MovieChat Forums > Thirteen Days (2001) Discussion > Attitudes to Soviet Missile Placement in...

Attitudes to Soviet Missile Placement in Cuba

posted 12 years ago by Fozzy_Fozzbourne
7 replies | jump to latest

What was actually so bad about the Soviets putting the missiles in Cuba, the US had been sorrounding the Soviet Union with missiles for years in Europe(Turkey, Italy, also possibly my country the UK), so why start crying when the Soviets dare to try it, this is not an attempt at US hating, I have a lot of time for Americans, but it always seemed hypocritical to me that America would be upset when the shoe was moving onto the other foot.

Another thing, about LeMay, there is a point when Kennedy asks him in the film what will happen if we attack Russian forces in Cuba LeMay answered something like 'nothing they can do' was LeMay really stupid enough to think the Russians would not retaliate to any kind of attack

[–] nerhal1 12 years ago

The difference is NATO and European defense. Cuba as an enemy we had encountered with a brief failed war having nukes capable of hitting u.s. targets was un acceptable. It's all based on perception, treaties, and aggressive behavior.

[–] dickie_g_h 12 years ago

The Cuban placement was in direct response to the siting of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey. It was to 'even things up' - if the Americans could strike at short range, then the Russians wanted equal retaliation capabilities to ensure deterrence. It was easy for them because Castro was a Communist ally and the Americans miscalculated what the Russians would do. By the time the blockade was in place the areas was full of nuclear weapons and nuclear armed subs.

That's how a nuclear deterrent works, it starts just like chess, you place your pieces to ensure the other side has no upper hand, you then reach a stalemate where you have the ability to respond but don't want to be seen as the first strike aggressor because of MAD (Mutually assured destruction) - you launch your missiles but you know full well you don't stand a chance as you're dead as well, from the response.

That's why the possibility of Iran and other such countries developing nuclear weapons is so daunting, as they are not worried about MAD. The prevailing attitude if Al Qaeda, or a group/country with some other suicide based beliefs, use a nuclear weapon, is that they will go to an idealised version of heaven for the action and are willing to die for their beliefs, so having weapons pointed back at them is no deterrent at all.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Prismark10 11 years ago

I am sure the USA were not keen on Russian missiles sitting a few miles from its land.

Its that man again!!

[–] denham 11 years ago

The OP has a reasonable point. (Accordingly, the Russians had one too.) Strange to us now is the way Stevenson's equally reasonable take on the problem was summarily trashed (only to prevail eventually).

J.Hoberman in Village Voice:

Although the Stevenson plan was ultimately employed, Camelot spinmeisters, including the president himself, wasted little time in casting him as an appeaser—one of the most horrific aspects of the missile crisis was that appearance was all. Given the nuclear-armed Soviet submarine fleet, missiles in Cuba did not appreciably change the balance of power—the Russians already had the capacity to reduce Washington to radioactive rubble. Moreover, despite the bogus "missile gap" that had propelled Kennedy to the presidency, America's nuclear capacity exceeded by tenfold that of the Soviets—perhaps the reason why the Russians never put their forces on military alert. (The movie downplays this for understandable dramatic reasons.)

As to LeMay, it's hard to believe anyone could rise to become USAF Chief of Staff and be that stupid; on the other hand LeMay certainly did say some pretty strange, not to say insane, things.

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

[–] cdz6969 11 years ago

"the US had been sorrounding the Soviet Union with missiles for years in Europe(Turkey, Italy, also possibly my country the UK), so why start crying when the Soviets dare to try it, this is not an attempt at US hating, I have a lot of time for Americans, but it always seemed hypocritical to me that America would be upset when the shoe was moving onto the other foot. "

Because We're Americans and W'ere F$%3n Awesome!!! Nobody can or should F!! with us. We kill each other stateside with guns and chemicals in our foods for laughs. We'll be damned if we allow some smelly foreigners to threaten us, and with Nukes no less. Pleasee..

Jesus would support Universal Health Care

[–] bastasch8647 10 years ago

I lived through it, as a kid. The dread was in the sense of escalation, like, "Sure the Commies are bad and the Russians and Cubans are allies". But then Something New, a New Dread was added when the USSR was discovered arming Cuba with nuclear missiles just outside of America's "back yard".

It looked as if Russia was gearing up Cuba for a quick strike against the U.S. Of course, the typical American saw it this way, and never considered that the only country in the world to explode such weapons in anger was the U.S. The average American did not consider that most of the rest of the world thought the U.S. was just plain nuts for using nukes in war - the prevailing myth being that two nuked Japanese cities would have prevented an Allied invasion of Japan.

So the equation was: U.S. nukes = good; all other nukes = bad. Especially after the Bay of Pigs incident, Cuba and Russia were naturally fearful of another invasion of Cuba, and they understandably wanted nuclear deterrent to prevent that eventuality. And indeed, the U.S. got out of the crisis by promising never to invade Cuba.