Friends, President Biden has declared that we are closer to "armageddon" now than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. And for some reason Biden doesn't think this is a negative reflection on his leadership at all. No, of course not! It's all Putin's fault. This is, if I may so, astoundingly naive. President Kennedy made a lot of mistakes in his ham-handed meddling in Cuba in the early part of his presidency that set the stage for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thus, he got us out of an existential crisis that he also helped to get us into. Bully for him. Likewise, Biden's mismanagement of Russia-Ukraine relations, and his stubborn insistence that Ukraine remain on track for NATO membership, have prompted the current war, and the present elevated risk of global nuclear war. My fear is that Biden is just stupid enough, and arrogant enough, to back us into a devastating conflict from which we and the world might never recover -- and to believe, all along, that he bore no responsibility for the carnage. My hope, then, is that Biden is cowardly in addition to being moronic, because, if he lashes out at Russia using military force, the consequences could be cataclysmic.
https://www.newsmax.com/us/russia-nuclear-weapons-joe-biden/2022/10/06/id/1090824/
How hard is it to handicap the midterms? Pretty darn hard. There's a wealth of polling data out there, and much of it is inconsistent. Here's a good faith effort to make sense of it, and to predict the likely outcome.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/10/05/three-views-on-the-election/
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Whew, having lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis as a15 year old who had watched the news since 1960, I agree with you; there are many similarities today. The missiles in Cuba presented the US with an utterly unacceptable threat over which we would have gone to war with dispatch. We could have chosen to accept the presence of the missiles but it was unthinkable. Today, with the increasing possibility that a victorious Ukraine might seek Nato membership Russia faces what it has long regarded as "too much, too far" in the advance of Nato to its borders if Ukraine joins. Yes, Russia could choose to tolerate it but it is absolute anathema to Russia. Ithink they are dead serious about that.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: The presence of the missiles in Cuba became top news very quickly: I do not remember much public buildup or speculation. Within a few days nuclear war was understood a very plausible immediate possibility; I don't think we realized how close it came; that might well have generated much disorder and that didn't happen.Apparently some in Washington fully expected that one night was to be their last. For several days we were on tenterhooks and then it was over. What a strange experience it was to sit at the kitchen table and actually say "what'll we do if it happens?"
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: As is true today there was recognized some possibility of an initially limited exchange ( it came with one Russian officer's vote of happening when his sub was depth charged and a carrier presented a possible target for his one nuclear torpedo). But I think it was publicly and governmentally expected that an all out exchange would thereby be guaranteed. That is apparently not a consensus today but its possibility is very plausible. Unlike October '62 we appear to have some time to negotiate before the situation approachs the critical mass it just missed with great rapidity in '62.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Wisely recognizing that Ukraine in Nato is UNTHINKABLE for Russia, whether we like it or not ,we should say to Russia "leave Ukraine and we will guarantee you that we will not accept Ukrainian membership in Nato" We need not say we would not accept a new Russian assault on Ukraine; we have proven our resolve. But if we insist Ukraine's membership might be approved how could Russia not necessarily and catastrophically conclude that this has been America's strategic purpose in expanding Nato so incredibly far already and that even a plausible nuclear threat does not deter them. Then '62 could well be nigh. Remember how we saw it in '62 and what we were determined to do!
ReplyDelete" . .. withIN one Russian officer's vote. . . " rather
ReplyDeleteJack, agreeing to shelve all plans to inveigle Ukraine in NATO would be a VERY small price to pay for ending the present war. I doubt it would be that simple, but for such a deal to be struck first we would have to want to reach a rational resolution based on dialogue and compromise. We apparently have no such desire. Ergo, the fighting is likely to continue.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, the perception in 1962 that the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba was "unacceptable" was arguably off-base. Remember, around the same time Russia deployed submarines with nuclear missiles off our coasts. We "accepted" this pretty quickly, because no one made a big deal out of it, and there was precious little we could do (especially since we certainly weren't going to shelve our own SLBMs). The missiles in Cuba therefore posed a major political problem for Kennedy, but their strategic importance was less pressing than it must have appeared at the time.
Dr. Waddy fromJack: Good points but I would suggest that ground based nukes in Cuba was simply too much for us politically and militarily just as Ukraine in Nato is just too much for Russia. In both cases, much previously established threat existed on and from both.Apparent!y stronger rocket boosters, intercontinental bombers, 50 megaton nukes, a huge. Red Army the '61 Berlin Crisis all had us on edge. It may be that Nato and Ukraine are taxing Rjssia
ReplyDeletepatience just as ours was in '62
e
Jack, of course you're right: nukes in Cuba were a bridge too far for the U.S. politically, and the decision to go to the mat to prevent them was essentially political, so that's what counted. The Russkies should have seen it coming. Who knows -- maybe if they'd confronted us with a fait accompli the calculus would have shifted.
ReplyDelete