example, in 1960, the American government pressured its companies, such as Shell, not to process Soviet oil. As a result, when the Soviet oil arrived in Cuba, the oil refineries refused to process it. Castro retaliated by nationalising the oil refineries. In turn, the USA reduced the Cuban Sugar quota. The series of direct economic clashes between the USA and Cuban eventually prompted Castro to draft the First Declaration of Havana directed against the USA. It defended the Cuban Revolution as a nationalist struggle against foreign aggression, justified due to the USA’s economic exploitation of Cuba. The USA also, in turn, responded by placing an embargo on American exports to Cuba.

( L ) Such economic clashes and hostilities between the USA and Cuba eventually led to escalating tension as both were not back down but continued with their retaliation.

( P ) In addition, Cuba’s formal alliance with the Soviet Union also further contributed to the escalating tension between the USA and Cuba.

( E ) After the Bay of Pigs invasion by American sponsored Cuban rebels, Castro believed that a large-scale attack by America was inevitable and looked desperately for allies. Moreover, military exercises by American armed forces in the Caribbean, simulating the invasion of an unarmed island, further unnerved Cuba.

( E ) With such a threatening climate, Castro accepted Soviet Union’s support and joined the side of the communist. In the ongoing Cold War between the Soviet Union and the USA, this move further escalated the tension between the USA and Cuba.

( L ) Thus, Cuba becoming closer to the Soviet Union contributed to escalating tensions.

2. “Castro was responsible for the breakdown of relations between the USA and Cuba.” How far do you agree with the statement? Explain your answer.

( P ) I agree that Castro was responsible for the breakdown of relations between the USA and Cuba.

( E ) After becoming Cuba’s Prime Minister, Castro sought new markets to sell Cuba’s exports and found the USSR to be the new big buyer of Cuba’s sugar. As a result, Castro and Khrushchev agreed on a deal that saw a million tonnes of sugar sold to the USSR. This agreement angered the USA. Castro’s Land Reform Law also further worsened relations between Cuba and the USA, where land was seized from large business owners and redistributed across the farmers in Cuba. Castro’s new policies also drove out large American tobacco businesses.

( E ) Thus, Castro’s actions as the Prime Minister worsened relations between Cuba and the USA as his policies seemed to be moving towards a communist-style of governance which was a threat to the USA. Also, Castro’s new economic policy negatively affected America’s investments and influenced the American economy.

( L ) Thus, Castro was responsible for the breakdown of Cuban-US relations.

( P ) However, the USA was also responsible for the breakdown of relations with Cuba.

( E ) After Castro rose to power in Cuba, the USA planned to force Castro to change his policies or bring down Castro’s government. The USA reduced the Cuban Sugar Quota from 3 million tonnes to 700,000 tonnes and pressured oil companies to reject oil processing for Cuba. Furthermore, Kennedy placed great efforts to remove Castro from power through covert operations. One of which was the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. However, it failed to overthrow Castro.

( E ) Thus, the USA’s actions targeted at Cuban economy and directed attacks to remove Castro from power. Since the USA made it blatant to bring down Cuba, it pushed Castro further away from the USA, thus worsening the relations between the two countries.

( L ) Hence, the USA was also responsible for the worsening relations between the USA and Cuba.

( J ) In conclusion, the USA was responsible for the worsening of relations. Both parties actively sought to bring each other down and did not allow reasonable negotiation. USA’s malicious actions had existed before Castro’s rule. Eventually, the hostility of the USA through the covert operations infuriated Castro and pushed him to seek new allies in the USSR. It was a downhill spiral of relations that seeded the Cuban Missile Crisis.

3. “The Cuban Missile Crisis was an unprovoked act of aggression by the Soviets.” Do you agree with the statement? Explain your answer.

( P ) I agree that the Cuban Missile Crisis was an unprovoked act of aggression on the Soviets.

( E ) The USSR was interested in the affairs of Cuba as Cuba was potentially a strategic asset against the US in the Cold War. Moreover, securing Cuba allowed the USSR to have a base near the USA, reducing the missile gap between the two superpowers. Furthermore, Khrushchev recognised the potential of placing intercontinental ballistic missiles on Cuba, ensuring that the USSR could threaten all the US major cities within the range from Cuba.

( E ) The rockets were the Soviet’s way of giving the US a taste of its own medicine as the US had installed Jupiter missiles in Turkey which threatened the southern and western parts of the USSR. Politically, Khrushchev had hoped to strengthen his hand by leveraging upon Cuba to extract further concessions regarding West Berlin in Germany and enhance Soviet prestige in the light of the Sino-Soviet schism that was slowly emerging.

( L ) Thus, in this instance, the USSR had unnecessarily provoked the US into reacting to this crisis.

( P ) However, the US was equally at fault and had unnecessarily created the chain of events that resulted in the intensified situation, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

( E ) The US military threat towards Castro’s leftist regime drove Castro into an alliance with the USSR. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion did not mark the end of American intervention and instead strengthened the US resolve to remove Castro from power and install a pro-US government. Kennedy authorised the covert CIA Operation Mongoose, where intelligence operations encouraged open revolt and overthrow of the Castro regime.

( E ) Thus, when Khrushchev sent a letter of support to Castro, Castro sought a formal defence treaty with the USSR to prevent further US aggression against Cuba. Castro’s invitation allowed the USSR to gain an important ally geographically very close to the US.

( L ) The US must bear responsibility for pushing Castro to solidify his links with the USSR and lay the foundations for the prelude to the crisis.

( P ) Furthermore, the US was using spy planes on Cuba, which went against the principles of international law.

( E ) When they discovered the missiles, the US deftly presented the case to the UN to pre-empt any unilateral military action that Cuba might take to secure its borders. The irony, of course, was that US missiles in Western Europe also threatened Soviet borders, so much action was certainly unfair and underhanded. In addition, the US even illegally implemented a quarantine blockade around Cuba which, as the Soviets argued, was against international law regarding the freedom of the seas.

( E ) The USA went against diplomatic norms to create the crisis.

( L ) Thus, the US was partly responsible for intensifying the crisis also.

( J ) In conclusion, both countries are equally guilty of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Khrushchev had already solidified his support for Cuba when Castro declared himself in December 1961 as a ‘Marxist-Leninist’ and established a Communist Party that united various political parties under its banner in a one-party state. The development was probably significant enough to warn the US not to apply further pressure, but the USSR went out of line by sending nuclear missiles to Cuba.

Nonetheless, the US’s continuous actions to destabilise the Castro regime played a significant role in making Cuba move closer to the USSR and ultimately encouraging the USSR to take advantage of Cuba as a Cold War proxy to fulfil their own political needs. American actions also played a significant role to bring both Superpowers on the verge of brinkmanship in implementing the naval blockade of Cuba. 

4. “The USSR was the undisputed winner of the Cuban Missile Crisis.” How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

( P ) The USSR was the primary winner of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

( E ) The Soviet Union got the USA to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey. The USSR also secured the safety of Cuba, and the USA also came to accept the Communist status of Cuba. The relations between the USA and USSR also improved considerably with the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, even though it was short-lived.

( E ) The Crisis enabled Khrushchev to achieve his goals of ensuring the Soviet Union’s and Cuba’s safety.  

( L ) Thus, the USSR is the primary winner in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

( P ) However, the USA is also victorious as it achieved its primary aim of removing the Soviet missiles from Cuba.

( E ) The USA scored significant victories because Kennedy managed to secure his country’s national security by removing Soviet missiles from Cuba. The removal was Kennedy’s topmost priority, and he achieved it without waging war and at a relatively low cost of firing the Jupiter missiles that were already obsolete in Turkey. At the same time, the US citizens were very impressed with the way Kennedy handled the national crisis, and many hailed him as a hero who saved the USA from the problem.

( E ) His popularity skyrocketed from this incident as he succeeded in diffusing the crisis.

( L ) Thus, the USA was the undisputed major winner of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

( P ) Cuba was also a significant winner of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

( E ) Although the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba, Cuba’s security was safe as the USA guaranteed that it would not invade Cuba in the future. The Soviet Union continued to support Cuba as an ally, which may have deterred the USA from invading Cuba. In this way. Castro remained in power, and Cuba remained communist despite numerous attempts by the USA to weaken and remove him. Castro gained even more support from the Cubans and defied the USA.

( E ) In contrast, both the USA and the Soviet Union made concessions and lost credibility among their allies, albeit at different degrees.

( L ) Thus, Castro was a big winner in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

( J ) In conclusion, I believe that Castro is the undisputed winner of the Cuban Missile Crisis. After this event, the Americans tolerated Cuba, and Castro became even more popular in Cuba and stayed as its leader for decades.

Even though Kennedy was hailed as a hero in his country after the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully, historians criticised him for brinksmanship. Khrushchev lost his support base with the communist party as he was deemed weak in his dealings with the democratic USA. Thus, Castro was the undisputed winner in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This is part of the History Structured Essay Question series. For more information about O level History, you can go here . You can download the pdf version below.

The other chapters can be found here:

• Treaty of Versailles
• League of Nations
• Rise of Stalin
• Stalin’s Rule
• Rise of Hitler
• Hitler’s Rule
• Reasons for World War II in Europe
• Reasons for the Defeat of Germany
• Reasons for World War II in Asia-Pacific
• Reasons for the Defeat of Japan
• Reasons for the Cold War
• End of the Cold War

Critical Thought English & Humanities is your best resource for English, English Literature, Social Studies, Geography and History.

My experience, proven methodology and unique blend of technology will help your child ace their exams.

If you have any questions, please contact us!

Similar Posts

Complete Sample Social Studies Issue 1 SRQ

Especially for students struggling with the Social Studies SRQ Issue 1 questions: Here are some sample essays! Ace your examination with these samples!

Stalin’s Rule: 5 SEQ Samples

Another common Structure Essay Question for O Level history is Stalin’s Rule. How can we answer this topic well? Read more to find out how to score for this topic.

How to Ace Social Studies SRQ (Structured Response Question)

Do you have difficulties dealing with the 2020 Social Studies Structured Response Question or SRQ? If you do, please read on to find a suggested answer.

The Sino-Soviet Split

The Sino-Soviet Split In this History Beyond Textbook blog post, I am going to discuss the Sino-Soviet split. I believe it deserves more than a single “Boxed Story” in the textbook. Even though it plays only a minor role in the Cold War syllabus, understanding this relationship gives us a more complete picture of modern…

Social Studies Message Format

Social Studies Message Format The Social Studies Message format is always the first format students learn. In fact, they learn it in Secondary One history. Even though students should be familiar with this format, they still make critical mistakes. Hopefully after reading this blog post, you will know how to identify it. In addition, you…

2020 History Elective: Can we predict what is going to be tested?

In the upcoming 2020 History Elective examination, can we predict what is going to come out for the paper? Should we even try? Read on to find out more!

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

What was the outcome of the Cuban missile crisis?

Should the united states maintain the embargo against cuba that was inflamed by the cuban missile crisis.

• What was the Cold War?
• How did the Cold War end?
• Why was the Cuban missile crisis such an important event in the Cold War?

Cuban missile crisis

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• HistoryNet - Inside the Cuban Missile Crisis
• PBS LearningMedia - Cuban Missile Crisis | Retro Report
• John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum - Cuban Missile Crisis
• The History Learning Site - Cuban Missile Crisis
• Khan Academy - The Cuban Missile Crisis
• Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs - The Cuban Missile Crisis
• GlobalSecurity.org - Cuban Missile Crisis
• Academia - Cuban Missile Crisis
• Warfare History Network - The Cuban Missile Crisis: On the Brink of Nuclear War
• Alpha History - The Cuban Missile Crisis
• Hoover Institution - The 1962 Sino-Indian War and the Cuban Missile Crisis
• Spartacus Educational - Cuban Missile Crisis
• The National Security Archive - The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: The 40th Anniversary
• Cuban missile crisis - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Cuban missile crisis - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

What was the Cuban missile crisis?

The Cuban missile crisis was a major confrontation in 1962 that brought the United States and the Soviet Union close to war over the presence of Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Cuba.

When did the Cuban missile crisis take place?

The Cuban missile crisis took place in October 1962.

The Cuban missile crisis marked the climax of an acutely antagonistic period in U.S.-Soviet relations. It played an important part in Nikita Khrushchev ’s fall from power and the Soviet Union’s determination to achieve nuclear parity with the United States. The crisis also marked the closest point that the world had ever come to global nuclear war.

Whether the U.S. should maintain its embargo against Cuba that was inflamed by the Cuban Missile Crisis is hotly debated. Some say Cuba has not met the conditions required to lift it, and the US will look weak for lifting the sanctions. Others say the 50-year policy has failed to achieve its goals, and Cuba does not pose a threat to the United States. For more on the Cuba embargo debate, visit ProCon.org .

Cuban missile crisis , (October 1962), major confrontation that brought the United States and the Soviet Union close to war over the presence of Soviet nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba .

Having promised in May 1960 to defend Cuba with Soviet arms, the Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev assumed that the United States would take no steps to prevent the installation of Soviet medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba. Such missiles could hit much of the eastern United States within a few minutes if launched from Cuba. The United States learned in July 1962 that the Soviet Union had begun missile shipments to Cuba. By August 29 new military construction and the presence of Soviet technicians had been reported by U.S. U-2 spy planes flying over the island, and on October 14 the presence of a ballistic missile on a launching site was reported.

After carefully considering the alternatives of an immediate U.S. invasion of Cuba (or air strikes of the missile sites), a blockade of the island, or further diplomatic maneuvers, U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy decided to place a naval “quarantine,” or blockade, on Cuba to prevent further Soviet shipments of missiles. Kennedy announced the quarantine on October 22 and warned that U.S. forces would seize “offensive weapons and associated matériel” that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba. During the following days, Soviet ships bound for Cuba altered course away from the quarantined zone. As the two superpowers hovered close to the brink of nuclear war, messages were exchanged between Kennedy and Khrushchev amidst extreme tension on both sides. On October 28 Khrushchev capitulated , informing Kennedy that work on the missile sites would be halted and that the missiles already in Cuba would be returned to the Soviet Union. In return, Kennedy committed the United States to never invading Cuba. Kennedy also secretly promised to withdraw the nuclear-armed missiles that the United States had stationed in Turkey in previous years. In the following weeks both superpowers began fulfilling their promises, and the crisis was over by late November. Cuba’s communist leader, Fidel Castro , was infuriated by the Soviets’ retreat in the face of the U.S. ultimatum but was powerless to act.

The Cuban missile crisis marked the climax of an acutely antagonistic period in U.S.-Soviet relations. The crisis also marked the closest point that the world had ever come to global nuclear war. It is generally believed that the Soviets’ humiliation in Cuba played an important part in Khrushchev’s fall from power in October 1964 and in the Soviet Union’s determination to achieve, at the least, a nuclear parity with the United States.

The Cold War

The cuban missile crisis.

The Cuban missile crisis was a standoff that occurred in October 1962, following the United States’ discovery that the Soviet Union had installed ballistic missiles on the island of Cuba, 150 miles (240 kilometres) south of the US mainland. Unable to tolerate the presence of enemy missiles so close to home, American leaders worked to bring about their removal – but without an attack on Cuba, a military confrontation with the Soviets and a probable nuclear war. The consensus among most historians is that the Cuban missile crisis was a critical event in the Cold War, later described by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as “the most dangerous moment in human history”.

Missiles discovered

On October 14th 1962, an American U-2 spy plane completed a relatively routine run over the island of Cuba, taking reconnaissance photographs from an altitude of 12 miles. When the film was developed, it revealed evidence of missiles being assembled and erected on Cuban soil.

CIA and military analysts identified these installations as Soviet medium-range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The presence of these weapons in neighbouring Cuba meant the Soviets could launch attacks on locations in the southern and eastern United States. This would give the Soviet Union a first-strike capacity, giving cities like Washington DC, New York and Philadelphia just a few minutes’ warning.

President John F. Kennedy was briefed about the missiles four days later (October 18th). By the end of the day, Kennedy had formed an ‘executive committee’ (EXCOMM), a 13-man team to monitor and assess the situation and formulate response options. EXCOMM’s members included vice-president Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s brother Robert, defence secretary Robert McNamara and other advisors from the military and Department of State.

Developing a strategy

Over the next few days, Kennedy and EXCOMM weighed their options. They agreed that the US could not tolerate the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba – the question at hand was how to facilitate their removal.

Diplomatic pressure on the Soviets to withdraw the missiles was ruled out. Advice from EXCOMM suggested the Soviets would respond poorly to belligerent language or actions. An offer of exchange, such as the withdrawal or dismantling of US missile bases in Europe, might make the Kennedy administration appear weak, handing the Russians a propaganda victory.

Kennedy’s military hierarchs recommended an airstrike to destroy the missiles, followed by a ground invasion of Cuba to eliminate Fidel Castro and his regime. But the president, now more wary of military advice since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, wanted to avoid a military confrontation with the Soviet Union.

Instead, Kennedy authorised a naval blockade of the island. The US would draw a firm line around Cuba while seeking to avoid hostile action that would risk triggering a nuclear war.

Cuba quarantined

On October 22nd, Kennedy addressed the nation by television, announcing a “quarantine” of the Cuban island. He also said his administration would regard any missile attack launched from Cuba as an attack by the USSR, necessitating a full retaliatory response.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev described Kennedy’s quarantine as a “pirate action” and informed Kennedy by telegram that Soviet ships would ignore it. Kennedy reminded Khrushchev that the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba breached an earlier promise by the Soviet government.

US Navy warships initiated their quarantine of Cuba. They allowed some small freighters through but stopped larger vessels for inspection, finding no military equipment. Meanwhile, American U-2s continued their missions over Cuba, flying every two hours. These overflights reported no pause or slow-down in the assembly of Soviet missiles.

Fears of nuclear war

Four days of quarantine produced no change in the situation. Kennedy came under pressure from his generals, who urged an airstrike to destroy the missiles before they became operational. At this point, a military confrontation between the US and USSR seemed almost inevitable, heightening fears of a possible nuclear exchange.

All levels of the US government hastily organised civil defence measures, such as public bomb shelters; in most cases, these were capable of sheltering barely one-third of the population. Some citizens constructed their own shelters and stockpiled tinned food and other necessities. Many gathered in prayer in their local churches. Others packed up their belongings and took extended vacations with family members in remote areas where nuclear missiles were less likely to fall.

In Soviet Russia, the reaction was more subdued. What citizens there knew of the crisis came mostly from the state-controlled press. To most Russians, it appeared another Cold War standoff on the other side of the world.

Back-channel negotiations

The stalemate was broken by a series of developments across two days. On October 25th, Adlai Stevenson, the US ambassador to the United Nations, confronted the Soviet ambassador in the Security Council with photographic evidence of the Cuban missiles. Given their previous denials, this publicly exposed Soviet dishonesty during the crisis.

Around this time, the White House also received a backroom offer to resolve the crisis, passed to a Washington reporter by a Soviet agent. On October 26th, the US State Department received a long, rambling letter, purportedly from Khrushchev. This letter promised to withdraw the Cuban missiles, provided the US pledged to never attack or invade Cuba.

A follow-up message proposed a more direct exchange: the removal of the Cuban missiles, in return for the removal of American Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy. Kennedy agreed to this, provided the deal was not made public.

The arrangement was finalised on the evening of October 27th – though it almost fell through after an American U-2 was shot down over Cuba by a Soviet surface-to-air missile, its pilot killed. Kennedy resisted considerable pressure from his generals to retaliate. It later emerged that Soviet officers in Cuba had fired on the U-2 without authorisation from Moscow.

The Cuban missile crisis was arguably the most dangerous period of the Cold War, the closest we have come to World War III and nuclear destruction. As US Secretary of State Dean Rusk noted toward the end of the crisis, “We were eyeball to eyeball and the other guy just blinked”.

Information revealed years later suggested that the crisis could easily have deteriorated into a nuclear exchange. Soviet officers in Cuba were equipped with around 100 tactical nuclear weapons and the authority to use them, if attacked. Castro, convinced that an American invasion of his country was imminent, urged both Khrushchev and Soviet commanders in Cuba to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US. And during the naval quarantine, a US destroyer dropped depth charges on a Soviet submarine which, unbeknownst to the Americans, was armed with a 15-kiloton nuclear missile and authority to use it.

Given that several Soviet officers were authorised to fire nuclear weapons without waiting on the Kremlin, Kennedy’s delicate handling of the situation was judicious. In the wake of the crisis, the Soviets reorganised their command structure and nuclear launch protocols, while the White House and Kremlin installed a ‘hotline’ to ensure direct communication in the event of a similar emergency.

“The die was cast when the president met with his Executive Committee in the Oval Room at 2.30pm. It was a long and, toward the end, an unexpectedly bitter session. The choices put toward Kennedy that afternoon were two: begin with the naval blockade and, if need be, move up the ladder of military responses, rung by rung; or begin with an air strike then move almost certainly to a full-scale invasion of Cuba… The president paused gravely before speaking his mind. He said that he preferred to start with limited action. An air attack, he felt, was the wrong way to start… Kennedy was still expecting a Soviet move against Berlin, whatever happened in Cuba.” Elie Abel, journalist

1. The Cuban missile crisis unfolded in October 1962, following the discovery by US spy planes of Soviet missile sites being installed on nearby Cuba.

2. Missiles in Cuba gave the Soviet Union a ‘first-strike’ capacity. Unwilling to tolerate this, President Kennedy formed a committee to orchestrate their removal.

3. Considering all options from diplomatic pressure to an airstrike or invasion, EXCOMM settled on a naval “quarantine” of all Soviet ships sailing to Cuba.

4. The Cuban crisis and the US blockade carried a significant risk of military confrontation between the US and USSR, with the consequent risk of nuclear war.

5. The crisis was eventually resolved through a secret deal, in which the Soviets withdrew the Cuban missiles in return for the withdrawal of American Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy.

A CIA appraisal of the political, economic and military situation in Cuba (August 1962) A CIA report on the Soviet-backed military build up in Cuba (September 1962) US intelligence report says the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba is unlikely (September 1962) The first intelligence reports of Soviet ballistic missiles in Cuba (October 1962) An evaluation of the Soviet missile threat in Cuba, by US intelligence bodies (October 1962) Kennedy and his advisors discuss a response to the Cuban missiles (October 1962) President John F Kennedy announces a naval quarantine of Cuba (October 1962) Castro responds to Kennedy’s announcement of a blockade (October 1962) Adlai Stevenson confronts Soviet ambassador Zorin in the UN Security Council (October 1962) Khrushchev’s letter to Kennedy urging a resolution of the crisis (October 1962) Delegates from the US and USSR debate the Cuban missile crisis in the UN (October 1962) Kennedy’s alternative speech announcing an attack on Cuba (October 1962) The Missiles of October (1974 film) Thirteen Days (2000 film) Robert McNamara reflects on the Cuban missile crisis (2003)

Citation information Title: ‘The Cuban missile crisis’ Authors: Steve Thompson , Jennifer Llewellyn , Jim Southey Publisher: Alpha History URL: https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/cuban-missile-crisis/ Date published: April 5, 2018 Date updated: October 18, 2023 Date accessed: September 24, 2024 Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use .

The New York Times

The learning network | flash points: searching for modern lessons in the cuban missile crisis.

Flash Points: Searching for Modern Lessons in the Cuban Missile Crisis

Global History

Teaching ideas based on New York Times content.

• See all in Global History »
• See all lesson plans »

Overview | Fifty years ago this week, the United States and Soviet Union narrowly averted catastrophe over the presence of nuclear missiles in Soviet-backed Cuba. But just how close did we come to an unintended nuclear war, and could a similar incident happen again?

In the activities below, students examine newly uncovered research on what took place during those 13 days in the fall of 1962. They’ll decide whether the crisis stands as an example of cool leadership under pressure or a cascade of error and miscalculation. Extension activities allow them to dig deeper into factors that made the Cuban missile crisis such a turning point, and explore continuing or potential conflicts that might put today’s world at similar risk.

Note: To accompany this lesson plan, we created a slide show from photographs archived in the New York Times picture library. We chose images that we thought might illuminate those tense days in interesting and accessible ways for students, and that might be fertile ground for further analysis and inquiry, especially when paired with the ideas we suggest below. You can also view it in a larger size here . Materials | Computer with Internet connection and projector to display articles and video, computers with Internet connection for individual students or groups to use online resources, copies of stories or primary documents as needed.

Warm-Up | Tell students:

• In this lesson, we’ll be looking at one of the most studied and perhaps least understood episodes in recent history: the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Most people agree that it’s the closest we have ever come to an all-out nuclear war. And if that happened, it’s possible we might not be here today to talk about it.
• Does anyone know which countries were involved in this incident and what the dispute was about? Write brainstorming ideas on the board.
• Today we’re going to figure out what happened, first by gathering some basic facts and then looking at recent research – some of which seems to contradict what people have long thought about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Read this overview of the Cuban Missile Crisis from the John F. Kennedy Library and Presidential Museum and watch our slide show above or, in a larger size, here .
• Based on what we’ve just read, what adjectives would you use to describe President John F. Kennedy and his handling of the Cuban missile crisis? Write students’ ideas on the board.
• Now, we’re going to watch a short video about the Cuban missile crisis featuring Professor James G. Blight from Canada’s Balsillie School of International Affairs and the producer of the Armageddon Letters Web site. As we watch, I’d like you to listen carefully to the tone and language that’s being used.
• Based on this video, would you offer any different adjectives to describe Kennedy or his administration’s handling of this crisis? Does this video change our feelings about the Cuban missile crisis or suggest there’s more than one way to look at it? Write students’ ideas on the board.

Activity | What really happened?

In the opening days of the Cuban missile crisis, the American people knew very little about what was actually happening. On Oct. 20, 1962, President Kennedy abandoned a trip to the Midwest and returned to Washington — supposedly due to a bad head cold . Three days later, and a full week after the crisis had actually begun with the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba, Kennedy addressed the nation.

RELATED RESOURCES

From the learning network.

• Lesson: March 27, 1958 | Nikita Khrushchev Consolidates Power and Becomes Soviet Premier
• Lesson: Recurring Nightmares

From NYTimes.com

• Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) – Times Topics page

Around the Web

• 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis – from Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
• Primary sources on the Cuban Missile Crisis from the Cold War International History Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
• The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum
• The Armageddon Letters, from the Balsillie School of International Affairs

In this activity, students make a double-sided timeline of the 13 days of the initial crisis, which began on Oct. 16 and ended on Oct. 28. On one side, they should write down what a typical newspaper reader learned on each day of the crisis. On the other side, students will add details about what actually happened according to later research or revelations. (For example, on Oct. 20 they initially thought President Kennedy had a cold, and it was later revealed that he had actually rushed back to the White House in response to the unfolding crisis.)

Divide students into groups and have them scan the original coverage from The New York Times during the Cuban missile crisis, including this overview . They may also use this day-by-day chronology of events from the John F. Kennedy Library and Presidential Museum. As students find information, they should record crucial facts in their timelines.

For the next part of the activity, students should scan the following articles from The Times to find revelations — new facts or research that add to our understanding of what happened back in 1962 — and fill in the other side of their timelines. (Students may wish to divide responsibility, with each member of the group reading one or two articles. Please tell students it is O.K. to approximate on dates for this part of the assignment, if they have trouble attaching a revelation to a specific day during the crisis.)

1989 — Gaps in the Missile Crisis Story 1992 — U.S. Underestimated Soviet Force in Cuba During ’62 Missile Crisis 2002 — At Cuba Conference, Old Foes Exchange Notes on 1962 Missile Crisis 2002 — The Cuban Missile Crisis: When the World Stood on Edge and Nobody Died Beautifully 2008 — What You Think You Know About the Cuban Missile Crisis is Wrong 2012 — General’s 1962 Memo Addresses Nuclear Combat on Cuba

During the last part of the activity, move quickly through the crisis with the class, asking each group to report on central discoveries or surprises from their research. For homework or an extension activity, students could design a poster dramatizing how one discovery by historians has shed new light on our understanding of the Cuban missile crisis. Each poster should make clear what people initially believed about an aspect of the crisis; how research or subsequent revelations changed that understanding; and a lesson or moral of the story for future leaders. As a culminating activity, students could create a poster gallery displaying their ideas.

Going Further: Ways to Teach About the Cuban Missile Crisis

Handbook: How to Avoid World War III. Write a manual for leaders of the modern world — a how-to manual for avoiding unintended armed conflicts — based on the lessons of the Cuban missile crisis. It can be addressed to all world leaders or to one leader in particular. The handbooks should tell leaders what they can do to lessen the chances of armed conflict, referring to incidents or research from the 1962 crisis to explain what sorts of conditions or actions make conflict more likely.

Students should be encouraged to include their own ideas and conclusions based upon their reflections about the Cuban missile crisis; write their handbooks with originality and flair; and give the handbook a unique title and chapter headings. They may consult the following coverage from The Times and Web sites devoted to studying the crisis and its lessons, citing sources when necessary. (Note: teachers may also wish to let students draw from the poster gallery assignment above for inspiration, with students crediting classmates for their ideas.)

2008 — Why We Should Still Study the Cuban Missile Crisis (PDF), from the United States Institute of Peace 2012 — At 50, the Cuban Missile Crisis as Guide , an Op-Ed article from The New York Times 2012 — Learning from History’s Most Dangerous Crisis , from the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government 2012 — Cuban Missile Crisis Beliefs Endure After 50 Years , an analysis of conventional wisdom about the crisis by the current Associated Press correspondent in Havana

Flash Points: The Next Crisis? Use your handbooks on the lessons of the Cuban missile crisis to make the case for which current global flash points present the greatest risk of stumbling into a nuclear conflict. Students should be sure to consider both the conditions that make conflict more likely (such as the lack of good communications between the two sides, proximity of military forces, or other factors that make an incident or misunderstanding more likely, etc…) and actions taken by one or both sides that increase tensions. Students may explore recent coverage from The Times’s recent coverage on places such as the Middle East, Iran, East Asia and the India-Pakistan border, as well as stories and web resources on nuclear weapons. (Note: students should bear in mind that regional conflicts sometimes start with nations that do not possess nuclear weapons but hold alliances with nuclear-armed nations.)

Did Hollywood Get It Right? View the Hollywood film “13 Days,” about the Cuban missile crisis, and then write a review in which you rate the film from one to four stars, based upon its adherence to historical evidence and research. Students should cite specific facts and sources to support their conclusions. They may also wish to read the film’s original review in The Times or this article by a scholar of the Cuban missile crisis and make the case for whether those interpretations of the film are justified or unwarranted.

Creating New Versions of the Story. Visit The Armageddon Letters , a Web site created at Canada’s Balsillie School of International Affairs, to reconsider the meaning of the Cuban missile crisis. Students should explore the site — which includes video, graphic novels, blogs and other innovative ways of exploring this history. Ask them to write a review of the site or one of its elements, explaining whether it aids our understanding of the Cuban missile crisis and makes it relevant for future generations. Alternatively, invite students to emulate the Armageddon Letters project by creating something of their own, such as a blog or graphic retelling of an incident from the crisis.

Time Change? Read this overview of the Doomsday Clock , which The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has used since 1947 to dramatize global security threats and the likelihood of nuclear war. Use your research on global flash points to decide whether the clock, currently set to five minutes before midnight, should be reset in light of recent events.

Make Oral History. Read “In a Time of Hidden Crisis, President Visits Main Street,” one man’s childhood remembrance of President Kennedy’s visit to his hometown during the Cuban missile crisis. Or, read “Leaving Guantánamo With the World on the Nuclear Brink,” a family oral history of the evacuation of the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base.

Then ask students to interview someone in their own family that might remember the crisis. Alternatively, find teachers, grandparents, school staff members or other volunteers, and invite them to class to talk about their memories. Students might interview the guests on a panel, or the visitors could rotate among groups. Students can take notes during the interviews and write an article about how one or more of these stories reveal a different side of the crisis.

Document Study: Submariners Under Pressure. Read the following declassified primary source, “Recollections of Vadim Orlov (USSR Submarine B-59): We will Sink Them All, But We will Not Disgrace Our Navy” (PDF), from the National Security Archive at George Washington University. It describes life aboard Soviet submarines during the Cuban missile crisis.

As part of of its “Secrets of the Dead” series, PBS produced an episode “The Man Who Saved the World” about the same Soviet submarine off the Florida coast, and the commanders’ debate whether to fire a nuclear missile at the United States at the height of the crisis. Ask students to use the sources as a starting point to compose a fictional letter from a member of a submarine’s crew to a family member back in the Soviet Union. Their letter should provide colorful descriptions on life aboard the submarine; detailed recollections and beliefs about the crisis; and the submariner’s personal reflections on the experience.

Document Study: Nuclear Orders. Read the following orders sent by the Soviet leadership in Moscow to Cuba in 1962, which are part of the primary source collection at the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Divide students into teams to assess the importance of these two documents, based on their understanding of the Cuban missile crisis. They can make detailed class presentations on how the crisis might have turned out differently if the Central Intelligence Agency had intercepted the orders — and sent them to the White House — on the day they were transmitted.

USSR, draft directive, Directive to the Commander of Soviet Forces in Cuba on transfer of Il-28s and Luna Missiles, and Authority on Use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons, September 8, 1962 (PDF) USSR, Directive, TOP SECRET, Prohibition on Use of Nuclear Weapons without Orders from Moscow, October 27, 1962, 16:30 (PDF)

Common Core ELA Anchor Standards, 6-12:

Reading 1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text. 3. Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text. 7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse formats and media, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words. 8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. 9. Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.

Writing 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. 2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. 3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences.

Speaking and Listening 1. Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively. 2. Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats, including visually, quantitatively, and orally. 3. Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric.

McREL Standards

World History 44. Understands the search for community, stability, and peace in an interdependent world. 46. Understands long-term changes and recurring patterns in world history.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

In 1974, we were within five to ten minutes of a full launch of MAD. This is documented and happened on Sandy Hook, which was a military base dating back to the mid 1800’s. However, the Hook has always been strategic. In 1974, a Russian plane came in to our air space, and the NIKE missiles began to rise in order to be launched. Fortunately, someone scrambled a fighter jet to quickly verify a and inside the plane were very upset Russians, whose equipment had failed and strayed in to our airspace. It was the only time we were within minutes of a full scale launch. The people involved are still alive and lead tours on the Hook in the summer, where the missiles are still to be seen, along with the then, State of the Art computers, etc., and Radar dishes. FYI! Ellen Fister Oxman (p.s. My father was the Chief Civilian Scientist there, so I know whereof I speak)

That is scary how close the U.S and the U.S.S.R came to a nucleur war. If they had gone into a nucleur war tons of land would have been destroyed. Lots of land would still be too radioactive to be on today. Also lots of people would have been killed and los of people could have been born deformed. It could have polluted a lot of the world too.

What would have have happened if we wouldn’t have found the missiles, would we be over? I don’t know. Would we be smoked? I don’t know. Would we be in war with Russia? I don’t know.

I think it was very critical that we found the missiles that were in Cuba and that we stopped the war. If we didn’t find the missiles, the war would have had a different outcome, and we probably would have nuked other countries.

I want more details as to what actually happened during cuban missile crisis.

What's Next

• About WordPress
• Get Involved
• WordPress.org
• Documentation
• Learn WordPress
• Cuban Missile Crisis

Contextual Essay

Topic: How did the Cuban Missile Crisis affect the United States’ foreign policy in Cuba during the Cold War?

• Introduction

Despite the short geographical distance between the two countries, Cuba and the United States have had a complicated relationship for more than 150 years owing to a long list of historical events. Among all, the Cuban Missile Crisis is considered as one of the most dangerous moments in both the American and Cuban history as it was the first time that these two countries and the former Soviet Union came close to the outbreak of a nuclear war. While the Crisis revealed the possibility of a strong alliance formed by the former Soviet Union and Cuba, two communist countries, it also served as a reminder to U.S. leaders that their past strategy of imposing democratic ideology on Cuba might not work anymore and the U.S. needed a different approach. It was lucky that the U.S. was able to escape from a nuclear disaster in the end, how did the Cuban Missile Crisis affect the U.S. foreign policy in Cuba during the Cold War?

            To answer my research question, I searched on different academic databases related to Latin American studies, history, and political science. JSTOR, Hispanic American Historical Review, and Journal of American History were examples of databases that I used. I also put in keywords like “Cuban Missile Crisis,” “Cuba and the U.S.,” and “U.S. cold war foreign policy” to find sources that are related to my research focus. Furthermore, I have included primary and secondary sources that address the foreign policies the U.S. implemented before and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. In order to provide a more comprehensive picture of the impact of the Crisis on the U.S. foreign policy in Cuba, the primary sources used would include declassified CIA documents, government memos, photos, and correspondence between leaders. These sources would be the best for my project because they provided persuading first-hand information for analyzing the issue. I cut sources that were not trustworthy and did not relate to my topic. This research topic was significant because it reflected the period when Cuban-U.S. relations became more negative. By understanding the change in foreign policy direction after the Cuban Missile Crisis, we could gain a better understanding of the development of Cuban-U.S. relations since the Cold War. On top of that, it was also a chance for us to reflect upon the decision-making process and learn from the past. 

In my opinion, the Cuban Missile Crisis affected U.S. foreign policy in Cuba during the Cold War in three ways. First, the Crisis allowed the U.S. government to realize the importance of flexible and planned crisis management. Second, the Crisis reinforced the U.S. government’s belief in the Containment Policy. Third, the Crisis reminded the U.S. of the importance of multilateralism when it came to international affairs. 

In October 1962, the United States detected that the former Soviet Union had deployed medium-range missiles in Cuba. This discovery then led to a tense standoff that lasted for 13 days, which was later known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. In response to the Soviet Union’s action, the Kennedy administration quickly placed a “quarantine” naval blockade around Cuba and demanded the destruction of missile sites. [1] This decision was made carefully by the U.S. government because any miscalculation would lead to a nuclear war between Cuba, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. After weighing possible options, the former Soviet Union finally announced the removal of missiles for an American pledge not to reinvade Cuba. [2] On the other hand, the U.S. also agreed to secretly remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey in a separate deal. [3] The Crisis was then over and the three countries involved were able to escape from a detrimental nuclear crisis.

After World War II, the United States and the former Soviet Union began battling indirectly through a plethora of ways like propaganda, economic aid, and military coalitions. This was known as the period of the Cold War. [4] The Cuban Missile Crisis happened amid the Cold War then caused the escalation of tension between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Despite the removal of nuclear missiles by the U.S.S.R., Moscow still decided to upgrade the Soviet nuclear strike force. This decision allowed the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to further their nuclear arms race as a result. [5] The Cold War tensions only softened after the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was negotiated and signed by both superpowers. [6] Additionally, both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. reflected upon the dangerous nuclear crisis and established the “Hotline” to reduce the possibility of war by miscalculation. [7]

• Crisis management

To begin, the success of solving the Cuban Missile Crisis has proven to the U.S. the importance of planning and flexibility when it came to crisis management with a tight time limit. This was supported by the CIA document “Major Consequences of Certain U.S. Courses of Action on Cuba” and the Dillon group discussion paper “Scenario for Airstrike Against Offensive Missile Bases and Bombers in Cuba.” Rather than devoting to existing plans, the Kennedy administration came up with flexible plans. Depending on the potential reactions of Cuba towards different hypothetical scenarios of the United States’ response after the deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba, the CIA document listed several modes of blockade and warnings that the U.S. could use to avoid a nuclear war. [8] The CIA document also presented the meanings of different military strategies to the U.S., the U.S.S.R., and Cuba.[9] In addition, the Dillon group discussion paper included the advantages and disadvantages of using airstrikes against Cuba.[10] Not only did these documents reveal the careful planning process that the U.S. government underwent under a pressurized time limit, but they also allowed the U.S. government to realize the uncertainty in the U.S.-Cuban relations and the U.S.-Soviet relations. The U.S. would need to have flexible military plans prepared to protect itself from a similar crisis and to sustain harmonious relationships with the U.S.S.R. and Cuba in the long run.  

• Containment Policy

Furthermore, the Cuban Missile Crisis has allowed the U.S. government to reflect upon the extent of the application of the Containment Policy to prevent the spread of communism. Since the U.S. became a superpower after World War II, it seldom faced threat from countries that were close to its border. The Crisis then was an opportunity for the U.S. to learn that it was possible that itself could be trapped by the “containment policy” by other communist countries like the Soviet Union and Cuba. This could explain why the U.S. chose not to invade or attack Cuba but to compromise with the U.S.S.R. by trading nuclear missiles for those in Cuba, despite intended to actively suppress communism. [11]

As mentioned in the White House document, “two extreme views on the proper role of force in the international relations were wrong – the view which rejects force altogether as an instrument of foreign policy; and the view that force can solve everything,” the Crisis made the U.S. understand that forceful use of containment policy on communist countries might not work all the time. [12] The U.S. would need to change its focus and turn to other diplomatic strategies to better protect its national interest.

• Multilateralism

In addition, the success of solving the Cuban Missile Crisis allowed the United States to understand the importance of multilateralism when it came to international conflicts with communist countries. Amid the Crisis, the U.S. actively sought support from different countries. This was clearly noted in the CIA daily report “The Crisis USSR/Cuba” that many countries like Spain, France, and Venezuela showed public support for the U.S. quarantine blockade policy on Cuba.[13] On top of the support of other countries, the U.S. also sought justification of the quarantine through the Organization of American States and made good use of the United Nations to communicate with the Soviets on the size of the quarantine zone.[14] All these measures made it difficult for Moscow or Cuba to further escalate the Crisis or interpret American actions as a serious threat to their interests. With the clever use of multilateralism, the U.S. was able to minimize the danger of the Crisis smoothly before any escalation of tensions. This experience also served as a good resource for solving troubling diplomatic problems with Cuba or other communist countries in the future.

            In conclusion, the Cuban Missile Crisis has several effects on the United States’ foreign policy in Cuba during the Cold War. To begin, the success of solving the Cuban Missile Crisis has proven to the U.S. the importance of planning and flexibility when it came to crisis management with a tight time limit. Additionally, the Cuban Missile Crisis has allowed the U.S. government to reflect upon the extent of the application of the Containment Policy to prevent the spread of communism. Furthermore, the Cuban Missile Crisis provided the United States a chance to understand the importance of multilateralism when it came to solving international conflicts with communist countries. By understanding more about the effects that the Cuban Missile Crisis had on U.S. foreign policy in Cuba, we were able to realize the vulnerability and insecurity in Cuban-U.S. relations. This allowed us to gain a more diverse view of the causes of the conflicting U.S.-Cuban relations in the 20th and 21st centuries.

• Primary Sources (10-15 sources)

CIA Special National Intelligence Estimate, “Major Consequences of Certain U.S. Courses of Action on Cuba,” October 20, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19621020cia.pdf.

CIA daily report, “The Crisis USSR/Cuba,” October 27, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027%20The%20Crisis%20USSR-Cuba.pdf   

Dillon group discussion paper, “Scenario for Airstrike Against Offensive Missile Bases and Bombers in Cuba,” October 25, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19621025dillon.pdf

White House, “Post Mortem on Cuba,” October 29, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19621029mortem.pdf

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. “Cuban Missile Crisis,” Accessed February 25, 2020. https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/ .

The U-2 Plane. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19.jpg

October 5, 1962: CIA chart of “reconnaissance objectives in Cuba.”

Graphic from Military History Quarterly of the U.S. invasion plan, 1962.

CIA reference photograph of Soviet cruise missile in its air-launched configuration.

October 17, 1962: U-2 photograph of first IRBM site found under construction.

[1] “The Cold War,” JFK Library, accessed May 5, 2020, https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/the-cold-war .

[3] “Cuban Missile Crisis.” JFK Library. Accessed May 5, 2020. https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/cuban-missile-crisis.

[4]  “The Cold War,” JFK Library, accessed May 5, 2020, https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/the-cold-war .

[8] CIA Special National Intelligence Estimate, “Major Consequences of Certain U.S. Courses of Action on Cuba,” October 20, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19621020cia.pdf .

[10] Dillon group discussion paper, “Scenario for Airstrike Against Offensive Missile Bases and Bombers in Cuba,” October 25, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19621025dillon.pdf

[11] CIA Special National Intelligence Estimate, “Major Consequences of Certain U.S. Courses of Action on Cuba,” October 20, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19621020cia.pdf .

[12]  White House, “Post Mortem on Cuba,” October 29, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19621029mortem.pdf

[13] CIA daily report, “The Crisis USSR/Cuba,” October 27, 1962. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027%20The%20Crisis%20USSR-Cuba.pd

[14] “TWE Remembers: The OAS Endorses a Quarantine of Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis, Day Eight).” Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed May 4, 2020. https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-oas-endorses-quarantine-cuba-cuban-missile-crisis-day-eight.

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples History

Essay Samples on Cuban Missile Crisis

The cuban missile crisis: lessons in diplomacy and deterrence.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 stands as one of the most intense and dangerous episodes of the Cold War era. This essay delves into the multifaceted aspects of the crisis, exploring the causes, the decisions made by key players, and the lessons that have...

• Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cuban Missile Crisis: Breaking The Communication Barrier In The Cold War

Imagine a world where a nuclear war had taken place and much of the United States and modern Russia were annihilated in a fiery holocaust. In this world, the Cold War escalated into a full-on war. Our world came within mere millimeters of this fate...

• John F. Kennedy

Short Term Effects Of Cuban Missile Crisis

Never has the world been closer to nuclear war as it was 13 days in October 1962. The Soviet Union and the US, both great nations, challenged each other immensely and almost let the rest of the world pay the price. The world held its...

• Nuclear War

History and Development of the US and Cuban Relations

As one begins to take a look into the relations amongst different states, what they stand for, how they attempt to protect its borders, and the manner in which they behave towards other states, US and Cuba are amongst those states that tend to be...

• American History

Results of Status Quo During The Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cuban Missile Crisis, as many historians would agree, was a period of time in which Americans were threatened by Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba, and Soviets were threatened by American nuclear missiles from many directions, specifically Turkey. In an effort to maintain their fragile...

• World History

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

The Causes of Cuban Missile Crisis

Amidst the Cold War, what factors ignited the Cuban Missile Crisis? And in the same breath, what factors ultimately succeeded in preventing the world’s greatest superpowers from pursuing the unprecedented and deadly threat of nuclear war? In the US, the crisis first gained attention in...

Cuban Missile Crisis: Miscommunication That Could Have Resulted in a Nuclear War

Disagreements, conflicts and discords can be said to be a continuing characteristic for human beings throughout the course of history regardless of time, place and especially one’s background since individuals have different beliefs and possess varying degrees of values. This can range from simple matters...

A Detailed Analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis and How Relevant It Is Now

Imagine going about your life knowing that, at any given moment, you and everyone you know could be wiped out without warning at the push of a button. This was the reality for millions of people during the forty-five-year period after World War II now...

Best topics on Cuban Missile Crisis

1. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Lessons in Diplomacy and Deterrence

2. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Breaking The Communication Barrier In The Cold War

3. Short Term Effects Of Cuban Missile Crisis

4. History and Development of the US and Cuban Relations

5. Results of Status Quo During The Cuban Missile Crisis

6. The Causes of Cuban Missile Crisis

7. Cuban Missile Crisis: Miscommunication That Could Have Resulted in a Nuclear War

8. A Detailed Analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis and How Relevant It Is Now

• Civil Rights Movement
• African American History
• Pearl Harbor
• African Diaspora
• Harriet Tubman
• Adolf Hitler
• American Democracy

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

The Cuban Missile Crisis Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Every country in the world aims at becoming secure from both internal and external enemies. As a result, each country endeavors to ensure that it has the required prowess to fight when the need arises. In this regard, production, as well as the purchase of weapons, takes up a substantial budget of any country’s budget. At one time, the need for protection and the urge to be prepared whenever the enemy attacks led to a standoff between the United States and Russia. This was referred to as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As early as the 20 th century, the U.S. had protectorate powers over Cuba. As a result, the U.S. had made a lot of investments in Cuba. Being close to America, Cuba was a very crucial place that any enemy to the U.S. would obtain. The U.S. special plane flying over the Cuban airspace discovered missiles in 1962. These missiles had been planted there by Russia. Noticing this, America prepared itself for war against Russia.

Among the main causes of the missile tension was the presence of American missiles in Turkey, which is a neighbor of Russia. Notably, the U.S. had several missiles in Turkey, and this to Russia was a security threat. However, earlier efforts by Russia to make the U.S. remove these missiles had failed. Moreover, there had been tension between the U.S. and Russia on who should be the superpower of the world. Consequently, the presence of nuclear weapons in the neighborhood of Russia seemed as an aggression by the United States.

On the same note, the leadership of Cuba changed in 1959, and the new administration had close ties with Russia. The people who America had been supporting since the 1950s were not the ones in power. Consequently, all American owned companies in Cuba were nationalized with no compensation.

The American strongman in Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, became powerless in the new administration. The new ties between Russia and Cuba worried America since it was easier for anything to happen. Arguably, Russia took the act of the U.S. had missiles in Turkey as a way of positioning itself for war against Russia. They, therefore, had also to position themselves for the war of equal measure.

Nonetheless, though the tension lasted for almost two weeks, the war never broke out. After noting the presence of missiles in Cuba, America confronted Russia. Russia required that America removes its missiles from Turkey. Unknown to Russia was the fact that the missiles of the U.S. in Turkey were worn out and were due for removal. However, the President of U.S. would not publicly accept the offer for this could comprise his position as a tough man against communism and Russia in particular.

The U.S. knew that removal of its missiles was the solution. Consequently, the president resolved to comply with the requirement of Russia but not in public. Anyway, the U.S. was to do away with the missiles in Turkey but doing so in public would be tantamount to a defeat.

The U.S. president did not promise to remove the missiles from Turkey in public, but he did promise not to invade Cuba if Russia took away its missiles. In private, however, the American president agreed to take American missiles out of Turkey. On this agreement, the Cuban missile crisis was avoided peacefully though the American president was seen as a winner.

• The Ottoman Empire History: the Rise and Fall
• Medieval China and Europe and Spread of Islam
• The Cuban Missile Crisis: The Causes and Effects
• The U.S. Decision to Blockade Cuba
• Aspects of Cultural Misperception
• The Islamic Golden Age
• American, French and Haitian Revolutions
• European Global Power: History and Modern Trends
• Innovation, Revolution and Global Crisis
• Technological Advancement Essay
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 11). The Cuban Missile Crisis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-cuban-missile-crisis/

"The Cuban Missile Crisis." IvyPanda , 11 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/the-cuban-missile-crisis/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'The Cuban Missile Crisis'. 11 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "The Cuban Missile Crisis." May 11, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-cuban-missile-crisis/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Cuban Missile Crisis." May 11, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-cuban-missile-crisis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Cuban Missile Crisis." May 11, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-cuban-missile-crisis/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Cuban Missile Crisis - Essay Samples And Topic Ideas For Free

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 represents a precarious pinnacle of Cold War tensions, as the United States and the Soviet Union teetered on the brink of nuclear conflict. Essays could delve into the chronological unfolding of events, exploring the political and military maneuvering that characterized this thirteen-day standoff. They might also discuss the key figures involved, and how their decisions shaped the course and outcome of the crisis. Discussions might extend to the implications of the Cuban Missile Crisis on U.S.-Soviet relations, nuclear diplomacy, and global geopolitics, analyzing how it led to a re-evaluation of brinkmanship and a subsequent thaw in Cold War tensions. The discourse may also touch on the lessons learned from the crisis, exploring its relevance in contemporary discussions of nuclear proliferation and international relations. A substantial compilation of free essay instances related to Cuban Missile Crisis you can find in Papersowl database. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

The Significance of the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis on the Cold War

On January 1, 1959 a Cuban nationalist by the name of Fidel Castro, drove his guerilla army into Havana, the capital of Cuba. Him and his guerrilla dethroned General Fulgencio Batista who was the Cuban president at the time. He ruled for two two years while the State Department and the CIA aimed to push Castro out of power. Eventually, in April 1961, the CIA organized a definitive strike made up of Cubans that had been forced to flee from […]

The Cuban Missile Crisis and Cold War

COLD WAR 1947 - 1991 The Cold War referred to the competition, the tensions and a series of confrontations between the United States and Soviet Union, backed by their respective allies. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the considered to be the high point of what came to be known as the Cold War because of the following reasons. 1) Worries of the USSR In April 1961, the leaders of the USSR were worried that the United States would invade the […]

John F. Kennedy’s Legacy

President John F. Kennedy had one of the longest lasting legacies out of the United States presidents. Kennedy was elected as the president in 1960 as the 35th president. He was born into one of the wealthiest families which out such a strong expectation on him. Kennedy had a successful run for Congress in 1946 and for senate in 1952. JFK announced that he was going to run for president on January 2, 1960, where he defeated Richard Nixon in […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

About the Cuban Missile Crisis

Introduction Cuba Missile Crisis occurred when soviet confronted United States. The crisis happened in Cuba in October 1962. It was a form of the cold war between the United States and the USSR. The war was initiated after the United States noticed that the soviet had placed the missiles in the Cuba. There was a secret agreement between the Cuba president and the Soviet state to prevent the United States from invading the Cuba again after the first attempt failed. […]

John F. Kennedy the Presidency and the Policies

John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, was born May 29th, 1917 and died November 22nd, 1963. Kennedy being the youngest president elected, his wife and himself gave a youthful energy to the White House. Although he lived a short life he was able to accomplish much, especially during his presidency. In the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy won over Richard Nixon. During his inaugural speech one of his main points was when he said, "Ask not […]

Short Biography of John F. Kennedy

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born on May 29th, 1917 in Brookline Massachusetts. JFK was born the second son of nine children from Joseph Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy. Joseph Kennedy was very wealthy business executive and financier. Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy on the other hand was never involved in politics but her father was. John Francis Fitzgerald was a state legislator, a Mayor of Boston, and a U.S. Congressmen. This explains how the Kennedys' were involved in politics and wealthy at […]

The Cold War and U.S Diplomacy

My take on President Kennedy's doctrine ""Respond flexibly to communist expansion, especially to guerrilla warfare from 1961 to 1963"". The doctrine by President John F. Kennedy. During the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the United States worked together in fighting Nazi of Germany. The coalition between the two parties was dissolved after the end of the war in Europe. During the Potsdam conference, the tension broke up on July when the two parties decided to share Germany. The […]

Who was Responsible for the Cold War and the Complex Web of Causes: Dissecting the Origins

The Cold War was a lengthy stretch when superpower countries had disagreements. There existed plenty of stress during this time. Two major nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, held contrasting viewpoints and weren't exactly fond of each other. However, pinpointing just one individual or event that initiated everything is quite challenging. Various factors and other significant individuals all contributed to the unfolding of the Cold War. The Aftermath After the conclusion of World War II, the situation wasn't […]

John Fitzgerald Kennedy in History

Surrounded by admiration, controversy, and legacy, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the 35th president of the United States. Fifth of nine children, John was born May 29, 1917 in Boston, Massachusetts. The Kennedy children enjoyed a comfortable childhood, Patrick Joseph Kennedy their father, was a successful business man ensuring his children were well provided for. Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, mother to the nine Kennedy children, ensured that they were well taken care of. Rose documented various aspects of her children's lives, such […]

The Cuban Missile Crisis: Cinematic Interpretations and Historical Reflections

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 stands as one of the most dramatic and tense periods in Cold War history, a moment when the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war. This intense geopolitical standoff has been a rich source of material for filmmakers seeking to capture the fear, intrigue, and high-stakes diplomacy that characterized those 13 days. One notable film that brings this period to life is "Thirteen Days" (2000), directed by Roger Donaldson. This essay delves into […]

The Cuban Missile Crisis: when the World Held its Breath

In October 1962, the world came dangerously close to nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis, a terrifying 13-day standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, was the closest we've ever come to global annihilation. This high-stakes drama was not just a random event but the culmination of years of Cold War tension, power plays, and political gambles. Let's dive into the backstory of this nerve-wracking episode and unpack the mix of actions and decisions that led to this […]

The Cuban Missile Crisis: a Pivotal Moment in Cold War Strategy

In the annals of history, few events have sparked as much global tension and uncertainty as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Situated at the heart of the Cold War, this thirteen-day confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in October 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. However, beyond its immediate threat of mutual destruction, the crisis fundamentally altered the dynamics of the Cold War, reshaping diplomatic strategies, military doctrines, and international relations for years to […]

Dodging the Nuclear Bullet: how we Got through the Cuban Missile Crisis

Imagine the entire world holding its breath for 13 nail-biting days in October 1962, as the U.S. and the Soviet Union danced on the razor's edge of nuclear war. That's the Cuban Missile Crisis for you – a showdown that could have easily turned our history books into ash. But, spoiler alert, humanity lived to tell the tale, thanks to some serious diplomatic gymnastics and a game of high-stakes chicken that nobody wanted to win. Let's dive into how this […]

Featured Categories

Additional example essays.

• Research Paper #1 – The Trail of Tears
• Rosa Parks Vs. Harriet Tubman
• The History of the United States of America
• Enlightenment Ideas Reflected in the Declaration of Independence
• Why Was Herbert Hoover Blamed For The Great Depression?
• Hitler's Rise to Power in History
• Why Is Slavery Wrong
• Frederick Douglass' Sucesses, Failures, and Consequences
• Leadership and the Army Profession
• Letter From Birmingham Jail Rhetorical Analysis
• Compare And Contrast In WW1 And WW2
• Why College Should Not Be Free

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Cuban Missile Crisis, Essay Example

Pages: 20

Words: 5375

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Background and Goal

Making decisions has been one of the major tasks faced by governments in response to the pandemic. The Norwegian government has played a significant role in coming up with policies aimed at limiting the number of infections and deaths in the nation to protect its citizens. The decisions made by the Norwegian government can be said to have followed the idea brought about by March (3). March highlights that changes noted in any organization are always made to respond to the environment; however, they do not do so with the intention of fulfilling plans held by individuals. In this case, organizations can at times ignore important policies and, in other scenarios, enforce them more than expected. This applies in the case of the Norwegian government in response to the pandemic. On some occasions, the government ignored advice given by expert committees. All this was done in response to the rising number of infections in the nation. March (4) highlights that any action taken by an organization can be viewed as an application of procedures or rules to address a situation. Such an action can also be viewed to result from past experience. The Norwegian government had witnessed the effects of the pandemic in other nations; therefore, the action to come up with regulatory measures may be said to have resulted from the experience. March (4) supports this by saying that actions can be said to spread from one organization to the other. However, this is determined by contact and vulnerability. In this case, the Norwegian government knew that its citizens were at risk of contracting the virus; therefore, there was a need for protection.

Immergut (62) brings forward an idea that can be applied in the case of the Norwegian government’s response to the pandemic. Immergut suggests that key players in a nation in conjunction with government institutions play a significant role in shaping policy conflicts. In Norway, the government collaborated with Norwegian Directorate of Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, and expert committees to develop the decisions made on March 12, 2020. Martin (9) supports the need for technical expertise during a political conflict to aid in coming up with effective decisions. Martin also highlights that effective negotiations rely on repeated interactions of decision-makers to come up with compelling choices.

Olsen (85) suggests that choices made in an organization rely on few people based on their expertise. In this case, they are delegated to focus on defined issues and come up with effective practical solutions. However, decisions made in the process have to be guided by a set of procedures that are likely to cause acceptable results. In Norway, the government delegated Norwegian Directorate of Health to come up with effective measures to respond to the pandemic’s threat. Olsen (85) also suggests an artifactual model whereby several participants can come up with solutions and analyze their effectiveness. Such a model is applied in a scenario where many values and variables are guiding the decision-making process. Such a situation is difficult to analyze, and decision-makers face challenges in identifying and assessing the consequences of available alternatives.

In a decision-making process, participants have a focus on whether their decisions are observable and the likelihood of the outcomes being noted. In this case, decision-makers have to come up with regulations that will be identified during implementation and are likely to contribute to positive outcomes. However, such decisions can also result in outcomes that might be hard to identify (Resh and Cho, 2). This might be attributed to the fact that outcomes might take a prolonged period before manifesting.

Cameron (21) highlights that during the implementation of policies, the key players in the process remain to be public agencies. However, a government still has an influence over the process. Even though other players can also be involved in the process, their actions are limited. This explains the decision-making process applied in Norway. Norwegian Directorate of Health was in charge of making the decisions in Norway in response to the pandemic.

The process of decision-making in Norway can also be described using incremental politics. Incremental politics suggests that changes made frequently can help achieve positive outcomes for the situation rather than relying on one major policy change (Lindblom, 520). In Norway, the government and its institutions came up with frequent changes to the initiated restrictions. The improvements made in the measures were guided by the changes noted in the spread of the virus. The various changes initiated by the Norwegian government and other key decision-makers helped to reduce the effects associated with the virus.

March and Olsen (11) suggest that a decision-making process is not focused on coming up with a decision but on the happenings that occur simultaneously. Decision activities focus more on the outcomes that are likely to result rather than the decision itself. This applies to the decision-making process in Norway. Norwegian government focused on the pandemic and the outcomes that could arise from the measures rather than the effects the decisions would have on the public. March and Olsen (13) also highlight that any choice assumes a cycle of connections. There exists a connection between organizational choices and environmental responses.

According to Gustavsson (125), policies cannot be enacted without there being a question about a defined behavior observed in individuals. However, he argues that the actions taken by groups and players in a decision-making process rely on the policy at stake. Regulatory measures often result from government control over society. In the case of regulatory measures, the process is defined by struggles between various competitors. Measures can be initiated while having strong opposition from some of the parties involved. Gustavsson (129) highlights that new policies enacted by governments result from changes that occur in judgment. The changes often result from key events. The decision-making process applied in Norway can be said to have followed the public attention model of regulation. The effects brought about by the pandemic influenced decision-makers to come up with regulations that affected business operations.

Norway’s Choice Development Process

Immergut (63) suggests that political decisions require various decision-makers to agree. In this case, proposals likely to affect the general public have to be validated by other players involved in the process. However, Immergut (63) highlights that the ability of other decision-makers to influence the decisions being made relies on the powers they have that can allow them to block the enactment of policies. This aspect was observed in Norway, where the decision-making process in response to the pandemic had several players. Still, the government could at times ignore the advice given by expert committees. Immergut states that constitutional provisions come up with veto opportunities that outline procedures that divide power among representatives. In this case, the legislature and the executive have to be involved in the decision-making process. To ease the process of making decisions in response to the pandemic, the Norwegian government was granted the power to enforce actions which in the beginning was a role of the legislature (IPU, 1). This aimed to ensure that the government reacted fast to the pandemic to limit the number of new infections and deaths. This was to safeguard the general population. Immergut (65) highlights that if the decisions made by the executive do not require approval from the legislature, it can then initiate direct action. The legislature in Norway granted the government executive the powers to initiate direct action in response to the pandemic without relying on its permission.

March (2) proposes assumptions that guide actions initiated by leaders. The first assumption is that change might be very hard to effect in organizations if individuals in the organization are not ready enough for such actions. This explains why the Norwegian government had to develop measures to ensure that its citizens were safe. One can argue that the public knew of the existence of the pandemic but had not taken effective measures to protect themselves. This triggered the government to initiate action. Another assumption is that key decision makers have different abilities; therefore, organizations should seek to identify influential leaders. This enhances the possibility of success. By following the assumption, one can argue that the Norwegian government had effective leaders who came up with measures that helped limit the spread of the virus in the nation. As proposed by March (2), the third assumption is that the objectives held by decision makers have to be precise. When enforcing the measures, the Norwegian government had the aim to limit the spread of the virus. The last assumption is that the outcomes from an action help justify whether it was right or wrong. In this case, to justify the actions initiated by the Norwegian government, one can assess whether they were effective in reducing new infections.

Martin (4) states that all participants have to agree to acceptable sources of data during negotiation. However, in other cases, participants can have a varying set of facts that influence their actions. This explains the conflict in Norway between the central administration and local municipalities. The two entities established varying measures in response to the pandemic based on the information they had. Some of the municipalities ended up retaining established measures. Martin (4) suggests the need to include technical expertise during negotiations to ensure that the differences that exist in information are eliminated. Experts help to foster an understanding of policy problems in all participants. Martin (126) highlights that penalty defaults also facilitate the negotiation process and outcomes. Penalty defaults refer to the consequences that are likely to arise if a decision making process does not result to an effective solution. The issue of penalty default applies to the Norwegian decision-making process in response to the pandemic. The government knew that if no effective measures were initiated to address the pandemic, the citizens faced a high risk of infections and complications associated with the virus. This challenged the government to develop measures to limit spread.

According to Studlar (2), some of the issues in a political conflict can be prioritized while others which might be of equal importance might be sidelined. In such a conflict, there are inequalities in the opportunity to be heard and involved in a decision-making process. Studlar (3) states that the general public remains to be passive during the development of policies, but when mobilized, they can play a significant role in effecting change.

Different Decision Models

One of the decision models that could help shed light on the process and outcome of the intervention development procedure in Norway in response to the pandemic is the rational decision-making model (Etzioni, 385). According to Etzioni (385), the rational model proposes that a decision-maker identifies a problem, sets goals, assesses available alternatives, and then selects the alternative they perceive to be the best to solve the problem at hand (Enderud, 25). Each of the identified alternatives is guided by a course of action and its possible consequences concerning the problem aimed to solve (Halabi, 367). After the best alternative is selected, it is implemented and continuously assessed to identify consequences that determine its success in achieving set goals. The advantage associated with the model of making choices is that it ignores the effects of political influence (Heracleous, 16). The model aims at ensuring that the decision made has the maximum output likely to achieve set objectives. This applies to the Norwegian government. It came up with strict measures that helped to ease the risk faced by other nations. In some way, the decisions met the set goals, which were to minimize infections and deaths.

Heracleous (16) proposes that the model used in making choices is influenced by constraints and effects of the culture in question, perceptions held by different actors, the best course of action, and is also bounded by human rationality. Halabi (367) also highlights a boundedly rational model in making decisions which proposes that a decision is based on the first alternative that a decision-maker perceives to be the best. In this case, decision-makers do not have to identify a set of alternatives and compare them to develop the best one. This might explain some of the decisions made in Norway in response to the pandemic. Some of the decisions were made in a rush. Therefore, there was no adequate time to weigh possible alternatives.

The rational model of decision-making focuses more on the process of choosing the alternative that has the likelihood of causing the best outcome rather than the alternative itself. Oliviera (13) suggests that the rational model helps select the decision according to the degree of anticipated efficacy. Uzonwanne (2) also supports the fact that the rational model weighs the probabilities associated with different alternatives and allows decision-makers to identify probable results for each of them. This explains the choices made by the Norwegian government and other agencies in response to COVID-19. The decisions made were aimed at reducing infections and deaths resulting from the virus. The decisions ignored the fact that they were to limit various human rights and focused on their possibility to reduce the spread of the virus in the nation.

Another model that can help shed light on Norway’s decisions and outcomes in response to the pandemic is the progressive model (Lindblom, 1). Lindblom (1) refers to the model as the art of muddling through. Lindblom suggests two alternatives in which the incremental model is used in decision making. This paper will focus on the second alternative as it is more applicable to the decision-making process in Norway. The model suggests that governments come up with the major objective they seek to achieve. In this case, they tend to ignore other values that could apply in the situation. The model does not focus on the possible consequences associated with alternative policies and values attached to them (Migone and Howlett, 3). After coming up with a defined objective, it is necessary to identify several policy alternatives and later compare them to develop the most effective one. Comparison in the incremental model relies on experience to predict the consequences similar approaches can have in the future. The benefit of the model is that it allows a repeat of the defined procedure as conditions and ambitions change with time. The incremental model can be used to describe the process of decision-making applied in Norway in response to the pandemic. Lindblom (520) suggests that small changes made in a fast sequence in incremental politics can help achieve desired objectives more quickly than waiting for a major policy change. He adds that the incremental model acts as the fastest model of change. This explains the many policy changes introduced in Norway in response to the government. The government reacted in a fast manner to ensure that the nation’s spread was limited. The various measures introduced in Norway support the idea brought forward by Lindblom that the incremental model is a fast way of effecting change. Few months after the measures were introduced in Norway, the nation saw a significant decline in the number of new infections and deaths. By mid-April 2020, the number of new infections recorded in Norway had reduced significantly.

Dror (156) challenges the incremental model proposed by Lindblom and brings forward a normative-optimum model that guides the making of policies. One of the features of the model is that it provides a clarification of values, purposes, and the procedure followed in making decisions. The model also promotes focusing on available alternatives and emerging ones. In this case, the Norwegian government should have focused on identifying a number of alternatives that would help to remedy the situation. In the normative-optimum model, one has to project estimated outcomes of the various alternatives to identify the preferable one. One can argue that the Norwegian government identified the various measures to be the best alternative in controlling the spread of the virus in the country. The model relies on theory and experience to come up with decisions (Dror, 156). This applies in the case of Norway since the government knew that lacking to come up with effective measures would be a risk to the general population. It also relied on information gained from other nations about the effects of the pandemic and the effectiveness of established measures. The model also suggests that it promotes improvements according to changes experienced. According to the way the pandemic manifested in the nation, the Norwegian government made several changes to the decisions made on March 12, 2020.

Another model that could help shed light on Norway’s decision-making process and the outcome is the garbage can model. Cohen et al. (3) indicate that four basic variables influence the model. The first one is the number of choices available for decision-makers. Each of the choices is guide by time and the number of choice makers involved. The next one is the problem that needs to be addressed to come up with a solution. The third is the rate flow of solutions. Decision-makers, in this case, have several solutions to address a particular problem. They also have to identify problems and decisions associated with the solutions. The last variable, as proposed by Cohen et al. (3), is participants.  For each decision to be made, it must rely on the input from various participants. Norway can be said to have followed the garbage can model in coming up with policies in response to the pandemic. The pandemic was the main problem at hand. In Norway, the choice-making procedure was carried out by a series of participants involving the government, Norwegian Directorate of Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, and professionals from various fields. This helped to ensure that decisions made were well informed.

One of the characteristics associated with the garbage can model the ambiguity of goals. Various participants in a decision-making process might have different goals and preferences. This brings about a contradiction. According to Master (1), ambiguity limits the number of decisions that can be made to achieve mutually shared goals. This explains the clash experienced involving the principal administration and local rulers in Norway. They had differences in the goals they wished to achieve by introducing the measures to address COVID-19. Some local municipalities ended up retaining their measures that were different from those introduced by the central government. Another characteristic is fluid participation. In this case, participants in a decision-making process have a difference in their input (Jones, 48). This is determined by the interests held by each of them. For the case of Norway, it can be said that the government had more input in the decision-making process since, at times, it ignored the advice from expert committees. However, this can be associated with the government acting according to the logic of appropriateness (Ansell, 5885). The government acted in the manner since it saw the measures were necessary to combat the pandemic. Olsen (86) indicates that time also influences the definition of problems and the selection of participants. If there is adequate time, all participants are actively engaged such that each of them has an input in the choices made. Time was a significant challenge during the development of policies in Norway. The garbage can model is also defined by bounded rationality (Jann, 3). Decision-makers following the model are faced with a misunderstanding of events and their sources.

The conceptual models proposed by Allison (690) can also help shed light on Norway’s decision process and outcome in response to COVID-19. Allison proposes three models that can clarify or foresee the behavior of governments in response to a crisis. The models are; balanced strategy, group procedures, and administrative legislation (Allison, 690). In the rational policy, model governments try to develop a course of action that will likely have the maximum output to meet goals and objectives. By following the model, the government is viewed to be the rational actor. Therefore, the government acts as the key player in all major processes involved in decision-making (Huda, 1). Another concept used to define the rational policy model is the problem. Any action taken is always in response to a problem faced by a nation. For Norway, the problem was the spread of the virus. Another concept is static selection which refers to the set of alternatives available that can be applied to respond to a crisis. For an action to be rational, decision-makers must have defined goals and objectives they seek to achieve. The decision-makers also need to have several courses of action that can respond to a problem. They also have to identify consequences for each of the actions. For a choice made by decision-makers to be rational, it must have the maximum output in solving the problem faced by a nation (Allison, 694). With this in perspective, it can be said that the decisions made by the Norwegian government followed a rational policy model.

In the organization process model Allison (698) proposes that government behavior in response to a crisis can be defined as a course of action selected by a united rational choice-maker controlled by a central power with information to achieve maximum output. By following the organization process model, government action can be defined as the output of a large organization functioning with respect to a defined design of conduct (Kuwashima, 221). Government leaders can interfere with such organizations but do not have full control. This helps shed light on the reason behind the Norwegian Directorate of Health making the decisions issued on March 12, 2020. The Norwegian government mandated the directorate to address the pandemic in the nation.

Allison (707) indicates that there does not exist a unitary actor but several players in the administrative legislation model. In this case, the decision-makers do not focus on a specific issue but on others that might affect a nation. The players included in a decision process are from critical organizations in a country. The nature of the problem at hand permits differences between the major players with reference to their preferences and interests. Goals and interests held by different actors in a bureaucratic politics model rely on the need for national security, concerns held by organizations and individually (Jones, 6). According to Norcross (1), decisions in a bureaucratic politics model are based on conflict, arbitration, and brokering. This explains the actions taken in Norway in response to the pandemic. The government, together with its entities and professionals, played a role in the decision-making process. Input and interests held by various players in the process were different, which contributed to conflicts. This is defined by the fact that various decision-makers view an issue differently, influenced by their positions (Krylova, 1). In this model, the decisions made by a government rely on the input of various decision-makers. This was the same in Norway, where the government relied on advice from professionals in making decisions to respond to the pandemic.

Holyoke (2) states that when responding to social problems, administrative agencies have to involve organizations representing groups of people perceived to be at high risk. By collaborating, administrative entities and public organizations come together and develop regulations and expenditure programs. This enhances the enactment of regulatory policies by interest groups with the support of governments. In this case, guidelines exist without law. This can help to eliminate social and economic inequalities that result from regulatory measures.

The case type in question leading to the decision-making process in Norway affected the entire society. In this case, the whole nation was at a high risk of being infected by coming to close contact with an already infected person. The decision-making process in Norway was aimed to come up with a defense policy for the general public. It might be defined to have followed the stream perspective. In this case, the government had a stream of choice-making possibilities (Egeberg 5). There was a need to develop effective measures that would help limit the spread of the virus in the country.

Wilson (5) suggests that the nature of the issues at hand influences the participants to be politically activated to participate in a policy-making process. A policy case focuses on the political content and the decision outcome. The Norwegian government focused on the decision outcome, which was to reduce the number of infections in the nation. To respond to the pandemic, the Norwegian government and other key players had to identify the most effective measures that would help combat the spread of the virus (Oslo University Hospital, 1). The process in Norway can be defined to be administrative regulation since it had social objectives (Wilson, 82). However, the government can also be said to have altered business behavior as an alternative to responding to the pandemic. Wilson (82) highlights that political actors in the decision-making process are threat-oriented and rather than looking for opportunities. In this case, government interventions allow all sorts of regulatory measures and coalitions to respond to possible threats.

Wilson (344) presents the process applied in the formulation of policies. He highlights that each policy must have a price and an advantage. Price, in this case, refers to the burden received by the general public. Each policy has to have a cost that the public has to bear. Norwegian citizens had to withstand the effects brought about by regulations in response to the pandemic. The decision-making process in Norway in response to the pandemic can also be said to be entrepreneurial politics. Wilson (347) describes entrepreneurial politics as regulations that benefit the greater public while negatively affecting a particular group. Defined interest groups find such policies and measures to be unattractive (Gormley, 4). In this case, the regulations introduced in Norway benefited the public. However, businesses and other establishments faced a negative impact since the regulations forced them to close.

Moran (4) states that regulatory policies can be easily distinguished from others in that they make direct choices about who is to be affected and those to be left out. Some people may benefit more than others from enacted regulatory policies. Businesses in Norway were significantly affected by the regulatory measures introduced in response to the pandemic. Moran (5) highlights that the key sectors of an economy receive the greatest impact from established measures. Regulatory policies are based on battles and concessions.

Being a case that affected the whole society, the Norwegian government therefore aimed at ensuring that the public was safe. It established measures to protect everyone. The decision-making process in Norway also had a stream of participants who were actively engaged. The government collaborated with Norwegian Directorate of Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, and expert committees to identify the most appropriate measures to introduce. One of the advantages associated with the stream perspective of decision making is that it discourages the implementation of decisions that are likely to use much of participants’ time and energy (Egeberg, 56). Another attribute associated with the stream perspective is that important decisions do not require all participants to validate.

Lowi (284) highlights that regulations introduced in public health eliminate morality and focus on regulating a particular group. In this case, regulations in the health sector seek to eliminate the possibility of harm to the public. Such regulations seek to control habits that might contribute to such results. This applies in the case of Norwegian regulations in response to the pandemic. Lowi (284) also highlights that vaccinations can be considered to be an example of regulatory policy in the health sector. Lowi (284), in “Four systems of policy, politics, and choice,” states that governments result in regulations as a strategy to control society and individual behavior. However, there are moral and political procedure consequences that arise from such actions. Policies provide enticements and possessions that might promote or limit the development of defined groups (Kellow, 14). Enticements result from social consequences that arise from government-initiated actions.

According to Brown (1), in every conflict, the results are determined by the manner in which the audience is involved in the process. If the audience is actively engaged, the results are more likely to be positive. The scope of a conflict also acts as a determinant of the political strategy to be applied. It also helps to determine whether the public is to be involved in a policy development process or not.

Works Cited

Allison, Graham T. “Conceptual models, and the Cuban missile crisis.” The American political science review 63.3 (1969): 689-718

Ansell, Christopher K. “Garbage Can model of behavior.” (2001): 5883-5886.

Brown, Adam.“Summary of Schattschneider: The Semisovereign People — Adam Brown, BYU Political Science.” Adambrown.info, 2021, https://adambrown.info/p/notes/schattschneider_the_semisovereign_people  Accessed 23 May 2021.

Cameron, Charles. Chapter 2. Getting Started: Issues, Interests, Institutions, and Information. https://scholar.princeton.edu/ccameron/political-analysis-toolkit

Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen. “A garbage can model of organizational choice.” Administrative science quarterly (1972): 1-25 .

Dror, Yehezkel. “Muddling Through-” Science” or Inertia?” Public administration review (1964): 153-157.

Egeberg, Morten. State and organizations: majority board, party board, and bureaucracy in Norwegian politics. Univ.-for., 1981.

Etzioni, Amitai. “Mixed-scanning: A” third” approach to decision-making.” Public administration review (1967): 385-392.

Enderud, Harald (1985): Decisions in Organizations – in Behavioral Theory Perspective. Forward, Aalborg 6th edition.

FHI. “The Entry Quarantine On Arrival In Norway From Red And Yellow Countries / Areas.” FHI, 2020, https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/fakta/reiserad-knyttet-til-nytt-koronavirus-coronavirus/.

Halabi, Abdullah. The Factors That Effect on Rational Decision Making. International Journal of Applied Research 201 9; 5(5): 365-369

Heracleous, Loizos Th. “Rational decision making: myth or reality?” Management development review (1994).

Holyoke, Tom. “Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States.” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. 2015.

Huda, Jasmine. “Conceptual Models Of Foreign Policy Behavior.” Umich.Edu, 1998, http://www.umich.edu/~psci160/GSIPIERRE/005007.html#:~:text=The%20Rational%20Policy%20Model%20is,the%20goals%20of%20national%20security.

IPU (2020). “Country Compilation of Parliamentary Responses to the Pandemic.” Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2020, https://www.ipu.org/country-compilation-parliamentary-responses-pandemic#N

Jann, Werner. “Michael D. Cohen, James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen, A garbage can model of organizational choice.” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Jones, Brian Noble. Inside the Black Box: The Garbage Can Model of Decision-making in Selective College Admissions. Diss. University of Georgia, 2018.

Jones, Christopher M. “Bureaucratic politics and organizational process models.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. 2010

Kellow, Aynsley. “From policy typologies to policy feedback.” Handbook on Policy, Process and Governing. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.

Kuwashima, Kenichi. “How to Use Models of Organizational Decision Making?” Annals of Business Administrative Science 13.4 (2014): 215-230.

Krylova Yulia. Bureaucratic Politics. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_681-1

Lindblom, Charles E. “The Science of «Muddling Through. » Public (1995).

Lindblom, Charles E. “Still muddling, not yet through.” Public administration review 39.6 (1979): 517-526.

Lowi, Theodore J. “Four systems of policy, politics, and choice.” Public administration review 32.4 (1972): 298-310.

Lowi, Theodore J. “Comments on Anderson,” Governmental suasion: adding to the Lowi policy typology.”(article by John L. Anderson, in this issue, p. 266).” Policy Studies Journal 25.2 (1997): 283-286.

Master, David. Garbage Can Decision Making.” Davidmaister.com, 1983, https://davidmaister.com/articles/garbage-can-decision-making/

March, James G. “How we talk and how we act: Administrative theory and administrative life.” (1980).

Martin, Cathie Jo. “Conditions for successful negotiation: Lessons from Europe.” Negotiating Agreement in Politics (2013): 121.

Martin, Cathie Jo. “Negotiating political agreements.” Political Negotiation: A Handbook (2015): 7-33.

March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. “Organizational choice under ambiguity.” Ambiguity and choice in organizations 2 (1976): 10-23.

Migone, Andrea and Howlett, Michael. The Oxford handbook of classics in public policy and administration. OUP Oxford, 2015

Moran, Michael. “Theodore J. Lowi,“American business, public policy, case studies and political theory”.” The Oxford handbook of classics in public policy and administration. 2015.

Norcross, Luke. “‘Almost Perfect’: The Bureaucratic Politics Model and U.S. Foreign Policy.” E-International Relations, 2019, https://www.e-ir.info/2019/03/13/almost-perfect-the-bureaucratic-politics-model-and-u-s-foreign-policy/ Accessed May 16, 2021.

Norwegian Directorate of Health. “The Norwegian Directorate of Health has adopted comprehensive measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19.” Helsedirektoratet, 2020, https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/nyheter/helsedirektoratet-har-vedtatt-omfattende-tiltak-for-a-hindre-spredning-av-covid-19 . Accessed May 16, 2021

Oliveira, Arnaldo. “A discussion of rational and psychological decision-making theories and models: The search for a cultural-ethical decision-making model.” Electronic journal of business ethics and organization studies 12.2 (2007): 12-17.

Olsen, Johan P. “Choice in an organized anarchy.” Ambiguity and choice in organizations (1976): 82-139.

Oslo University Hospital. “OUH – Covid-19 Studies.” Ous-Research.no, 2020, https://www.ous-research.no/home/corona/Projects/21002 Accessed May 16, 2021.

Resh, William G., and Heejin Cho. “Revisiting James Q. Wilson’s Bureaucracy: Appointee Politics and Outcome Observability.” Available at SSRN 3444698 (2020).

Studlar, Donley. “EE Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America.” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. 2015.

Uzonwanne, Francis C. “Rational model of decision making.” Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. Springer International. (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2474-1

Wilson, James Q. “The politics of regulation.” The political economy: Readings in the politics and economics of American public policy (1984): 82-103.

Wilson, James Q. American government: Brief version. Cengage Learning, 2011.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Critical Appraisal: Policy Document, Essay Example

Criticism to Logical Positivism, Term Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Relatives, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 364

Voting as a Civic Responsibility, Essay Example

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Communism

The Cuban Missile Crisis Essays Example

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Communism , Karl Marx , Soviet Union , Cuba , Marxism , Nuclear Weapon , World , America

Words: 3000

Published: 12/14/2021

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Relation to neo-Marxism

Introduction The Cuban missile crisis marked one of the most turbulent times in our history. It was sparked by the deployment of nuclear missiles by the Soviet Union, in Cuba, in 1962. The world was on the brink of nuclear disaster. This paper seeks to analyze the underlying reasons, the influence of neo-Marxism and its role in the development and exacerbation of the Cuban missile crisis.

What is neo-Marxism

Before we embark on the underlying causes of the Cuban missile crisis, it is important to understand the basic differences between tenets of old school Marxism and neo-Marxism – its evolution, historical impact and its widespread discourse among social intellectuals. Marxism is a theory or philosophy which has its roots in social disparity, labor alienation, economic reality and political history. Karl Marx was the proponent of this theory, in the mid 19th century. It is based on the understanding that economic factors are responsible for creating classes in society. These can be classified mainly as the capitalists, who own capital, wealth, besides other resources and the workers, or those who are employed by the capitalists, who struggle to earn their daily bread. Marx was interested in understanding what the relations are between these two classes, how future societies will evolve as a consequence of that and whether there is an alternative system that can help in producing a classless society. Marx was also concerned about how this evolving disparity will affect the future of the world and social relations (Ollman 2004). Marx was influenced in a big way by the German philosopher, Hegel, and was interested in thinking about new ways in which our world could evolve, from a social and economic standpoint. While Hegel’s theory operated on ideas and thoughts, Marx was more interested in the concept of capitalism as it affects our daily lives. Karl Marx firmly believed that social conditions have a great effect on the development of human character and behavior. Neo-Marxism evolved as a theory in the latter part of the 20th century, since the 1970’s and 80’s. Neo-Marxism is like an adjunct to Marxism and the neo-Marxists have used the basic tenets of Karl Marx’s philosophy and applied it to international relations and the state of the global social, cultural and economic factors. Neo-Marxist experts tend to believe that capitalism is what is forcing countries to be competitive and domineering (Lardbucket, 2012). Neo-Marxism therefore is like an extension of Marxism and is a combination of different approaches and ideas related to 20th century global realities. It finds application in many areas and is not a single restricted idea. Neo-Marxism has found applications in Psychology, crime, world affairs, conflicts and so on. Unlike the rigidity seen in classic Marxism, neo-Marxism fundamentally infuses elements of Marxism in to 20th century socio-cultural concepts (Exemplifier, n.d.). Over the past few decades, we have seen capitalism change. But in the new globalized world and economic order, the relation and impact of capitalism on socialism has not changed. The disparity between the value created by labor forces and surplus value earned by capitalists is ever increasing. According to U.S Legal’s definition, “Neo-Marxism theory is an economic theory that the current world economic structure has been systematically implemented by use of a global class division with developing countries being exploited by industrialized nations (U.S. Legal, 2016). Neo-Marxism is therefore seen in an international and globalized context and compares the inequalities between the under developed and developed countries. Take the example of China. Though China did not embrace the classic Marxism-Leninism construct, it still practices Communism in a variant which can be called State sponsored capitalism, because of its desire to source raw materials and global markets for finished products. Any form of neo-Marxism, which includes liberal commercialism as practiced by China, leads to classification of workers and their degradation, since capitalist forces will protect their own (Lardbucket, 2012). Many neo-Marxists argue that wars, global politics and conflicts emanate from some of the concepts of neo-Marxism. The U.S. for example has been known to support many dictatorships in its own capitalist interests. This has led to many conflicts and turbulence in the economic and socio-cultural mores of many countries. Some neo-Marxism experts believe that the Cold war, Gulf wars and other conflicts had its roots in commercial and capitalist interests. Capitalists profit from the use of two forms of social forces – labor power and mother earth. They choose to exploit both to gain more and more profits, leading to a vicious capitalist cycle which brings more harm than good, to society (Chambre 2014). The Neo-Marxist protagonists believe that development is highly connected with dependency and world systems theories. Some development theories derived from the neo-Marxist approach have their unique strengths. They underline some key aspects such as the reasons for underdevelopment being more to do with historical process and acknowledge the dependence between nations. It maintains that systems and institutions are in constant flux and the capitalist nations deliberately kept the third world in an under developed sate, since it had an abundance of raw materials, which the West needed to further their capitalist interests. (Exemplifier, n.d.).

Story of Cuba and Castro’s Neo-Marxist Ideology

Fidel Castro was born on August 13, 1926 in the village of Biran. He went to a Roman Catholic school and was a famed athlete at the university. He developed a keen interest in politics and joined the anti-corruption movement in 1947, organized by the Orthodox Party. He soon graduated and became a lawyer. He stood for elections to Cuba’s House of Representatives but Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista, staged a coup and took over the country in March 1952. Castro became a rebel with a cause and organized attacks on the army in 1953. He was sent to prison for 15 years but was soon released. He moved to Mexico and with the help of Che Guevara and his men, continued the struggle, till they launched a successful revolution (Logan 2015). The Cuban revolution in 1959 heralded the victory of the workers and oppressed people against capitalist forces. People embraced the new socialist policy and though this revolution was different, from the Russian or Chinese – it had one underlying commonality – the defeat of capitalist and imperialist forces of America. There is a lot of discourse and argument about the influence of Marxist policies on the Cuban revolution. It can be said that this is a mix of Marxism and Leninism (Taaffe 2000). On closer view, Castro did practice an extended form of Marxism which can be termed as neo-Marxism in today’s context and definition. Neo-Marxism, as practiced by Castro was unique, in the sense that it spoke against injustice of any form, not only economic but also social and political. This kind of liberalism was seen in France in the first half of the 19th century (McLellan et. al. 2014). From the very beginning Fidel Castro was influenced by Marxist ideologies, but in addition, he spoke against sectarianism and bureaucracy too. So, he not only understood the deep relationship of Marxism with the economy, but also other cultural factors in Cuba, which are the essence of neo-Marxism. This form of neo-Marxist ideology in Cuba took root easily, since it was a single-crop economy, had low levels of development – political and economic. The other factor – it displayed a rampant disdain of American imperialism and capitalism (Taaffe 2000).

End of World War 2

August 1945 witnessed the destruction of 2 Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The nuclear holocaust was brought upon by America as a response to Japanese aggression and as a means to end the world war. Bombs equivalent to 12,500 tons of TNT destroyed cities and vaporized people. The temperature at ground zero was 5400 degrees and more than 90% of the buildings in the cities were destroyed. Such was the destructive power of the atomic bombs.

In retaliation, the Russians also built their atom bomb in 1949 and a hydrogen bomb in 1955.

The world saw the emergence of a new destructive force that could annihilate all mankind in a matter of minutes. The balance of power between America, its NATO allies and the Soviet Union, was maintained by what military analysts called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The nuclear assets were supposed to act ‘deterrents’ to a real nuclear conflagration (Faulkner 2012).

Neo-Marxism and the origins of the Cuban missile crisis

The origins of the Cuban missile crisis can be seen in the practice of neo-Marxist ideology. The application of neo-Marxist theory to Cuba reveals some interesting facts. The theory argues against the importance of economic factors in society. In the case of Cuba we see that its single product economy was actually increasing dependence on Soviet Union for its subsistence. So that is the weakness of the neo-Marxist theory; it gets refuted to some extent, since Cuba’s economy actually affected different aspects of its society. One key idea in neo-Marxism which applies to Cuba is the power of the ruling classes, who control the workers. This hegemony is clearly demonstrated in the pre and post revolution periods in Cuba, which Castro fought against. The strength in neo-Marxism lies in its ability to showcase and identify power groups in society and their ways of gaining control. This is the main reason for continuing inequality in many societies in the world. Castro’s neo-Marxist ideas also reflect expert thinking on the theory. The role of culture and ideology was clearly seen as a means to exploit the working classes in Cuba. Cuba is a prime example of a country which tried to defy the neo-Marxist theory of dependency. Though the socialist revolution aimed to end dependency on other nations, the changes did not happen overnight. Cuba was almost a single product economy with the predominant production of cane sugar. It had to earn foreign exchange to survive and fund other sectors of the economy. Most of the imports were of industrial equipment, fuel and agro chemicals. Cuba began to gravitate towards the Soviet Union, as a result of Castro’s belief in his own neo-Marxist policies. The Soviets were paying 5.4 times more for Cuban sugar cane than the world market price, making Cuba really dependent on them (Keet, 2002). With the support of the Soviet Union, Cuba managed to provide good education and healthcare to its poor citizens. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962, heralded one of the most dangerous moments in modern history, where the world was on the brink of mass extinction. The use of thermonuclear weapons would have led to a loss of an estimated 200 million human lives. The missile crisis has its origins in the post World War 2 periods where America and the Soviets sought to dominate the world and maintained a fine balance of power. America controlled West Berlin and had missiles in Turkey and Italy, which was an irritant to the Soviets. Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet President thought of a clever plan to enhance geo political influence, by arming Cuba with R-12 and R-14 intermediate range nuclear missiles. The idea was to bring America to the bargaining table and push them to give up West Berlin and/or remove the missile bases in Turkey. The idea was not to initiate a nuclear war but to use this as a bargaining chip with the Americans. The Americans had an advantage over the Soviets in terms of the number of IRBMs, though, which was to America’s advantage. The origin of the missile crisis can also be attributed to the personalities of the two leaders at that time – President Kennedy and President Khrushchev. The construction of the Berlin wall and the Bay of Pigs disaster encouraged Khrushchev to sense weakness in the American Presidency. The missile crisis has its origins in the post World War 2 periods where America and the Soviets sought to dominate the world and maintained a fine balance of power. One can clearly see that the sequence of events relate and bear relevance to the neo-Marxist theories of nations wanting to dominate each other in their own interests. Neo-Marxism, as practiced by Castro and his supporters was one of the main factors underlying the conflict and the Cuban missile crisis. America controlled West Berlin and had missiles in Turkey and Italy, which was an irritant to the Soviets. Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet President thought of a clever plan to enhance geo political influence, by arming Cuba with R-12 and R-14 intermediate range nuclear missiles. The idea was to bring America to the bargaining table and push them to give up West Berlin and/or remove the missile bases in Turkey. The idea was not to initiate a nuclear war but to use this as a bargaining chip with the Americans. The Americans had an advantage over the Soviets in terms of the number of IRBMs, though, which was to America’s advantage. The period, marked by military one-upmanship, ensured that Khrushchev could gamble once more with Cuba and win (Warner 2012). In October 1962, the Soviets began arming Cuba with nuclear missiles, a country within close range of the United States. In response President Kennedy reacted by putting all its missiles and forces on high alert. The missiles in Cuba were seen to be a clear and present danger to American geo political interests. America readied its forces and organized 100,000 men to invade Cuba. America was ready for a nuclear war, if the need arose. The military thinking at the time was to go in for a full scale nuclear war against the Soviets, rather than six months after. The saber-rattling continued, and the world had not come this close to a nuclear holocaust after World War 2. In the last week of October 1962, Russia opted for peace and an agreement was reached between the U.S. and Russia (Faulkner 2012). The Cuban missile crisis saw many twists and turns. From the day President Kennedy was informed of the deployment of Soviet missiles (October 16) to end of October, when peace was attained, the crisis had many dimensions. The first missiles started arriving in Cuba in September 1962. The Soviet plan was to keep all the deployments in secret till November 1962, when Khrushchev planned to go to Cuba and then negotiate with the Americans on Turkey and West Berlin, with what he thought was a strong hand. An American U-2 bomber discovered the deployment of the missiles on October 14th. Since the secret was out, America had to react quickly and increase political and military pressure on the Soviets. America had many options to consider – from air strikes to a full invasion of Cuba. The Americans and Soviets had come to terms in handling Cuba. It was agreed that Russian missiles will be removed from Cuba and America will in turn remove its missiles from Turkey. Although President Kennedy was praised for his tactful handling of the crisis by not approving an air strike but allowing a naval blockade, there are nay-sayers who argue that the crisis was averted by sheer luck more than anything else (Dobbs n.d.).

In conclusion, one can clearly see the linkages of the missile crisis to the neo-Marxist ideologies of Castro and Guevara, and the way they managed to gain power by embracing it. Neo-Marxism theory is clearly reflected by the dependency of Cuba on the Soviet Union and the lopsided power equation – between the powerful bureaucrats and poor workers. The poverty of the people, the oppressed labor class and the low economic development in Cuba, was also responsible for the support of Castro and his neo-Marxist ideologies.

Chambre H. 2014, ‘Marxism’, Brittanica, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism Dobbs. n.d., ‘Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)’, The New York Times, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/cuban_missile_crisis/index.html Exemplifier. N.d., ‘Neo-Marxism and its relevance in the 21st century’, Exemplifier [Online], Retrieved 27 January 2016 from: http://exemplifier.org/?p=10 Faulkner N. 2012, ‘A Marxist History of the World part 91: The Cold War’ Counterfire, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.counterfire.org/articles/a-marxist-history-of-the-world/16006-a-marxist-history-of-the-world-part-91-the-cold-war Keet M., 2002. ‘Neo-Marxist Dependency Theories’. Maria Keet, [Online], Retrieved 27 January 2016 from: http://www.meteck.org/dependency.html Lardbucket., 2012. ‘Theories of International Relations’. Lardbucket, [Online], Retrieved 27 January 2016 from: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/a-primer-on-politics/s11-02-theories-of-international-rela.html Logan B. 2015., ‘How Fidel Castro Rose To Power And Ruled Cuba For 5 Decades’, Business Insider, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.businessinsider.in/How-Fidel-Castro-Rose-To-Power-And-Ruled-Cuba-For-5-Decades/articleshow/45879762.cms McLellan D., Chambre H., et. al., 2014, ‘Variants of Marxism – Marxism in Cuba’, Brittanica, [Online], 11 January 2016 from: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism/Variants-of-Marxism Ollman B. 2004, ‘Dialectical Marxism’, NYU, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/what_is_marxism.php Taaffe P. 2000, ‘Cuba – Socialism and Democracy’, Socialistworld, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/cuintro.html U.S. Legal. 2016. ‘Neo-Marxism Theory Law and Legal Definition’. U.S. Legal, [Online], Retrieved 27January 2016 from: http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/neo-marxism-theory/ Warner G. 2012, ‘Gerald Warner: Castro and Marxism won most from the Cuban missile crisis’, The Scotsman, [Online], Retrieved 11 January 2016 from: http://www.scotsman.com/news/gerald-warner-castro-and-marxism-won-most-from-the-cuban-missile-crisis-1-2576374

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1555

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Reasons for wishing to study at the faculty of liberal arts of sophia admission essay samples.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — History — Contemporary History — Cuban Missile Crisis

Essays on Cuban Missile Crisis

Cuban missile crisis essay topics for college students.

As college students, choosing the right essay topic is essential for a successful and engaging paper. This page is designed to help you explore a variety of Cuban Missile Crisis essay topics and provide guidance on how to approach different types of essays. Remember, the best topics often come from your own interests and creativity, so take some time to explore the options presented here.

Essay Types and Topics

Argumentative essay topics.

• The role of ideology in the Cuban Missile Crisis
• Was the Cuban Missile Crisis a failure of diplomacy?
• Impacts of the Cuban Missile Crisis on international relations

Paragraph Example: The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was a pivotal moment in the Cold War, with tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union reaching a boiling point. This essay will argue that the crisis was not just a political showdown, but also a clash of ideologies that defined the era. Through an analysis of historical documents and scholarly research, this paper will explore the role of ideology in shaping the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Paragraph Example: The Cuban Missile Crisis serves as a stark reminder of the power struggle between competing ideologies during the Cold War. By understanding the role of ideology in this historical event, we can gain insight into the complexities of international relations and the lasting impact of ideological conflicts.

Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

• The Cuban Missile Crisis vs. the Berlin Crisis
• The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Korean War: A comparison of international responses
• Comparing the Cuban Missile Crisis with modern-day nuclear threats

Descriptive Essay Topics

• A day in the life of a Cuban Missile Crisis negotiator
• The atmosphere in the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis
• The impact of the crisis on Cuban citizens

Persuasive Essay Topics

• Why the Cuban Missile Crisis should be included in history curriculums
• The importance of understanding the Cuban Missile Crisis in today's political climate
• Lessons learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis and their relevance in modern diplomacy

Narrative Essay Topics

• Personal reflections on growing up during the Cuban Missile Crisis
• An imagined account of a Cuban Missile Crisis negotiation session
• Lessons learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis: A personal narrative

Engagement and Creativity

Remember, the best essays often come from your own interests and creativity. Take the time to explore the topics provided here and find one that resonates with you. Your personal engagement with the topic will shine through in your writing and make for a more compelling essay.

Educational Value

Each type of essay offers unique opportunities for developing different skills. Argumentative essays can help you hone your analytical thinking and persuasive writing abilities, while descriptive and narrative essays allow you to explore your descriptive and storytelling techniques. Choosing the right topic and essay type can be a valuable learning experience that goes beyond the content of the paper itself.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

Historical context of the cuban missile crisis, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Investigation of How John F. Kennedy Was Responsible for Causing The Cuban Missile Crisis

Cuban missile crisis as a world changing event, beginning of the cuban missile crisis, cuban missile crisis: perspectives on m.a.d., let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Fidel Castro and The Bay of Pigs Invasion Failure

Analysis of how did the cold war shaped american politics, society, and economy, a study of the origin of the 1962 cuban missile crisis, the cuban missile crisis: thirteen days that shook the world.

Cuba, Soviet Union, United States

16 October 1962 c 20 November 1962

Fidel Castro, John F. Kennedy, Nikita Khrushchev

Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct and dangerous confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was the moment when the two superpowers came closest to nuclear conflict. In July 1962 Nikita Khrushchev reached a secret agreement with Fidel Castro to place Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. On October 14, 1962, American U-2 spy plane photographed a Soviet SS-4 medium-range ballistic missile being assembled for installation, thus precipitating the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

On October 24, Soviet ships bounded for Cuba neared the line of U.S. vessels enforcing the blockade. As result, the Soviet ships stopped short of the blockade. On October 27, an American reconnaissance plane was shot down over Cuba.

Soviet and American leaders found a way out of the conflict. On October 26, Khrushchev offered to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for a promise by U.S. leaders not to invade Cuba. America removed nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy.

Relevant topics

• Jack The Ripper
• 20Th Century
• Roaring Twenties
• China Crisis
• Mother Teresa
• Cuban Revolution
• 21St Century

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free