The Cuban Missile Crisis and the US Response

Question: What do you think of the US response to the former Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis?

by QLSC

Thirteen Days is one of those movies I like because, first, it’s based on true events, and as such (second), it reflects reality. It reflects reality in several ways: politically, socially, and morally. But since this class is about International Relations, I will focus on the political side.

I believe that the US responses are justifiable on the basis of Classical Realism (which we recently discussed). First of all, based on the theories of Classical Realism, the US state has its own national interests in mind. It is just right that the US government will panic over the missiles in Cuba. After all, those missiles can target US states, including Washington and kill over 80 million Americans on an initial launch.

But although the US has its safety in mind, it was torn between dual moral standards: Will they ignore the missiles unless utilized, or will they go ahead and reproach the Soviets? If they do the first, their lives will be at stake, and if they do the second, Soviet lives (and others where the Soviets might retaliate) will be at stake, as well. The only difference will be the citizenship of possible fatalities.

In line with these dual standards, the political sphere of US decision had to be separated from other spheres of human nature, such as moral. If the saying “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” holds true for the US government, they couldn’t apply it during the Cuban missile crisis. Why? Because the Soviets have not yet released the missiles. However, if the Soviets do release the missiles, it will be too late for the US. The US had to make a counteractive decision even before it gets “an eye” or “a tooth”.

Finally, as a feature of Classical Realism, the US response must be objective. By being objective, the actors behind the US response called in mind not only the fact that the missiles were a threat to US stability and existence but a threat to the whole world. No one wanted a World War III. And so as much as everyone seemed to want to get rid of the missiles, of the Soviets, and even of Castro, their final course of action was directed toward the benefit of the greater majority of people. That is Classical Realism as presented in the “Thirteen Days”.

Die moderne Zeit

Ich bin immer wieder uberräscht, wie andere die Moderne Zeit ist. Heute finden wir uns in einer kleiner Welt. Wir sprechen mit unsere Verwandten in der ganzen Welt können. Wir sich anfreuden mit Menschen aus andere Kontinent können. Wir einkaufen in Informationstechnologie (online) können.

Gleichzeitig, wir finden uns in ein mehr kompliziert Welt. Wir haben Fernsehen, Mikrowelle, Rechner (computer), und so weiter unser Leben leichter machen. Aber manchmal, glaube ich Leben schwieriger werden.

Obwohl das Welt kleiner werden, wir sind beschäftigter werden. Heute haben wir hocher “life expectancy”, aber unser “death rate” Jugendlichen einschließen.

Immer überlege ich: Warum ist dass, obwohl wir mehr Medizin jetzt haben, wir haben mehr Menschen von Herz Krankheit, Krebs, und so weiter sterben? Warum ist dass, unser Jugendlichen früh auch sterben?

Ist die moderne Zeit ganze positiv? Oder hat sie beide positiver und negativer Anprall?