Progression of Events
After World War II, the superpowers were immensely engaged in a new war, the Cold War. It was a race to see who had the best and most powerful nuclear arsenals among the then superpowers. The US and USSR felt the need to arm themselves with more powerful weapons in the form of atomic missiles. This urge greatly influenced the cold war. This paper will focus on these two nations, narrowing it down to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The report will shed light on some questions, such as providing evidence of Kahn’s and Schelling’s approach to deterrence theories and strategic force recommendations. Also, the paper will answer questions about Waltz’s analysis of the causation of war and the possibilities underlying international relations.
After a successful revolution under Fidel Castro’s guidance, Cuba looked to the east for economic and military aid. The Soviet Union was ready to assist the Caribbean country as the leader had declared himself a Marxist-Leninist, prompting the Union to protect him. Marxist-Leninism’s purpose was to convert capitalist systems into socialists in how they are run and governed. This move directly contradicted the United States’ interest and economic and political formation centered around capitalism. So, with these bold moves by Castro, the US did not hesitate to invade Cuba directly and through sanctions.
When the USSR camped in Cuba, they supported the government through military equipping and economic assistance. These moves saw the Soviet Union camp in Cuba and set up nuclear-related infrastructure. In a bid to destabilize the Cuban government, Kennedy’s administration used several sabotage methods. The US government managed to gather enough Latin votes, kick Cuba out of the American States Organization, and send diversionary units to attack Cuba. The US was pitted against the Castro government, which led to its preference for the USSR by Castro.
In 1962, there was a standoff between the US and the Soviet Union. It was a result of the Soviet missile presence in Cuba. This standoff came to be known as the Cuban missile crisis. After an American spy plane, this standoff came to take photos of what seemed to be a military base run by the Soviet Union in Cuba. Due to the standoff, talks were held between the two nations. The talks bore fruits as the Soviet Union withdrew its nuclear arsenal from Cuba. Still, even before the talks had started, the US quarantined Cuba off access to seaways, thus blocking Soviet shipments to the country of military equipment in a bid to prevent war. This blockade, coupled with a threat to attack Cuba, deterred the Soviet Union from advancing its nuclear program in Cuba.
The US deterred the Soviet Union from striking as the US showed that they were ready to retaliate and attack Cuba. An agreement was reached between the two governments, and the Soviet Union agreed to remove the nuclear missiles from Cuba, and the US pledged to remove theirs in Turkey. The US’s actions stopped Cuba’s equipping with nuclear weapons that could attack the US in minutes. With that effect, there was an assurance of no war to come in near days, and thus the confrontation proved its purpose.
War Causes
War is an armed conflict between various states, countries, and groups within a given location or geographical setting. War and conflict have been part of human history since time immemorial and have been a critical influence on current situations as a result. In Vom Clausewitz’s words, war is a duel on an extensive scale whose primary goal is to compel or force an opponent to fulfill one’s will. Thus, war is an ending battle with each warring side trying to protect its interests and impose its authority and influence on the opponent. The crisis validates this definition, as it was caused by ideological differences between the two nations. One is a communist country, and the other is a capitalist.
To explain what causes war, Kenneth Waltz’s works, a realist theory of international relations (IR), must be a focal point. The question of what causes war is as old as war itself. In explaining the causes of war, Waltz categorizes his explanations in three forms. The first explanation is the individual, the second is the state, and the third is the state system. Thus, to kick off the understanding of war causation, it is paramount to understand that war is a human creation. A common trait among humans and individuals is our differences that have developed cultural norms and other ideologies. A bid to force one’s ideologies on others is quite common but at times leads to war. During the Cuba missile crisis, the standoff resulted from individual decisions that were majorly influenced by their beliefs. War results from selfishness, miscredited aggressive impulses, and stupidity. Other causes are secondary, meaning that war’s basic causation is the individual and their ideologies, feelings, cultures, and behavior.
However, a single individual cannot call for war by themselves without external support, and this is where the state comes into play. Waltz stipulates that the causation of war comes about through the state and the wages for war. This view is due to an ideology that has brought various individuals under the state. Thus, they feel threatened when their ideologies are disregarded therefore feeling the urge to impose them on their opponents. Such a case is the cold war between the US and the Soviet Union. Despite the vast prospect of nuclear weapons and equipment, other underlying factors kept the war going on. First, their ideologies, the US instilled democracy and capitalism and even helped European countries that embedded these factors in their state systems. On the other side, the Soviet Union helped those that bought into their ideologies. Thus, ideological differences are a major cause of the war. This study provides evidence on the causation of war, according to Waltz. The individual, the state, and the system are all in play, the individual trying to protect their image, as in the case of Kennedy. The system is out to protect its beliefs through the state.
Another cause of the conflict is the lack of a central authority. In such an environment, nationalism, security, and competition lead to inevitable conflict. The Cuba missile crisis and the 13-day standoff were due to the non-existence of a central authority that superseded the two superpowers. Coupled with ideological differences, each saw the other as a threat to their goal. Soviet Union set its nuclear arsenal in Cuba to threaten the US, which had already set some in Europe. No authority could curb the competition between these two.
Soviet Union’s extension of its ideologies and influence globally was also a primary factor that led to the standoff. First, Cuba was considered an impartial nation and relatively unimportant to the Moscow government until the altercation occurred. This perspective quickly changed with the growth of the Cuban revolution in 1959. Apart from the primary cause of the war, which is selfishness and aggressive impulse, there are other secondary causes of war and conflict. One being territorial and economic gain, among them land and resources. In this case, the conflict was a majorly territorial one. The US had earlier attacked Cuba through Pigs Bay when Castro started leaning to the east for aid and other support amenities. America did not want the Soviet Union close as they posed a great danger to them.
Implications for Deterrence Theory
The approach to deterrence theory by Thomas Schelling shows that military prowess and strategy are no longer about military violence ability. Strategy is just as important, including the art of coercion, the ability to intimidate the foe, and the capability to deter others from taking their actions. The more a nation is intimidating, the more it gains a military advantage. A kind of fear is developed of what would happen if anyone dared attack them, harm their citizens, or even get in their interests. Therefore, it can be summed up that the ability to harm your enemies is a motivating factor for them to get deterred and avoid the unnecessary conflict that would see them defeated or in a situation worse than before. Thus, the power to hurt forms the fundamentals and the foundation for the deterrence theory.
Kahn argues that during the cold war, an adequate nuclear deterrent demanded more and better offensive forces than merely the capability to threaten societal assets. It meant that Kahn was somehow calling for the improvement of the deterrence theory. Note that Kahn was a believer in the deterrence theory and strongly believed the US had the capability for a second strike that could deter the USSR from striking fast. The crisis is a clear evidence piece to these sentiments. Schelling’s military violence ability is the only thing that hindered the Soviet Union from striking first. The US could retaliate and cause more harm; thus, the actualization of Kahnand Schelling’s ideas is well elaborated through this unique case.
The Cuba missile crisis had various implications on the deterrence and war causation theories. The standoff climaxed the level of relations hostility between the two great nations. Even before the crisis, the US and Soviet Union had bad blood in that each one saw the other as a threat to their agendas and vice versa. For instance, the US saw the USSR as a major threat to democracy and capitalism. In contrast, The Soviet Union saw the US as a threat to their expansionary efforts and spread the communist ideology. This prompted a rivalry between the two, and their relations were not at the best place amidst now an arms race that included nuclear weapons. The crisis worsened the situation even though a war was prevented. Thus, the crisis implied that the tense relations were to continue past the crisis.
A major cause of war is differences in ideologies. The crisis presented the best opportunity for each side to instill their ideologies in Cuba. Even though Cuba had chosen to go the communist way, America did not want that to happen. The crisis would serve to kick out the Soviet Union and allow the US to instill its ideologies. As an implication of the crisis, Cuba would benefit as it remained communist though Khrushchev did not push its plea during the negotiations for Guantanamo Bay’s closure. It implied that Cuba’s demands were not held as important as those of the US or Soviet Union. The standoff only showed the two nations’ selfishness in achieving their interests, not considering those affected. As earlier stated, war is driven by selfishness, and this is implied by the choice of not involving Cuba during the talks of Kennedy and Khrushchev. After this crisis, Cuba was abandoned, and its relations with the Soviet Union reached a record low during the Khrushchev administration. Don’t forget that Cuba was the main and physical land that contributed to the conflict.
Another implication of the deterrence theory is that the ultimate military strategy is coercion and deterrence. It implies that to avoid war or to show prowess indirectly, one must have the physique to intimidate. In this scenario, it is the military arsenal of nuclear weapons. The two countries did not go to war due to the fear of retaliation. They considered what would happen if one of the nations fired nuclear missiles at the other. Khrushchev could not confidently start a war because he knew the US could respond by launching a second strike on Russia. This factor implies that the ability to harm was a motivating factor for the other party to avoid violence. Also another implication of the standoff was the fall of Khrushchev. The people and agents of the Soviet Union felt that the leader had bought in too easily to the US’s demands. It was a highlight of Kennedy’s regime as the crisis improved his image nationally and internationally. It was a loss on the side of the Soviet Union as they obliged Kennedy’s demands. This fete led to his ouster of Khrushchev in the elections that followed. Other implications were that a great nuclear war had been stopped. The negotiations between the two heads yielded better results than expected. It was agreed upon to remove nuclear weapons both in Turkey and Cuba for the US and Soviet Union, respectively. One can say that impliedly, there was the achievement of world peace at the mercies of two powerful nations under their leaders’ steering.
Conclusion
The Cuban missile crisis would serve as a good example of why war should not be an option, and it is better to listen to each other and negotiate solutions. There are key elements to note and be keen about in future diplomacy and military standoffs from the scenario. First, it is always wise to give room for diplomacy to take its course, and things will work out. This fete should be combined to refrain from using force as one might not know what the other opponent has in store. This strategy works to the fulfillment of the prescriptions of the deterrence theory. One should be deterred by the fear of the capabilities of the opponent to retaliate.
Another key element is face-saving, which is crucial in striking deals of this magnitude. Both parties have to benefit; otherwise, the war would be inevitable. The two nations’ interests are addressed amicably as a result. The US pledges not to invade Cuba and also remove its nuclear arsenal in Turkey. Khrushchev, on behalf of his country, also promises to discontinue shipments into the Caribbean nation. The third element is the ability of top leaders to communicate during such times. Lessons to take home are that a strong military posture is crucial and can influence diplomacy. In the US’s case, the Soviet Union was deterred by US nuclear weapons’ capabilities and thus opted for diplomacy rather than war. Furthermore, a seemingly easy way out with military force option should be avoided and time allowed for diplomacy.
Bibliography
Achen, Christopher H., and Duncan Snidal. “Rationale Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies.” World Politics 41, no. 2 (1989). Web.
American Commandante. “Castro and the Cold War | American Experience | PBS.” PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. 2017.
Amonson, Kyle. “Causes of War: A Theory Analysis.” Home, Above Feeds, Annoucement | Small Wars Journal. Web.
Baraka, Amiri. “Marxist-Leninist Revolutionary Theory.” In Marxists Internet Archive. Vol. 3. The Black Nation, 1983. web.
Bhattacharyya, Sambit. “Cold War Rivalry in a Bipolar World.” In A History of Global Capitalism, pp. 103-123. Springer, Cham, 2020.
Bundy, McGeorge. “Danger and survival: Choices about the bomb in the first fifty years.” (1988).
Carattini, C.E., 2013. Cuban Missile Crisis: Applying Strategic Culture to Gametheory.
Colby, Elbridge, and Jonathan Solomon. “Facing Russia: conventional defence and deterrence in Europe.” Survival 57, no. 6 (2015): 21-50.
Domínguez, J. I. (1997). US-Cuban relations: from the Cold War to the colder war. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 39(3), 49-75.
Garthoff, Raymond. Reflections on the Cuban Missile Crisis: Revised to Include New Revelations from Soviet & Cuban Sources. Brookings Institution Press, 2011.
Kahn, Herman. The nature and feasibility of war and deterrence. Rand Corporation, 1960.
MacDonald, Bruce W. “Looking Back on the Cuban Missile Crisis, 50 Years Later.” United States Institute of Peace. Web.
Martiz, Dominique, (2012) The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Deterrence Value of Nuclear Weapons.
McDougal, Myres S. “The Soviet-Cuban quarantine and self-defense.” American Journal of International Law 57, no. 3 (1963): 597-604.
Office of the Historian. “Milestones: 1961–1968.” Office of the Historian. Web.
Payne, Keith B. “The Great Divide in US Deterrence Thought.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 14, no. 2 (2020): 16-48.
Powell, Robert. “Nuclear deterrence theory, nuclear proliferation, and national missile defense.” International Security 27, no. 4 (2003): 86-118.
Slawson, Larry. “Impact of the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Owlcation. Web.
Tudovic, Jan. “What Causes Wars?” International Association for Political Science Students – The Democratic Student Government Representing Political Science Students Around the World. Web.
Waltz, Kenneth Neal. Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. Columbia University Press, 2001.