Why is the cuban missile crisis a debate

Soviet commanders already had shorter-range nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba, and at least for a time the authority to use them in the event of an American invasion of the island. Soviet submarine commanders had nuclear-armed torpedoes. Navy ships. At the top of our own government, civil-military relations were in some respects sorely tested.

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara already had generally poor relations with most, though not all, senior uniformed officers. Yet organizational discipline, and our nation, survived. Throughout the crisis, Kennedy demonstrated calm open-minded engagement.

He assembled a group that freely debated a wide range of options. When tensions mounted, the president would shrewdly suggest taking a break. The initial strong support for immediate military attack dissipated. Lessons of the crisis include importance of thorough, objective intelligence analysis, and communicating effectively with opponents. Then and now, strong U.

Stevenson apparently forgot that times have changed. Insolently flouting the rules of international conduct and the principles of the Charter, the United States has arrogated to itself-and has so stated-the right to attack the ships of other States on the high seas, which is nothing less than undisguised piracy.

At the same time, the landing of additional United States troops has begun at the United States Guantanamo base in Cuban territory, and the United States armed forces are being placed in a state of combat readiness. What credence are we to attach to the statements of the representative of a great Power who dared to mislead world public opinion and the official organs of the United Nations in order to conceal the activities of the United States intelligence agency which was preparing for aggression and bad ordered Mr.

Stevenson to say nothing about it? First of all, the Soviet delegation hereby officially confirms the statements already made by the Soviet Union in this connexion, to the effect that the Soviet Government has never sent and is not now sending offensive weapons of any kind to Cuba. The Soviet delegation would recall, in particular, the statement issued bv Tass on 11 September of this year on the instructions of the Soviet Government, in which the following passage occurs:The Government of the Soviet Union has authorized Tass to state, further, that the Soviet Union does not need to transfer to any other country, such as Cuba, its existing means for.

The explosive force of our nuclear resources is so great, and the Soviet Union has such powerful rockets for the delivery of these nuclear charges, that there is no need to seek places for their installation anywhere outside the borders of the Soviet Union. The peoples of the world must clearly realize, however, that in openly embarking on this venture the United States of America is taking a step along the road which leads to a thermo-nuclear world war.

Such is the heavy price which the world may have to pay for the present reckless and irresponsible actions of the United States, []Peace-loving nations have long been afraid that the reckless aggressive policy of the United States with regard to Cuba may push the world to the brink of disaster.

The alarm of the peace-loving elements and their efforts to induce the United States Government to listen to the voice of reason and accept a peaceful settlement of its differences with Cuba have been manifested in the course of the general debate during the seventeenth session of the General Assembly, which ended only a few days ago. By its arbitrary and piratical action, the United States menaced the shipping of many countries-including its allies-which do not agree with its reckless and dangerous policy in respect of Cuba.

By this aggressive action, which put the whole world under the threat of war, the United States issued a direct challenge to the United Nations and to the Security Council as the principal organ of the United Nations responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

What, then, are the actual facts now facing the Security- Council? These facts may be summarized as follows: a The United States Government has stated that it will take action against the ships of other countries, sailing on the high seas, of a type for which there can be no other name but piracy.

The decision of the United States to stop and search Cuba-bound ships of other countries will lead to an extreme heightening of international tension, and is a step towards provoking a thermonuclear world war, because no self-respecting State will permit its ships to be interfered with.

It is trying to misrepresent the measures taken by the Cuban Government to ensure the defence of Cuba. Like any State which values its sovereignty and independence, Cuba can hardly fail to display serious anxiety for its security in the face of aggression.

This Soviet proposal is intended to clear the international atmosphere and set up conditions of mutual trust and understanding among nations. However, the United States Government, which has stationed its troops and military equipment all over the world, stubbornly refuses to accept this proposal of the Soviet Union. The United States has no right whatever, either from the point of views. No State, no matter how powerful it may be, has any right to rule on the quantities or types of arms which another State considers necessary for its defence.

According to the United Nations Charter, each State has the right to defend itself and to possess weapons to ensure its security. Downloads Yesin, Cuban Missile Crisis. For more information on this publication: Belfer Communications Office.

The Author. Viktor I. Andrei A. Steven E. Miller Jun 17, Potter Fall National Security is at Stake. James Clapper and Michael Hayden urge Congress to prioritize the protection of election integrity. To better handle crises, the U.

A small island off South Korea shows governments of all sizes how to reduce their carbon footprints now. Bollfrass March