#Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy'S Options

[tomorrowusa]

Quit fixating on Putin's nukes FFS.

Donald Trump and his MAGA minions are trying to imply that aid for Ukraine will lead to nuclear war. This is bullshit which is meant to bolster Putin's illegal war of aggression against a peaceful neighbor.

We hear MAGA Russophiles repeat this whenever new aid or new weapons systems are sent to Ukraine. The last time I checked, Putin hasn't nuked San Diego or Memphis. And we have crossed more of Putin's "red lines" than Trump has red neckties.

Even a delusional imperialist like Vladimir Putin understands that the ultimate outcome of any nuclear war would leave him as a shirtless congealed blob of radioactive fat. ⚛

With nuclear option unlikely, Putin struggles to defend his red lines

“There has been an overflow of nuclear threats,” said a Russian official speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. “There is already immunity to such statements, and they don’t frighten anyone.” A Russian academic with close ties to senior Russian diplomats agreed, calling the nuclear option “the least possible” of scenarios, “because it really would lead to dissatisfaction among Russia’s partners in the Global South and also because clearly, from a military point of view, it is not very effective.”

The United States and its NATO allies have no intention of giving nukes to Ukraine.

What we don't hear from scare-mongering MAGA zombies or Putin-friendly tankies is that the war in Ukraine would end immediately if the Russian invaders simply left Ukraine. Anybody who truly wants peace should be telling Russia to get the fuck back to their own country.

This week, Trump and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote in an op-ed for the Hill that a decision to grant Ukraine permission to use Western long-range missiles “would put the world at greater risk of nuclear conflagration than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis” and called for direct negotiations with Moscow instead.

The only thing to "negotiate" with Moscow is a short ceasefire while Russia withdraws all its invading troops. The bottom line is that Russia has no business in Ukraine. The invasion is in violation of numerous international laws, treaties, and memoranda.

As for technology, Russia's means of using ICBMs in nuclear war just ain't what it used to be.

Latest Russian ICBM Test May Have Failed, Satellite Images Suggest

Russia is a third-rate power which happens to have nukes and a lot of empty territory that looks deceptively impressive on a map. Its ability to handle any atomic technology competently is questionable. Even during the glory days of the Soviet Union it gave the world its worst nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986.

Chernobyl is in northern Ukraine which became independent in 1991. Ukrainians had done a good job of cleaning up much of the radioactive mess left by Moscow.

But Russia then temporarily occupied the area around Chernobyl in the early part of the invasion. Russian occupiers there did incredibly stupid things like dig military trenches in radioactive soil and loot radioactive materials to take home as souvenirs.

Russia has few serious competitors for the Darwin Awards this year. 🎖  ⚛️

What we should worry more about is another nuclear accident inside Russia caused by recklessness or incompetence. The sooner Ukraine is victorious, the more likely Russia will be able to tend to its own problems at home.

^^^ красные линии = red lines

[penniedreadfuls]

The Problem of Lenny

Some thoughts about what could, or should, happen with Luke Kirby's Lenny Bruce in season 5 of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.

Cw: for discussion of drug use and suicide

Okay, I'm probably writing this half as an apology for not having updated "All Things are Temporary" in a while. (My other writerly obligations have hard deadlines D:). And the other half is because I was peeping in on the TMMM reddit and there's some guy saying he works on the show as a sound editor, and is giving out spoilers. Ones that say "Lenny dies, eventually" (as do we all) and that a Once Upon a Time in Hollywood like ending doesn't happen.

I take those "spoilers" with a grain of salt. But here are my personal thoughts both as a fan of the show and a writer.

Show Lenny is a fictional character and should be treated as such. TMMM has never been biographical towards him. Several parts of his life have been changed to fit the show. That's fine and dandy.

We all know he was only supposed to appear in the first episode, but that Luke Kirby charm is powerful. All of his previous interactions with characters have fit within plausible deniability. But that changes once he sleeps with Midge. I think that crosses a line when using a real person as a character in a show. (As much as I loved it)

The real Lenny Bruce died of a morphine overdose in August 1966. It doesn't get discussed much here, but there is the very strong likelihood that it was a suicide. The circumstances around his death, how he was found, what happened afterwards, are incredibly sad and tragic. (If you want to know, you can read it on his wikipedia. I will warn you, it's very upsetting.)

I can't imagine The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel putting that in the show, and doing it well. TMMM is a cotton candy world. There has not been anything truly dark in it. I was not impressed with the narrative of Midge's victimhood in regards to Shy. (I didn't like her apology)

TMMM is not Mad Men, historical happenings either do not intrude much or are played for laughs (Jackie Kennedy). But if the show got further into the 60s, that would get harder to ignore. And like the above realities of Lenny Bruce's death, they would not fit into the TMMM world. I also cannot see Mei getting an abortion.

ex. The Cuban Missile Crisis, 16th Street Baptist Church Bombings. Characters would and should comment on these. So it's probably a good thing the show ends in 1961. A lot happened from 61-66, and the show has so many plotlines, I think a big time skip would mess them up. I got away with the huge time jump in "All Things are Temporary" because of Lenny's internal thoughts and I cheated and had Midge give an interview.

I digress. I fear if ASP and the powers that be have fictional Lenny die as he did in life, that they would change it to make its more "palatable" for the show. An idea that I find immensely disrespectful, since it probably was a suicide. Midge would certainly come to know the details of Lenny's death and her reaction would be heartbreaking (I know Rachel Broshanan would knock it out of the park however).

So what do I think should happen? It comes down to three options. Spare, Ambiguous, or Dies. I've already outlined my thoughts on the last one.

Lenny is one of the most popular characters in the show, sparing him would be giving him what he was denied in real life. As long as the real Kitty Bruce approves?

I personally think that the show should keep it ambiguous. It will be better for all of us fic writers :D Most of all, I just want the ending to be well written. I never watched Gilmore Girls, but I've heard that I should be concerned.

What do you all think?

One last thought. I really believe that ASP intended for Midge and Joel to end up back together during the first two seasons, and then realized the idea is not a popular one. (Are people writing MidgeJoel fic? I don't think so!) Hence we get Mei and Miami.

TL;DR: TMMM should either spare Lenny or go all out in depicting the realities of his death. To lessen it is disrespectful.

[tmarshconnors]

What if John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated in 1963?

If President John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated in 1963, the course of history would likely have been different in several ways. Here are a few possible outcomes:

Domestic Policy: Kennedy had an ambitious domestic agenda known as the "New Frontier," which focused on civil rights, poverty alleviation, and economic growth. If he had survived, he might have been able to push through more of his proposed legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act, which was eventually passed in 1964. His leadership could have accelerated progress on these fronts and shaped the social and economic landscape of the United States.

Cold War: Kennedy's presidency coincided with the height of the Cold War. He was involved in several significant events, including the Cuban Missile Crisis and the establishment of the Peace Corps. If he had remained in office, his approach to the Soviet Union and nuclear disarmament could have differed from subsequent administrations. His emphasis on diplomacy and his willingness to engage in direct negotiations might have influenced the trajectory of the Cold War and potentially eased tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Vietnam War: Kennedy was initially cautious about U.S. involvement in Vietnam and had started to explore options for a gradual withdrawal of American troops. If he had survived, it is possible that he would have pursued a different course of action compared to his successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson. However, predicting the exact outcome is speculative, as the Vietnam War was a complex and multifaceted conflict influenced by various factors.

Space Exploration: Kennedy's famous commitment to land a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s helped shape the space program and led to the Apollo missions. If he had survived, he would have continued to prioritize space exploration and might have further expanded NASA's efforts beyond the moon. His vision and support could have impacted the pace and direction of space exploration in subsequent years.

It's important to note that these scenarios are hypothetical, and the actual outcomes would have depended on a multitude of factors and events. The decisions and actions of other political leaders, global events, and societal changes would have also influenced the course of history during Kennedy's hypothetical extended presidency.

[loneberry]

Nuclear War (again)

“Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.” —John F. Kennedy

On NPR Up First this morning there is an interview with nuclear expert Matthew Bunn from the Harvard Kennedy School, who puts the odds of Putin using nukes at 10 - 20 percent. This is not comforting at all. Even 2 percent is too high.

Some say: Putin won’t use nukes because doing so is irrational—NATO would put him in his place. Well, invading Ukraine was irrational. Implementing a broad conscription was irrational. Yet the most hawkish military commentators inside Russia are consistently getting their way, and they’re now clamoring for the use of nukes. If Putin is faced with battlefield defeat and/or the defeat of his regime, I’m not sure he would see the use of nukes as the most irrational option, especially since every move he makes is predicated on the belief that the west is weak and cowardly.

Let’s play this out. If Putin uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, what will the response be? The most hawkish members of NATO will likely respond militarily. If Poland or one of the Baltic states strikes Russian targets or gets embroiled in a war with Russia, then all of NATO (including the US) will be dragged in under Article 5 of NATO (the principle of collective defense). The distance on the escalation ladder between “tactical” nukes and ICBMs is short (this is why many reject the term “tactical nuclear weapons” outright and assert that the breaking of the nuclear taboo would be catastrophic). A direct confrontation between nuclear superpowers (Russia and the US) should be avoided at all costs.

Some say, well, NATO doesn’t have to respond with nukes. They could just strike Russian military targets, such as Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, using conventional missiles. Sure. But then NATO is at war with Russia and we are in WWIII, i.e. a direct confrontation between the nuclear superpowers of the US and Russia. We are where we were in the early days of the war when stupid but well-meaning people chanted and tweeted “NATO close the skies!”

Yet Biden resisted those insane cries, which were also coming from Zelenskyy and even some corners of his own administration. It turns out that the only upside of living in a gerontocracy is that Biden has lived through the age of mutually assured destruction. The present never rewards restraint—all incentives push toward the most hawkish posture. But history does reward restraint. Remember General Curtis LeMay hounding John F Kennedy to bomb Cuba’s missile sites and invade Cuba? Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, the psychopathic and grim calculus of Only a third of humanity would be wiped off the planet?

A question remains: What should the US do if Russia uses tactical nukes? First, implement more sanctions on Russia, including secondary sanctions on India and China if they continue to buy discounted Russian oil. (Though China and India might voluntarily ditch Russia if they used nukes.) Second, supply more arms to Ukraine, including missile defense systems and potentially more powerful arms. Such a move would still be escalatory but potentially the least escalatory of all the options. Ukraine has a highly effective military that has proven they can make good use of western-supplied arms. And of course, the goal at every juncture should be a negotiated settlement and end to this madness.

[mariacallous]

I don't know how I feel about this op-ed, to be honest, but it's not sitting right with me. Part of it, I think, is the lack of mention of war crimes, and also what feels like is hand-waving away of valid concerns regarding any negotiations or cease-fire, and an over-simplification of what that would involve? And what feels like a rather flippant (and brief) reference to World War II.

IDK, I think I need to sit with it more but I don't think I'm going to fully agree with the argument being made and I think that the authors, ironically (considering what they're accusing others of) are rather myopic and short-sighted.

Please feel free to read and share your own thoughts or observations.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was not bluffing when he said, “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people.” U.S. President Joe Biden seems to grasp this, saying on Oct. 6: “We’ve got a guy I know fairly well. His name is Vladimir Putin. … He is not joking when he talks about the potential use of tactical and nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming.”

Putin’s recent declaration that Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia are now, like Crimea, integral parts of Russia’s territory dramatically raises the risk of confrontation. Indeed, if Ukraine’s heroic military—backed by NATO military aid—continues to drive Russian forces out of this territory, Putin may continue to escalate the crisis, ultimately reaching for nuclear weapons in an attempt to find a way out. Putin and perhaps his lieutenants are more prepared to commit murder-suicide over Ukraine than saner Americans and Europeans are.

Russia and Ukraine are barreling toward each other in a game of chicken. It is time to flick on the bright lights and see farther down the road. Instead of pressing to see who turns first, wisdom requires pausing and working out a way for both countries to live another day.

Like then-U.S. President John F. Kennedy said reflecting on the 1962 Cuban missile crisis: “Nuclear powers must avert those confrontations, which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy—or of a collective death wish for the world.”

Forcing a cornered nuclear-armed state led by a man who sees his misguided war as an existential struggle into a complete and humiliating retreat poses far greater risks than the benefits of trying to recapture every square mile of Ukrainian territory occupied by Russian forces.

A negotiated cease-fire, with strong enforcement, is the best option.

Unfortunately, many in the United States, Europe, and especially Ukraine—in their fully understandable eagerness to deny Putin any gains—seem too inclined to wish away this risk, either by claiming Putin is bluffing or by simply saying troops must be brave and press on with Ukraine’s advances. An underlying—and understandable—worry is that if Putin gets away with making nuclear threats, he and other future nuclear-armed bullies will commit more aggression.

Stopping a war while the aggressor still occupies someone else’s territory is indeed bad—though not unprecedented. Doing it under the shadow of a nuclear threat is arguably even worse. Other nuclear-armed revisionist powers like Pakistan or China could become emboldened to try something similar with Kashmir or Taiwan, respectively. Yet, it is much less bad than the alternative of pressing on until Russia detonates nuclear weapons. At that point, negotiation would be needed to end the destruction—or else Armageddon would ensue—with no guarantee that the aggressor leaves the occupied territory. Only then would the more massive injustice of mass casualties and environmental contamination occur.

But neither side is likely to come to this necessary realization on its own or soon. After building a heroic Ukrainian identity, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his supporters are also emboldened by their recent military gains and inclined to resist any compromise that Putin might accept. They want to press ahead to create even more facts on the ground in the coming weeks before winter sets in.

For his part, Putin—notwithstanding recent setbacks—continues to believe that sustaining the confrontation and, if necessary, expanding it to other states and more destructive tactics and weapons can wear out Ukraine and its Western backers. Doing so is necessary to maintain his position at home. The world is thus entering a few weeks of maximum danger before the combination of weather and unpassable soil in the contested areas will largely freeze the situation on the ground until the spring.

To prevent an escalation that involves nuclear weapons, world leaders must step in to encourage Ukraine to propose a cease-fire now under terms that Russia might ultimately conclude, albeit very reluctantly, that it can accept. This means the United States and NATO must lead, ideally joined by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Offering cease-fire negotiations would benefit Ukraine by helping to deter Russia’s use of nuclear weapons. Agreed cease-fire provisions as well as monitoring and dispute resolution procedures would take time to negotiate. Ukraine could sustain its military operations until then but would need to forgo attempts to move forces into Crimea. Meanwhile, Russia would become a North Korea-like pariah in far wider circles than it currently is if it used nuclear weapons once Ukraine offered a cease-fire.

China and India have said they want the fighting to end; Xi and Modi each have a self-interest to help Putin get there and an even more powerful incentive to prevent nuclear escalation. Both have access and influence with him. Both do not want their main adversaries to see more value in acquiring nuclear weapons (Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea versus China) or threatening to use them (Pakistan versus India).

Both China and India have long insisted that no one should threaten to use nuclear weapons first. They are good messengers to tell Putin that first use of nuclear weapons would make it impossible for them to sustain their current cooperation and that he would be well advised to pursue a viable cease-fire before he would find it necessary to escalate further to prevent additional losses on the ground. Doing that would serve Russia’s interests­—and the world’s.

Given the harsh character of U.S.-China relations today, Xi would need positive inducement from Washington to make this effort. It would be pathetic (and condemnable) if U.S. domestic politics precluded overtures to Beijing to explore whether reasonable inducements could be arranged. The U.S. government should not lecture Xi about what serves his interests; Washington must ask Beijing what it would take to shift its stance and then negotiate.

If Xi and Modi are unwilling or unable to engage Putin on these points, U.S. and European officials would, with greater difficulty, need to try to persuade Russian and Ukrainian leaders to accept the logic of the nuclear age.

Fighting Russian forces until Putin decides to use nuclear weapons as a last recourse may feel like a pursuit of justice against despots, but once nuclear weapons are unleashed, no one knows how to prevent the destruction from escalating. If the West presses forward, do the Russians quit or do they use more nuclear weapons in the hope that this time, the West concludes Ukraine should stop? After Russia has used nuclear weapons in two rounds of fighting, the pressure would grow on U.S. and other leaders to hit back with even more nuclear force. Indeed, no one has described a nuclear exchange that would be tolerable for the United States, Europe, and Ukraine as well as destructive enough to drive Russian forces back to Russia’s pre-2022 or pre-2014 borders.

This is why Biden said on Thursday, “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily [use] a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.” And this is why retired Gen. John Hyten, former commander of U.S. nuclear forces, said in July 2018 that every nuclear war exercise “ends the same way every time. It ends bad. And the bad meaning it ends with global nuclear war.”

Armageddon, or even a smaller nuclear war, would certainly not serve the interests of the Ukrainian population that NATO is trying to defend—or the world more broadly. A negotiated cease-fire before nuclear use started would be preferable for all parties. Similarly, after nuclear use begins, a decision to negotiate an end to the fighting, or at least the nuclear fighting, would be saner than continuing. But that, too, would leave the whole world worse off than if a cease-fire had been pursued earlier.

Instead of being accused of rewarding nuclear threats with compromise and a cease-fire, Western leaders would, at that point, be accused of rewarding the actual use of nuclear weapons. The message to other nuclear-armed states would then be that nuclear threats don’t work and they must actually use the weapons.

To achieve a viable cease-fire, Russia needs to give up on its goals of destroying an independent Ukraine and carving up its territory beyond the quickly diminishing areas that it currently controls. Ukraine and NATO need to recognize that Russia will not cede all the territory it has taken since 2014 right now (though it might eventually if it gets fed up years later with the hassle and cost of retaining it and the sanctions it endures for doing so).

International pressure should encourage Russia to accept cease-fire terms that proscribe any further Russian encroachment on any international boundary in Europe (well beyond Ukraine) established before February. Cease-fire monitoring provisions would need to be codified, perhaps involving monitors from the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. After the shooting stops, the messy process of negotiating governance of the parts of the oblasts under the control of Russian and Ukrainian forces would begin.

Meanwhile, Western countries would need to help rebuild and resupply the Ukrainian military to deter Russia from reneging. NATO states would not be expected to bring Ukraine into the alliance, but Russia would have to accept that the West will continue to support Ukraine as long as Russia occupies its territory and threatens it.

Regardless of where any cease-fire line is ultimately drawn, Ukraine will need the equivalent of an international Marshall Plan to rebuild—whenever the fighting stops. Western taxpayers will donate scarce public funds for this purpose (as well as confiscated Russian assets). The political will and fiscal capacity to help rebuild Ukraine would be more questionable after a nuclear war that extends beyond Ukraine, and there’s no guarantee that such war would regain Ukraine’s lost territories. Instead, the sooner rebuilding begins in Ukraine, the sooner Russians on the other side will see the need to move on from the deprivation, repression, and isolation their government has brought on them.

Some experts argue that anything less than total Russian withdrawal would be a victory for Putin and therefore must be resisted. But Putin has already lost strategically—NATO is working to expand its membership to include Finland and Sweden and has supported Ukraine in ways unimaginable before. The Russian army has been devastated and embarrassed. The economy has shrunk as well as lost capital and technology that are unlikely to return absent major changes in Russia’s government. Russian citizens, especially the most talented youth, have become disaffected or have fled. A negotiated cease-fire would not change these facts.

Ukrainians and their admiring supporters would be legitimately frustrated by a negotiated cease-fire now. The world recognizes the injustice of any gain for Putin and Russia. But the desired heroic ending of World War II, in which the aggressors were vanquished and friendly new democratic governments were created, is not an option here. Germany and Japan didn’t have nuclear weapons; Russia does. That fact cannot be undone.

If Ukrainian forces cannot expel Russia from all these lands without a cornered Putin using nuclear weapons as a last recourse, it is better for the people of Ukraine, Europe, and the United States to act on this realization before a nuclear war begins.

[earnestly-endlessly]

Hey! I hope I'm not bothering you, I just found your blog and I love it sm, and I saw you sometimes do cherik fic recs. Do you have any Canon divergence aus/fix it, preferably after Cuba, that are 30k or longer and have a happy ending? If not thats okay! You don't have to answer this. Have a wonderful day!

Hi anon, thank you so much. I’m happy you both like my blog and my recs. You are certainly not bothering me, and feel free to send me an ask any time. I have plenty of recommendations for you. Some of them diverge a bit from your request because I couldn’t help but recommend them as well. I will put a note on those who diverge from your request. As always, I only recommend fics I have personally read and enjoyed and I sincerely you love them too.

-Canon divergence aus/fix it, post Cuba, 30k or longer, with a happy ending cherik fic recs-

Not Half As Blinding- keire_ke

Summary: Cuban beach AU. Charles discovers that death does, in fact, solve everything.

Lay down beside me (so still and so soft) – C-Gracewood

Summary: A different take on the events of the film.

Rumor Has It – blueink3

Summary: "Did I hear the doorbell earlier?"

"Yeah, but I'd steer clear if I were you. It seemed a little tense. I don't know what's going on, but there's a kid out there who looks freakily like the prof."

Nearly six months after Cuba, Charles' life is turned upside down for the second time. Though he's slowly learning to adapt to the first, he's not sure he can handle the second. Luckily for him, there are a few people out there more than willing to help.

Forward Momentum – AsYouWish

Summary: Six months after Cuba, Charles and Erik find themselves thrown fifty years into the future, where they meet their older selves, the Avengers, and a world that's very different from their own. Faced with the pieces of their broken relationship, an unparalleled adversary, and dealing with Tony Stark on a daily basis, Charles and Erik do their best to adapt while trying to find a way back home -- and to each other.

When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Optimist – ToriTC198

Summary: "You are always trying to save me, Charles." Erik mused aloud. "Ever since you dove into the ocean and dragged me out. Did it ever occur to you that I might not be worth saving?"

A genuine smile broke out on Charles' face as he brightly answered, "No, my friend, not once. I have every confidence you are well worth saving. But, I never truly believed I could save you. You are not the sort of man who someone saves. The choice to be a better man has always been yours to make and I hold no illusions that I can make that decision for you. I simply have faith that one day you will save yourself. I only hope I am still at your side to witness it."

What if Erik and Charles had been able to find a middle ground in the end?

Take the First Option – ShowMeAHero

Summary: When Erik becomes unbalanced, Emma presents him with three options: go back to Charles for three months and learn to deal with whatever he has going have going on, lose his Brotherhood, or let Emma control his mind.

He really only has one choice.

Virtue to Which We Aspire – varlovian

Summary: Nine months after Cuba, Charles is found by Erik's Brotherhood in the smoldering ruins of an abandoned CIA base, exhausted but alive. As the only known survivor of the CIA's vendetta against mutants, recovering Charles' memory of the incident—which he admits to having forgotten—just became paramount.

But the harder they push, the closer Charles gets to breaking point. When he finally cracks, the X-Men and the Brotherhood will learn the truth, but it comes with a price...

Some doors, once opened, cannot be closed.

Some minds, once broken, will never be the same again.

The Waking of the Red King – rustingroses

Summary: When Charles' heavy injuries on the Cuban beach conspire to leave him in a coma and living in fantasy of his own making, Erik, the man who once threatened to divide the mutant cause, finds himself desperately trying to hold everything together. First of the Red King trilogy.

Wake Up and Smell the Pancakes –  Ayra Sei Ethari

Summary: In one universe, Erik left Charles. In another, he stayed. So what happens when the two Eriks get switched? "At first, Erik thinks he's dreaming. Then he realizes that this is Charles. Who is not paralyzed. And kissing him.

Rage and Serenity – MagickMaker, TheFangedGoblin

Summary: After Charles is shot on the beach, he is rushed to the hospital and paralysis is prevented. Ridden with guilt, Erik finds that he cannot leave him. He helps him heal, and eventually, Charles learns to trust him again. But when they set out to rescue Emma from the CIA and accept her onto their team, tensions rise. Will love keep Erik and Charles together despite their differences?

No Yesterdays on the Road – pocky_slash

Summary: It's been two months since Cuba and things are settling down for Charles, Erik, and the beginnings of their mutant school. Right up until Charles disappears, that is. Faced with the possibility that a bitter Emma Frost has kidnapped Charles, Erik is forced to team up with Moira to hunt down the remainder of the Hellfire Club. From there, they hope to locate Frost and retrieve Charles, without killing each other along the way.

(Or: Erik and Moira Drive Across the Country and Talk About Their Feelings.)

What Can We Do Without You? – SwoopSwoop

Summary: Charles and the boys were holding onto a secret more dear to them than their own lives when Charles disappears into the night; Erik is betrayed and finds himself returning to Westchester in the hopes that the government was just trying to trick him. All the while the boys are stuck in the middle, left guarding the secret from the man they are most afraid of finding out who is weaselling his way back into their lives alarmingly easily.

Note: Includes Mpreg, but don’t let that discourage you from reading it because it’s a really great fix-it.

Survival Instinct – Lindstorm

Summary: It’s been months since Charles pulled Erik out of the ocean, and Erik is beginning to wonder how many more times he can choose Charles, and still keep his vow to kill Shaw. Cooperating with the CIA is straining Erik’s patience. When a fact-gathering mission goes wrong and Charles is kidnapped, Erik is left trying to hold their mutant band together while Raven and the rest of them fall apart. No one can foresee how the mutant Charles meets in captivity will challenge all his assumptions about his own power, and twist Charles’ telepathy out of his control. In the race to stop Shaw's nuclear ambitions from coming to fruition, Charles makes a crucial misstep. Erik’s decision between Shaw and Charles takes on unexpected ramifications when [spoiler deleted].

Needles (Series) – Skull_Bearer

Summary: AU where everyone's born Dominant or Submissive

Once a Dominant and Submissive pair is born, they are linked to each other, no matter how far apart they are. This link doesn't actually tell the Dom or the Sub each other's thoughts, but it does allow them to know how the other's doing and serves as a reassurance that there's someone meant for them out there.

Another one of the reasons that Erik hates Shaw so badly is because Shaw managed to break Erik's link to his Sub. Now Erik doesn't even know if his Sub's alive because breaking a link like that can kill a Submissive.

Meanwhile, Charles hates himself for not yet having telepathy strong enough to contact and help his Dom, especially after feeling the pain his Dom was forced to go through. He truly believes that his Dominant is dead. Hopes it, some nights when he remembers how his Dom was forced to suffer. It's better than to think of his Dom still being forced to bear that pain.

And then Charles pulls Erik from the water

Time to Grow – zarah5

Summary: In which you'll find chess dates which aren't dates (or maybe Charles is wrong about that). -- Based on First Class, this turns (slightly) AU during the beach scene.

Note: This fic is less than 30k words but it’s such a fandom classic and just a great read if you love your fix-its.

Faults for Fixing – beren

Summary: Charles sees the events of the missile crisis and subsequent weeks when he uses Cerebro to touch the mind of a mutant with the power to see the near future. When he wakes up he is determined that he will not allow them to happen and he will not lose the people he loves.

Note: A bit less than 30k words long but another great read.

It’s like one of us woke up – kaydeefalls

Summary: "You came here for me," Charles said, meeting Shaw's gaze levelly. "So let's not waste any more time."

Canon!AU in which Charles and Erik do find Shaw in Russia.

Note: XMFC fix it, but the events in Cuba don’t happen. 

Afterlife – Anna (arctic_grey)

Summary: A year after Washington, Erik wakes up in excruciating pain as sudden awareness washes over him: Charles is dead. Erik has to adjust to yet another future: no extinction, just a world without Charles. But the death of his former friend leaves Erik weak and his powers drained. His quest for answers leads him back to Westchester, where Erik has to face his past with Charles and put together the puzzle pieces of what happened to the man he once cared for.

The Burdens We Long to Carry – arcapelago (arcanewinter)

Summary: When mutant-supporter and ally President Kennedy is assassinated and all pro-mutant progress is dismantled, Charles is no longer so confident that he's on the right side, and extends his hand to Erik after a year of animosity. They settle tentatively into their old partnership, but not everything is the same as it was--and not everything can be. When Hank develops a metal frame to move the lower half of Charles' body for him if he wants it, Erik offers the use of his mind and his ability in order to make it work. Both find out what they're willing to do for each other, and neither knows if it'll be enough to keep them together.

Other Futures Than These – midrashic

Summary: In which Cuba doesn't break them apart, but that doesn't mean that their futures are tied together. (Except that it does.)

A Days of Future Past AU where only one person can defeat the Sentinels and save the future: the man whose imprisonment and torture created them, and Charles Xavier's ex.

The Winter of Banked Fires – Yahtzee

Summary: Charles Xavier has returned from the dead -- but is lost within his own mind. Rogue has cast aside her own power and doesn't know where she fits in the world any longer. The production of synthetic Cure means mutantkind itself is newly at risk. And Magneto, turned human against his will, is in despair until the day he feels a familiar consciousness tugging at his own --

Set after X-3 (with much desperate fix-it applied), during XMFC, and every time in between.

[antoine-roquentin]

The last of the many books Cohen authored was 2019’s War with Russia?, detailing his ideas on how the complex multi-front nature of the post-2016 cold war escalations against Moscow combines with Russiagate and other factors to make it in some ways more dangerous even than the most dangerous point of the previous cold war.

“You know it’s easy to joke about this, except that we’re at maybe the most dangerous moment in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever,” Cohen told The Young Turks in 2017. “And the reason is that we’re in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented military buildup on Russia’s border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are flying in the same territory. Anything could happen.”

Cohen repeatedly points to the most likely cause of a future nuclear war: not one that is planned but one which erupts in tense, complex situations where “anything could happen” in the chaos and confusion as a result of misfire, miscommunication or technical malfunction, as nearly happened many times during the last cold war.

“I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the Cuban missile crisis,” Cohen told Democracy Now in 2017.

“And arguably, it’s more dangerous, because it’s more complex. Therefore, we — and then, meanwhile, we have in Washington these — and, in my judgment, factless accusations that Trump has somehow been compromised by the Kremlin. So, at this worst moment in American-Russian relations, we have an American president who’s being politically crippled by the worst imaginable — it’s unprecedented. Let’s stop and think. No American president has ever been accused, essentially, of treason. This is what we’re talking about here, or that his associates have committed treason.”

“Imagine, for example, John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis,” Cohen added. “Imagine if Kennedy had been accused of being a secret Soviet Kremlin agent. He would have been crippled. And the only way he could have proved he wasn’t was to have launched a war against the Soviet Union. And at that time, the option was nuclear war.”

“A recurring theme of my recently published book War with Russia? is that the new Cold War is more dangerous, more fraught with hot war, than the one we survived,” Cohen wrote last year.

“Histories of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War tell us that both sides came to understand their mutual responsibility for the conflict, a recognition that created political space for the constant peace-keeping negotiations, including nuclear arms control agreements, often known as détente. But as I also chronicle in the book, today’s American Cold Warriors blame only Russia, specifically ‘Putin’s Russia,’ leaving no room or incentive for rethinking any US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since 1991.”

“Finally, there continues to be no effective, organized American opposition to the new Cold War,” Cohen added.

“This too is a major theme of my book and another reason why this Cold War is more dangerous than was its predecessor.

In the 1970s and 1980s, advocates of détente were well-organized, well-funded, and well-represented, from grassroots politics and universities to think tanks, mainstream media, Congress, the State Department, and even the White House. Today there is no such opposition anywhere.”

[padm3601]

Jesse C - Foreign Policy

I know domestic policy is important but I just absolutely love foreign policy. Wars, militaries, diplomats, energy policy, trade deals, global economics, political philosophy, they’re all important elements that allow us to live our day-to-day lives in safety. 

Public Administrators are responsible for establishing and negotiating our concerns as a country into these policies. I believe it is a hot topic as we are actively achieving advancements in technology and global communications. The more connected we are as a world; the more foreign policy becomes prominent. 

  With that being said, take into consideration the de-escalation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was a perfect example of a well-executed decision-based use of foreign policy. President Kennedy had two options in this take of foreign policy: he could take a militaristic approach, or he could speak diplomatically to Russia to end the conflict. President Kennedy chose to enact a strong-handed approach. He established a blockade around Cuba and provided a military-backed threat that kept Soviet transportations from crossing the blockade. This example of foreign policy is just one of many situations where public administrators in power are making smart decisions to keep our country from conflict. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of situations that were de-escalated or negotiated to create safety for our country.

Foreign policy takes on many forms. There are 5 prevalent theories of foreign policy that define how a state, or power, will react to a situation. Realism, Liberalism, Economic Structuralism, Psychological Theory, and Connectivism. These 5 theories are crucial to understand as a public administrator as they are utilized in the critical decision-making processes they undergo every day.

Realism is defined as a state, or power, acting in its own best interest. Realism puts the safety of the state first, and the benefits for the state first. As quoted by Machiavelli, “It is much safer to be feared than loved.” Generally, a state or power, will react to ensure the national security of its existence.

Liberalism can be described as attempting to neutralize a problem with cooperation, fairness, and generally with free trade.

Economic structuralism is a theory defined by Karl Marx. This theory can be explained as capitalism is bad and it damages the economic structure of weaker states. Capitalistic countries are known for utilizing the low-cost advantages of a weaker state to pump money back into their organization. Leaving the weaker state in a cycle of unfair labor.

Psychological theories go in-depth with bringing down the process of international politics to the individual level. This creates opportunities to understand why a public administrator can make rash decisions, or act in corrupt manners. This can also be flipped, and can identify trends in a very kind public administrator making sacrifices for the good of the people in the public administrator’s state, or in a foreign state. A big question psychological theorist answer is “why is political decision making inconsistent”.

Finally, constructivism, is about social and ideological reformation and movement. If infrastructure, or a system, needs to be changed it will be changed through a reformation of social practice. Constructivist changes usually weighs in factors such as human rights, gender equality, and racial equality.

Understanding the primary theories of foreign policy allows a regular citizen of the state to understand the most important question, “WHY was this decision made?”. When you understand these theories and know which one generally applies to your public administrator you can interpret their decision-making process in a whole new light. Having the ability to answer questions such as “why are we at war with this country?” or “why are we using our tax dollars to provide aid to a country that has no benefit to the US?” will help you understand politics and the world a bit better. With the power of the Internet and social media platforms such as Twitter, we are in constant communication with people who reside in foreign countries. It is eye-opening as an American citizen to have the ability to speak with someone who was just bombed by America. They will share pictures and videos and speak on the damage we brought upon their country, which leads us to ask the questions of “why did we do this?”. Understanding foreign policy gives us the insight and the ability to understand the decision-making process that our public administrators underwent.

  Sources

Frazier, Brionne. (2021, February 17). What Is Foreign Policy? Definition and Examples. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/foreign-policy-definition-examples-4178057

Elrod, Richard B. “The Concert of Europe: A Fresh Look at an International System.” World Politics, vol. 28, no. 2, 1976, pp. 159–174. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2009888.

“The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis.

Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. International Relations Theory. 5th ed., Pearson, 2011.

[queenofthecommunistcannibals]

For work I am watching a bunch of interviews from old Cold War submariners and boy howdy do they have some stories. Some high lights so far:

The cook's nickname was (still is) Hotdog.

He has the word "Hotdog" on the t-shirt he was given/has as a former crew member.

One of them gave a quick summary of his life before the Navy and in about two sentences he says he dropped out of school in eighth grade, ran away from NYC to California, became a carny, and then was given the option of going to school, jail, or the military and figured the Navy sounded pretty okay. He joined the Navy on his 17th birthday. That is literally all the detail he gives and says he was a carny as if it is totally normal for someone to go all Clint Barton. He doesn't even say what he did for the carnival or why he was potentially going to jail.

The boat was a spy sub and had a bunch of super high tech (for the '50s/'60s) radio equipment. While they were still in port, one of the enginemen who was 19 and didn't know anything about radios decided he would get some music for the long trip ahead. So when he was on watch at night he taught himself how to use this super high tech super secret radio equipment and patched in a Hawaiian rock station. He taught himself how to hook it up to their entertainment system. Then he spent his four hour shifts recording reel-to-reel tapes of rock music. He offered to show other people but they turned him down. Then when they got underway all anyone had to listen to was hours upon hours of rock music, including the older white officers. They ended up either liking it or just getting used to it and were still listening to these 1958 reel-to-reels when the former crewmember left.

The recorder described it as "one of my finest hours"

A former crew member thought there was a fire in the missile hangar because of a heat warning that went off so he pumped the missile hangar full of water. Turns out it was a burst pipe and he had just ruined four multi-million dollar nuclear weapons. But the crew was more upset that he ruined the other things stored in the hangar: movie reels and the labels on the food cans

The cooks had to just guess what was in the cans from then on. A lot of it turned out to be okra. They ate. A lot. Of okra. To the point that most of the guys on that cruise still remember all the okra.

Some army guys decided to terrifyingly haze the submariners by kidnapping and assaulting them and treating them as prisoners of war, claiming this is what the Soviets would do if they were caught. The crewmember recounting the story describes being physically tortured by other members of our own military like it wasn't no thing. "They just wanted to see our reactions."

The carny-turned-submariner signed up for subs because that was what his C.O. had been. He didn't know anything about the mission, but was cool with that. He signed a contract that said he wouldn't discuss the mission for 50 years.

On patrol he realized they were spies and he could easily die out here.

There was a mission during which one of the distillers broke and they were producing so little fresh water the crew didn't get to shower once in 55 days. On your average 70+ day mission most crewmembers showered 2-3 times.

A former crew member said that while they all smelled horrible they all smelled the same so it didn't matter.

Once the vacuum created by the air snorkel slamming shut ruined a cake. Another time it burned a cook who was boiling potatoes.

The Captain's wife, Katherine, wrapped presents before they left on patrol on a cruise that would last for Christmas so they would have something to open. "I don't remember what they were, but they were a damned present" -Hotdog

One of them grew up in Hawaii and used to visit the Marine base on Maui. The gave him presents including fucking bayonets. He was roughly seven years old at the time.

A final submarine qualification exam could take 12 hours easily

"[on a submarine] you become part of the family because I know I can depend on you...and you know you can depend on me."

All naval structure breaks down on a sub. Much more equal. People tend to get along regardless of rank, religion, sexual orientation, or race because everyone was equally dependent on each other.

They were on patrol when Kennedy got shot and it took hours to figure out what actually happened. They were at Pearl Harbor when the Cuban Missile Crisis was going on and their orders were to load up and be ready to go at a moment's notice.

The actual instructions for launch, plus the coordinates for their target was locked in a safe in the Captain's room that he could only open after a call from the White House. They were off the coast of the USSR as a threat, they had no plans to actually launch. The Soviets had similar subs off our West Coast.

60-80 days on mission. Underwater for all but three of them.

Alka-Seltzer and tinfoil are enough to throw off sonar.

There were spies on board who would appear out of nowhere in port, get on, decode messages from the Soviets, then disappear as soon as they were in port again. Never to be seen again. The sailors didn't even know their real names.

One describes submarines as "the most fun you can have with your clothes on." This is the same guy volunteers with us and once hid from a Secret Service agent to prove that he could. That story I have heard the full circumstances around. He then said that Secret Service guys are easy, "they're part of the treasury department, practically accountants" (he was impressed I knew the origins of the secret service). The real challenge, he said, was hiding/escaping from an FBI agent. "That's a story for another time!" I haven't gotten that story yet. He also calls me Lady H and is the coolest person I have ever met.

[keywestlou]

BIDEN / PUTIN CONFRONTATION

BIDEN / PUTIN CONFRONTATION - https://keywestlou.com/biden-putin-confrontation-2/Did we do enough?   Originally posted in December 2021   A two hour meeting yesterday via internet between Biden and Putin. The issue the Ukraine. I had two feelings prior to the meeting and interestingly the two remained following the meeting. First, I had a fear of another Munich. Chamberlain's peace in our lifetime. Such would cause Biden to back down from his tough position in the meeting. He would give something to Putin to satiate him. Putin would have won. Won and ready to "fight" another day in another place because he believes he has the U.S. on the run. Second, the Cuban missile crisis. War was in the air. Seemed inevitable. Kennedy figured a way to  handle it. Causing Khrushchev to blink at the last moment. Who will blink first re the Ukraine? Putin's position simple yesterday. Either the U.S. and NATO provide Russia with "legal guarantees" that the Ukraine will never join NATO or become a base for response that can threaten Russia - or we (Russia) will go in and guarantee it ourselves. New York Times columnist David Leonhardt in a piece in The Morning Newsletter today wrote: "Foreign aggression often gives political leaders a chance to rally nationalistic support at home, especially as a distraction from domestic problems. And Russia has domestic problems, like surging COVID-19 cases, slow growing wages, and rising prices. Last year, opposition groups held some of the largest anti-Putin marches in years." Leonhardt went on that the U.S. does not have united support for the war and united support would not be there in the event the U.S. gets involved. Militant groups in the U.S. would not rally to the flag. Rather, would side with Russia. Providing Russia with the benefit of "insurgent guerrilla forces" on U.S. soil. Leonhardt wrote that shots are already being intermittently exchanged between Russia and the Ukraine: "The two sides exchanged fire from machine guns and grenade launchers yesterday. International diplomats worry the skirmishes could offer Putin a pretext for invasion." Without actually fighting a war against Russia, Leonhardt indicated "Biden still has options. The U.S. could increase its military support to the Ukraine, which could make a potential invasion bloodier and more costly for Russia. (The U.S. is pursuing a related strategy in Taiwan.)" Additionally, Biden and other European nations can increase "economic measures." Severe sanctions. Russia has serious economic problems already. It could not maintain an all out war very long. In the back of my mind always sits the final consideration. A U.S./Russia war would mean the extermination of both countries. Nuclear devastation on a major scale. I am sure Biden does not want such. I have to believe neither does Putin. Following is a Matt Gaetz scenario. Read it and draw your own conclusions. If Republicans take control of the House next year, this is what will occur based on Gaetz's own words. Gaetz envisions an extremist Republican takeover of House oversight: "We are going to take power after this next election and when we do, it's not going to be the days of Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy and no real oversight and no real subpoenas.....It's going to be the days of Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Dr. Paul Gosar and myself doing everything." I contine advising the U.S. judicial system is antiquated. Needs a complete overhaul. A perfect example the trial date set by a federal judge in the Bannon case: July 18, 2022. No way that date will be helpful to the January 6 Committee. It is too close to the November elections. There is a wackiness in the way the judge selected the trial date. He asked the prosecution what they wanted. They said no later than April 15. The defense said mid October. The judge in a Solomonic fashion split the "baby" down the middle. He scheduled the trial date between the dates suggested. A compromise! Compromise no way to run this case. Time is of the essence. He should have "fast tracked" it to 2-4 weeks hence. It never fails. Justice delayed is justice denied. The American people are entitled to a complete expose with regard to the January insurrection. July 18 is too late to be helpful to the January 6 inquiry. New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote in his column this morning titled "The Age of Creative Minority" an observation re white evangelical Protestants. He wrote, "White evangelical Protestants are down to about 15 percent in the country. They vote for people like Donald Trump because they feel like strangers in their own land, oppressed minorities fighting for survival." To the 15 percent I say: Welcome to the club! Armanda Gorman. No one knew of her till Inauguration day January 20. Her poetry stunned America. Such brilliance. And from a lady only 22 years old. In 11 months, her fame has skyrocketed. She was asked how she felt about her rise to fame: "It felt like I was kind of shot out of a cannon." Key West's Lighted Boat Parade 8 pm saturday. Starting point Schooner's Wharf. One terrific Christmas show. Fifty/sixty boats decorated for the holiday. Large and small. People partying on the boats and on shore. Food and drinks. The larger vessels, live music and dancing. Exciting! I know. I have done it many times. Omicron has found its way to Florida. Two cases so far. One in Tampa and the other in St. Lucie County. Both victims hospitalized. Information re whether vaccinated not yet available. Beatle John Lennon shot to death outside his New York City apartment building this day in 1980. Crazies never leave us. Thoughtless killings part of every generation. Increasing in number this generation. Eighteen year old Kyle Rittenhouse continues to be the man of the hour.  His tongue as loose as his trigger finger was the day of the shootings. He has become ballsy. His most recent tirade against LeBron James. At issue, the tears he wept while testifying. During a recent TV interview he replied "fuck you LeBron" after LeBron had mocked his tearful moment in a Twitter comment last month. LeBron was asked about Kyle's tears. He responded, "What tears?.....That boy ate some lemon heads before walking into court." Definitely going out tonight. First a manicure. Then meeting Jean Thornton at the Chart Room followed by dinner somewhere. Enjoy your day!

[laoyangtutor]

老Yang教员组今天给各位留学生带来一篇纯原创代写电影观后感范文，讲的是影片《十三天》将观众带回1962年10月的古巴导弹危机。它从肯尼迪总统领导层的角度重建了决策过程背后的斗争。在危机决策理论中，对危机进行预测和判断尤为重要，包括影响决策的各种变量，以及将危机的所有要素融入决策的过程。

希望这篇可以帮助到各位留学生，同时有需要essay润色查重、辅导代写、托福GRE考试保分、网���全方位包课的家人们可以联系老Yang微信（Wechat ID: ymf2531）进行咨询喔~

In international relations, the "crisis" is the turning point between war and peace. If not resolved properly, it will escalate into a much more serious conflict and even war. The difficulty in constructing foreign policy is that it is not easy to integrate complex national actions. The areas involved do not only include the single aspect of war and peace. The Film Thirteen Days brings the audience back to the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. It reconstructs the struggles behind the decision-making process from the perspective of President Kennedy’s leadership. In the crisis decision theory, it is particularly important to predict and judge the crisis, include various variables that affect the decision, and the process all elements of the crisis into the decision. From the film, President Kennedy has demonstrated highly strategic thinking and rational leadership skills, effective balancing the domestic and international forces, and preventing the crisis from evolving into a nuclear war.

 As far as the United States is concerned, its major fear comes from concerns about the Soviet missile threat. Although U.S. officials plunged before the missile crisis with the "myth" of the Soviet nuclear forces fabricated by Khrushchev and the so-called gap between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United States still had great worries. After discovering the missiles of the Soviet Union in Cuba, Kennedy had convened consultants for a full day of consultations. At the meeting, they basically reached following consensuses: Soviet missiles in Cuba pose a direct threat to the security of the United States. It is an unacceptable disturb to the balance of power. The intention of the Soviet operation is to improve its strategic disadvantage. A preemptive military action should be taken before the missile become usable. It is clear that the missiles of the Soviet Union were a serious threat to the national security of the United States, and this threat was urgent.

 However, large-scale and costly full-scale invasion will force the US military to directly engage the USSR. This will be a direct face-to-face battle between the two superpowers since the Cold War. This solution more than any of the other alternatives put the world at risk of a nuclear war. At least it is very likely that the Soviet Union will completely occupy West Berlin to take revenge. The deep fear of nuclear war has caused policy makers in both the United States and the Soviet Union to dare not take the risk of war and take very intense military actions. The full-scale invasion does not meet the most urgent goal of the United States to immediately expel Soviet missile threats. Apparently, President Kennedy showed full awareness of such a situation in the film. This restrained psychology has played a key role in the solution to the crisis.

 With such considerations, ExComm gradually shifted towards political solutions under the President’s lead. In the end, President Kennedy decided to adopt the blockade approach. This is mainly because a blockade is a middle road between inaction and nuclear war. It is a more restrained and low-key military operation than air strikes. The possibility of retaliation is minimized. The flexibility of the blockade allows the United States to take the initiative in controlling the development of the situation. It can upgrade or slow down its operations in accordance with the needs of the situation. The so-called "surgical" air attack on the military is unrealistic, and there are no winners in the nuclear war. Politically, the blockade left Khrushchev with an option and did not push the opponent to desperation. It can also receive maximum support from the allies.

 The Kennedy Administration's Flexible Response strategy were smart, indeed. In the Cuban missile public crisis, President Kennedy spent a lot of time thinking about the possible impact of U.S. operations on the Soviet Union. When making decisions, it is not sufficient to simply consider the use of threats. It may instead force the opponent to the corners and force the other party not to choose to surrender, but to raise the public crisis. In order to prevent the adversary from raising the public crisis, the decision-makers must deter threats and compromises, and use Stick and Carrot approach. This is why Kennedy offered a promise to cancel the US missile system as an exchange. Also, communication channels with the other party should be maintained to reduce the misunderstanding between the two parties.

 Meanwhile, President Kennedy also handled the domestic military forces well as they were intending to elevate the crisis. He kept the focus on the political resolution and successfully repressed the intentions of some ExComm members to start a war. Kennedy gave a brilliant public television speech on the issue, which demonstrated the leadership styles of calmness, firmness, and control. Kennedy stressed that the United States must maintain patience and restraint, but the United States must also take action to deal with this incident. This televised speech conveyed to the public such a message that the two superpowers came to the verge of nuclear war. Kennedy declared that launching missiles from Cuba against the United States would be considered by the United States as an invasion of the United States by the Soviet Union. This actually served as an indirect way to communicate to the USSR and a means of warning. Kennedy concluded that he had urged Khrushchev to withdraw missiles deployed in Cuba and prevent the Soviet Union from bringing the world into the devastating consequences of nuclear warfare.

 Eventually, the Soviet Union understood the strategic intentions of the United States in the prevention of nuclear wars. Khrushchev decided to turn back the Soviet ships sailing to Cuba and cooperated with the United States to resolve the crisis. In the telegraph, Khrushchev sincerely proposed to the United States to resolve the crisis. Khrushchev promised to withdraw missiles from Cuba with peaceful conditions. The Kennedy administration greatly appreciated this gesture, and the Cuban missile crisis was successfully resolved. In conclusion, President Kennedy has demonstrated tremendous talent of leadership despite the lack of experience. His strategic approach to the USSR, the American people, the US allies, and the domestic military forces effectively reduced the tension in the crisis, leading to the final peaceful solution.

老Yang留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创优秀范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，老Yang有权追究法律责任。我们主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写、论文代写、雅思考试、托福考试、GRE考试、网课包课等。

老 Yang 为留学生提供靠谱隐私的留学学业服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多优秀范文，有需要可以咨询老Yang微信（WeChat ID: ymf2531）。

[backstorywithdanalewis]

Presidential Debates Back Story with Dana Lewis podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1016881/5803924 @johndonvan #backstorywithdanalewis #debates2020

Speaker 1: (00:00) Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the fats. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on a website. You are telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you've been fighting. No wonder you've been fighting ISIS, your entire adult life. By the end of this evening, I'm going to be blamed for everything that's ever happened. Why not just join? Join the debate by saying more crazy things. Hi everyone. And welcome to another edition of backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. There have been some informative us presidential debates, some of them one on a good one, liner others on a relaxed look in 1960, Richard Nixon lost his first debate with John F. Kennedy because Nixon started sweating and look pale freedom, be maintained. Speaker 2: (00:53) I'm going to, to the attack, attack you to Devin own. I think it can be. And I think in the final analysis, it depends upon what we do here. I think it's time America started moving again. The things that Senator Kennedy has said, many of us can agree with. There is no question, but that we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the United States without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (01:21) The defining moment from 1976, Jimmy Carter versus Gerald Ford occurred when then president Gerald Ford insisted there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, Speaker 2: (01:33) No Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. And there never will be under a port administration. I'm sorry. Could I just pause? Did I understand you to say sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence and occupying most of the countries there and, and making sure with their troops that it's a, that it's a communist zone, whereas on our side of the line, the Italians and the French are still flirting with, I don't believe, uh, mr. Franco that, uh, the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet union. I don't believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet union. I don't believe that the poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet union. Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (02:22) Polls showed president Jimmy Carter lost a Ronald Reagan in 1980. Regan's calm, relaxed, demeanor during the debate was seen as key to his victory. Speaker 2: (02:32) What kind of elements of a national health insurance important to the American people? Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal. You have enough, you go again. When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. You already are the oldest president in history and some of your staff. So you were tired after your most recent encounter with mr. Speaker 3: (03:00) Mr. Mondale. Um, I recall yet that president Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances? Not at all mr. Troy and I, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. And then there was this mess between president Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Speaker 4: (03:36) Oh, sure. You, in fact, let people know. He doesn't want to Senator, I'm not going to answer the question because the question, the question is justice rational left. Will you shut up missing? Who is on your list, Joe, this is on your gentleman's. I think this is so with you that, wait a minute, Speaker 3: (03:56) We got the final word in it. It's hard to get any word in with this clown. I sorry, Speaker 4: (04:00) With a billion dollars, if you, that, you know, when you're not doing it, Speaker 3: (04:06) True, gentlemen is on this backstory. Do we make these debates meaningful, controlled, dignified? Because that wasn't. So we introduce you to somebody who has studied and moderated debates and is an expert on how we should remake and remodel the format. Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (04:31) All right. I want to introduce you to John Donovan, a debate moderator in America, and that would be vastly understating, who John is because he's a former network news correspondent, a terrific correspondent. When he was with ABC news, he worked at the white house in John. First of all, welcome how many debates have you hosted now? John Donvan - Debate Host: (04:50) wUh, I think we're at about 180, 185, something like that since I started doing this in 2006 only. That's why you're terrific on this topic. First of all, could you have imagined an America like today, a few yesterdays ago when you covered the, uh, I could see the seeds of it. Um, I covered the white house during the Clinton administration, and I think that was the beginning of a turning point of a, of a kind of, um, a poisonous relationship between the parties, where things, um, after, you know, 40 years of some, some, some manner of civility and mutual respect, um, things began to get kind of ugly between the sides, you know, between, you know, going back now to, you know, 25 years, the, the, the sort of personal, uh, pettiness between bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich was already, um, also the, the media was beginning to get more into a more adversarial kind of personal relationship with presidents who were seen to be, which people might, people who are think fondly of bill Clinton might forget that bill Clinton lied, um, very, very, very publicly. John Donvan - Debate Host: (06:07) And, um, that there was the beginning of a, um, of an acceleration of, you know, Richard Nixon. Didn't like the press, of course at all, but there was the beginning of an acceleration of, um, uh, sort of a standoff between the press and the white house. So yeah, I guess I could have kind of imagined it. I don't think it started in 2016 or 2015. Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (06:28) All right. We've gone from, to use your words kind of ugly the turbo ugly now, I think. And, uh, you know, do you take Trump seriously when you hear things like, he's not gonna respect the peaceful transition of power and he should get another two terms, not the constitutional one term after the next election? John Donvan - Debate Host: (06:48) Uh, yeah, I take, I, I think we've learned to take everything he says seriously. Um, he, uh, his, his, his followers have always appreciated the fact that he says what he means and he means what he says, even though what he says may shift around a lot. Um, um, there's, there's kind of a grain of truth into, I think he wants to leave himself, uh, ultimate maneuvering room. I remember in the very first debate, um, back in 2015, when there were something like 11 candidates on the stage and the moderator, I don't know if it was the first question. Maybe it was the last question, but, but asked a sort of obvious question, if you are not the nominee, um, will you support the person who is the nominee, raise your hand if you will. And 10 hands went up and all by himself back in 2015, Donald Trump didn't raise his hand. Speaker 3: (07:42) Um, and it was kind of a kind of moment. And, um, and he, he just said, we'll see what happens. And we know when he says, we'll see what happens. It means he's keeping his positions open and his options open, and that he's really, really willing to considering and willing to, um, break the usual convention. So, you know, peaceful transition of power so far has been the conventional practice. Um, and it's clear that he has been laying the groundwork for a potential refusal of the vote by casting down on, on the integrity of the process. So, uh, yeah, I take him seriously that he would certainly consider it. Yeah. Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (08:28) First debate. How would you have changed it if you were hosting it? Could you have controlled it any better than Chris Wallace? John Donvan - Debate Host: (08:34) No, I couldn't. Um, Chris Wallace  has got a lot of, a lot of, uh, um, uh, criticism for, for what happened in that debate. And the problem with that debate, uh, was primarily the president's, um, insistence on, on breaking in and interrupting, even though I know the interruptions went in both directions. And even though I know, um, um, I read, I didn't go back and check this, but I read that the first person to interrupt was actually Joe Biden. I'm not sure whether that's the case or not. I just know that the dynamic and the flow of the thing was that, uh, when Chris Wallace, who is a, certainly not an anti Trump guy called out the president for being the, you know, he basically said most of the problem is you mr. President, that was just absolutely true. And if you have a, somebody who's not gonna abide by the rules, there's not much you can do unless you have some sort of enforcement power I would have, I would have, I would going forward insist on having some enforcement power. I think of the, of a debate moderator, uh, as, uh, you know, some people think of it as being a timekeeper. I think of it as being much more of a referee where your job is to have some power to enforce the rules, to keep, to make sure, you know, uh, as an example, not only keeping on time, but keeping on point, uh, avoiding personal attacks, if that's the rules. So the debates that I moderate, can I talk a bit, a little bit about what those are so I can, Speaker 1: (10:07) You've given us some insight into the debates you do and how you do them, because I think you've told me a long time ago that you did them alone, Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (10:14) Oxford style, uh, you know, debating framework, which you, you know, I'm happy to hear about that. John Donvan - Debate Host: (10:21) Yeah. The Oxford style comes out of the Oxford union at Oxford university for is time honored tradition in which, um, a statement is, is a sate asserted. And, you know, I'll just make it extreme. Um, hamburgers are good, you know, that would be the statement and, and one, one debater or team of debaters. And it's usually a team, usually a team of two would argue would, would be arguing for the resolution. They would be there to prove that you can't, you have to agree with them after you hear all the arguments that hamburgers are good and against them as a side, arguing against what the statement says, arguments, hamburgers are not good. They don't have to say anything else. That's better. They just have to say that they're not good. And usually, uh, there's, there's a time timed rules and there's time for rebuttal and there's a structure to it. So the structure is number one, it's about this thing. Number two, you have to prove it's true, or you have to prove it's false. And number three, you take terms and Speaker 1: (11:19) Your act with the does one Bay debating team interact with the other, can they, John Donvan - Debate Host: (11:23) Yeah. There's time for that. Stop that. So I'm okay with interruption. If I think that's a sort of robust thing, but the, normally what happens is, is that there's an opening statement, which is not interrupted by all four debaters. They take turns making the case. Um, we do that for about six minutes per person. So that takes about, uh, with the introductions. Our first half hour are these formal opening statements where each side makes their case. And then for 45 minutes, we interact and I ask questions, uh, of the debaters based on their opening statements. You know, I'll say, you know, Ms. Jones, you said, um, you know, uh, hamburgers are unhealthy. And your evidence that you cited was from, uh, from the federal government. Let me ask your opponent, do you trust that evidence? Should we be questioning it or not? You know, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll bring them together. But once that process is flowing, we do like to have to encourage a sort of robust back and forth, back and forth, uh, where, you know, there is such a thing as a, as a, as a justifiably motivated interruption by one person to have another it's. Uh, and so we're good with that. As long as it doesn't get out of hand by out of hand, I mean, you, you don't, you're not, you're interrupting just to stop the person from talking. You're not letting them have their say, Speaker 1: (12:35) Well, what if it's just outright name calling? Like it wasn't the presidential debate. I mean, Speaker 3: (12:41) I stopped, but we've had it happen. Um, Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (12:43) Stop that. Sorry. Now I'm interrupting. So you could turn my microphone off, except I have the control today. Speaker 3: (12:48) Yeah, you stop. But the way in which you're interrupting me is I think of you're you're not challenging. You're not trying to stop me from talking. It's not your goal. You're, you're motivated by a question came to your mind based on what I was saying. You were seeking clarification. I think that's perfectly good kind of interruption. So I just want to say that, um, and, uh, the way I stop it is I, um, I can tell you generally what I say is, uh, I did what I saw Susan Page do last night. I say, thank you the first time I say, I say, thank you, your time is up. If the person is running over time and the opening segments. And, um, if they keep going, I start to talk over them so that it becomes pointless for them to continue. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Um, mr. John Donvan - Debate Host: (13:33) Smith, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Your time is up. I'm sorry. Your time is up. That's it? I'm sorry. I don't sit. I don't say thank you. And then say nothing. Um, and, um, we had one debate though, where we really, really had intelligence squared. That's the name of the organization? Intelligence squared us, uh, try to, one of our goals is to, is to, is to demonstrate civility in argument and then the discourse. And so, uh, we're good with argument, but we're not good with incivility and incivility includes name-calling personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and, and that comes up a fair amount. A lot of people are trained to prime to do that as an it's a cheap and easy, uh, way to, uh, to try to debate is to, uh, make fun of your opponent or criticize their character, which just drives me crazy because it's not an argument about the idea. It's, it's a, it's a cheap shot it's and so, so we rule them out when they happen. Um, I stopped the debate. Um, I did it, uh, last week at a debate. I stopped the debate and I, I say, um, um, w you know, that what you just made was a personal attack. And, uh, do you care to withdraw that? And we would appreciate it if you would almost always think every time the person has says, yes, I'm sorry, blah, blah, blah. And one reason I do that. Yeah, Speaker 1: (14:55) No, John, no way in a presidential setting, Speaker 3: (14:59) Do these w would be, you know, Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (15:02) Second term president and would be first term president. They're not going to allow you to interrupt very well. They're not going to withdraw. Trump is certainly not that kind of character, and he's not going to allow you to control. Speaker 3: (15:13) I would do it. The referee at that debate needs to be given power. Should you have electronic power to turn them off? You have the power to turn them off. Absolutely. And you shouldn't have the power to dismiss them from the stage. You should have the power to dock them time. So, uh, you know, Speaker 1: (15:30) It's going to be hard, sorry, jumping in again, because you know, it would be hard to Speaker 3: (15:36) Dismiss president Trump Speaker 1: (15:38) The stage, but I get docking time, I suppose this is very fast. Speaker 3: (15:43) Well, if you, if you, yeah, if you cut off the mic, I mean, it would be a very, very delicate thing. It would be very, very difficult to execute in a way that would not, uh, raise questions about whether the moderator is being fair or unfair, but I think it's doable. I do think it's doable. Um, and I do think that there are times when, you know, if, if Joe Biden were to, to make some claim about the president, that the president truly thinks is untrue. It's just bizarre. And, you know, I know that his, his instinct would be, I don't want to let that continue to be set. I want to stop that thing being said about me right now. I don't want it to get another 40 seconds. I understand that, but that's not what was happening with the president. The president was just trying to shut him down at every stage. John Donvan - Debate Host: (16:29) But what, what I would do with that as a referee with those powers is I would, I would shut off, especially if we gave a two minute timing, I would shut off the other candidates. Mike, during the primary, the speakers two minutes, the other guys, Mike would be cut off. There would be a visible clock, visible to them and visible to the audience showing how much time they had left. It was just tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. And when the time came, there would be a buzzer or a tone. So maybe not something not so obnoxious, but that would be it. And that thing would persist. And then I would say, you've had your two minutes, it's now mr. Bun, mr. Trump, it's now your time. And he would get the same thing. Sure, sure. Speaker 1: (17:13) And he wouldn't be heard on a, he wouldn't be heard on TV because as Mike would be, we'd be, we'd be turned off. So they've just announced, John, you know, and this is changing by the minute. So it may change again that the next, the presidential commission announced the next debate will be virtual. Speaker 3: (17:28) Um, so you can show it off. Biden has said yes. Yeah. Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (17:33) And Trump has said, no, that that's not the way you hold a debate over a computer. Andy said, interestingly enough, when he phoned into Fox, he said, um, th they can cut you off whenever they want. So he has real trouble with it. Speaker 3: (17:47) Yeah. Well, I think it would help. I mean, the bottom line is I think it would help. I don't think the parties would ever agree to it. Um, but, um, you know, I had a debate where I had two debaters. The way we're set up on stage is there there's two tables where the debaters sit and spend most of their time arguing. They stand for certain parts of it for, for the most part, they sit and I'm at a lectern in between them a little bit higher than them, which by the way, is another adjustment I would make. I would not make the moderator, this little tiny figure sitting down in the debaters or standing up. I would put everybody on the same level. It can not be because it's about the moderator. It's not about the moderator, but the moderator needs the ability to moderate. Speaker 3: (18:27) And so these, uh, I was between these two tables and the two guys on opposite sides, both at the inner seats, the right one on my right. And one of my left started arguing with each other and they got very angry at each other. And then they began doing kind of thing back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. And I said, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, and they kept going, they kept going. They couldn't hear me. I don't even think they were ignoring the presidential debate. Yeah. So, and so I left my lectern and I went around to the front of the stage and I turned and faced them and I raised my arms and I said, just stop, just stop. And that stopped them. And then I, and then I returned to my lectern and I said, you know, that's just not the way we're going to do this. Speaker 3: (19:14) It's just not how it's going to be. And, you know, with the, and the audience applauded for the, for the gesture I make, which I think is where ultimately the, you know, the, the, the that's where my authority came from was the audience's support of what I was doing. You know, Chris Wallace doesn't have that, or these debaters don't have that. They, so, so you need to have some kind of moral suasion if you're not going to have actual power, but it stopped that moment. And, um, you know, I do know that there are some people who think that it's great to see people doing that. There are people who watched the Biden, Trump debate and found it very entertaining and, and, and sort of visceral dopamine level kind of exciting. And it was, it is, it is that it's, it's, it's like watching a wrestling match. And to be honest, I don't want to quash all of that too. There's something there's information in that and there's energy and it's it's appealing, but it just wasn't Speaker 1: (20:11) When it gets to the point that there's absolutely no policy being discussed. And it's it's name calling. And, uh, you know, and, and, and in fairness to Biden, I think that he had been criticized by a lot of people before the debate is as you know, sleepy Joe Biden, according to Donald Trump. And he felt he had to stand his ground no matter what, in that debate that he, he couldn't stand back and let Trump embarrass himself, but that he had to go toe to toe on every single exchange. So it, you know, they were kind of set up, uh, for that, uh, you know, brutal kind of machine gunning and forth, Speaker 3: (20:48) Uh, by, you know, a lot of the pre press on the debate and whether Biden could hold his ground. And, uh, you know, I mean, interestingly enough, you know, Trump has turned around and, and again said that Chris Wallace defended Joe Biden, which I don't, I don't think he did. I think Chris Wallace tried to just control it as best he could, but, and he felt a sense of failure at the end of it. Yeah. You mean a, that Chris Wallace felt a sense, Chris, I think Chris Wallace felt this debate and it wasn't, you know, I would too I've um, I, one time earlier in my career, I had that kind of a debate where I felt there was a sense of failure because one person came to, uh, to argue very substantively and had prepared that way. And the other person came with a series of one liners and zingers. Speaker 3: (21:34) And, um, and, and it, it kind of turned into a circle, you know, it was just cheap. It was cheesy. And, uh, and I, at that point was not experienced enough to, uh, to know how to try to a certain myself. I mean, every time I, I have to do this and I, I have to do it a lot, a fair amount. I never know if I'm ultimately gonna, you know, have a Chris Wallace experience, if the person just going to ignore me. But I think at a certain point I'm prepared to, uh, I'm prepared to dismiss a debater from the stage. I've never done it. I've never had to do it. It's never been discussed that I would do it, but, um, ultimately, um, it's, it's, we, we would need to make the point that the civil discourse has a place and needs to be defended and is useful without it being all, you know, policy is just such a policy is an important thing and a really boring sounding word. Speaker 3: (22:32) And, um, um, to me, the ideal debate is one in which the, the personalities of the debaters, their ideas for what is policy, it's what we would do, what we should do. I would want, I would want to express it in terms of the debaters, through their personalities and their convictions and their commitments share with us what they think we should do and what they would do. And that's how I would put it. I would, I would always want to walk around the word policy because it sounds like you have to do your homework. I, uh, interviewed somebody on the Eve of the 2016 Clinton Trump debate, and they said, cool, we'll get to see them under pressure. We'll get to see some flashes of personality, learning, how they would govern, um, in depth, probably not what their ideas are. What they're thinking really is. I think we probably won't learn much at all. And that guy was named John Donvan. And I think you were spot on, on that debate and even this one. Oh, wow. I had no idea, but, uh, you were going to argue with that guy, right? No, I was going to say, Hmm, I should debate that guy. What did you think of the Kamala Harris and Mike debate, different personalities, but, you know, clearly it was a lot more civilized. And I think people got a lot more, Speaker 5: (23:53) The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country. And here are the facts 210,000 dead people in our country. And just the last several months, over 7 million people who have contracted this disease. But I want the American people to know Speaker 3: (24:15) Very first day, president Donald Trump has put the health of America first, Speaker 5: (24:21) Whatever the vice president is claiming the administration has done. Clearly it hasn't worked. And you know, the vice president is the head of the task force. So I have no, but Susan, this is important. And I want to ask mr. Vice president, I'm speaking, I'm speaking. So I want to ask the American people, how come were you when you were panicked about where are you going to get your next roll of toilet paper? How calm were you when your kids were sent home from school and you didn't know when they could go back? How confident are you when your children couldn't see your parents because you were afraid they could kill them. Speaker 3: (24:54) There's not a day gone by that. I haven't thought of every American family that's lost a loved one. You just nailed it. It was more civil. Was it as entertaining? Should it be entertaining? Um, uh, I think we got a very good dose of the difference of their personalities. The question is, does that matter? I suppose it matters if one of them becomes president someday, which is, there's a fair chance of, um, given, uh, given the ages of the tune of the incumbent and the challenger. So I think we got, uh, I got a stronger sense of Mike Pence, his personality than I'd had before. And I would say the same thing with Kamala Harris, a stronger sense of, of her personality. Um, uh, I was very frustrated by, uh, by the, by the, um, Mike Pence is again, not keeping time. Uh, you know, she would give him 15 seconds and he would take 45 seconds and I'm okay with, you know, take 15 seconds, by the way, it is hard to make a, to do a comeback in 15 seconds more realistically should, she'd probably say I can give you 30 seconds to respond on that. Speaker 3: (26:02) And I would understand because the debate did get personal, they did begin to challenge, uh, aspects of each other's past. And the problem with doing that is it's usually the accusation is usually way more complicated than the, than it sounds. And that means that the person who's attacked feels this compulsion to want to correct the record. And they ask for that opportunity. I, you know, you know, Susan Page, I'm sorry, I was just attacked and I need to respond to that. The problem with those attacks is then they go down a rabbit hole for the next two and a half minutes about, did this happen to that happened at some incident in the past. And that's why I would discourage, uh, personal attacks and, and why in our debates when it happens. Um, actually when it happens in our debates and somebody, we did a debate the other day in which, uh, one of the debaters, it was about economics and one of their debaters accused another debater of being stolen. Speaker 3: (26:58) Like, and it was, it was totally out of line. It was meant to be kind of cute and kind of edgy, but the person who was accused of being stolen, like took issue and said, excuse me, I need to go back. And, you know, and, and at that point I stepped in because they were going to go back and forth. And then for the few minutes about whether this one debate or at some point in his life had said something that was stolen, like, and, um, and would use valuable time doing that. So what I said is I said to the person who said it, I would appreciate it. If you would withdraw that remark, would you do that? And the person said, I wouldn't to the person who was attacked. I said, I would appreciate it if you will accept that and let's not talk about it anymore. Speaker 3: (27:40) So it took 30 seconds to resolve something that would have taken two, two and a half minutes. So I've done that before. I've the person who's offended, needs to be also needs to move on and, and to accept that there was a withdrawal. So, um, in the, in the Harrison and pants debate, that happened a fair amount. And, um, and so I found that annoying and, uh, what, what was interesting to me as I had a sense that Pence had more time talking because he ran over the, a lot of time limits many, many, many times, but, uh, according to a CNN, um, analysis, they had equal time within three seconds of each other. I think Penn said more, three seconds more than Kamala Harris. So that was, you know, I got to pay attention to that. That appearances can be deceptive. Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (28:26) It's going to be revealing too, because he talked over her a lot. And a lot of people think that that reveals his attitude towards women and whether that's true or not true, you know, by interrupting and talking over people in the end, you also create an impression that you leave with the audience, right? So Speaker 3: (28:42) Maybe, but I have a feeling he would have talked over an opponent who was a man and Tim, Tim Cain talked over him four years ago, incessantly talked over Pence. And, um, so I, I just think it was more of a, a personal style. And I, uh, I don't think he was trying to rattle her by doing that. I think he was trying, I think, you know, I think it's this thing that they're saying something that's really not true. I need to stop this from continuing to go on. And then, and then Harris, you know, towards the end began to, um, also run over time. She did so extensively on one question, I think about her prosecutorial record. I think that was the one where, where she said, I, you know, Susan, I was attacked Susan, the moderator, I was attacked. I want this time. And she went over probably by at least a minute, which is a chunk of time in a 90 minute debate trying to cover 10 topics. So it wasn't just Pence, but I felt that Pence is interruptions and frequent. Run-over sort of set the tone, something that was a little less sloppy than it should have been. And also frustrating there is that they were just in both of them are just ignoring the questions. All right. Dana Lewis - HOST BACKSTORY: (29:49) Just to wrap this up. I mean, we talked about a lot of stuff that we kind of without getting specific about it, we covered it because we, you talked about time penalties, you talked about the ability to cut Mike's off. Um, do you think that, does America need another two debates? Um, is America gonna survive another two debates with these presidents? And what do you do when one is, will not agree Speaker 3: (30:12) To a format change, which Speaker 1: (30:14) Obviously a lot of people think is critical to making these debates Speaker 3: (30:17) Formative? Um, I don't have much, I hate to say it cause I really believe in any kind of public forum possible. And I, I know people on the presidential debate commission and, uh, or people who have served on it. And, um, you know, that's a whole another story that commission is controlled by the two parties, essentially it's nominally independent. But when I say it's controlled, it's it's members are nominated by the two parties and then Speaker 1: (30:48) It's a bridge for negotiation between the two. John Donvan - Debate Host: (30:51) Okay. That's great. That's a really good way to put it. Um, but the members of the commission, I think take the role very, very seriously and do, try to act independently. They do assert their independence, they claim independence and assert it. So I believe in their efforts to try to make it work. Uh, that said, um, I don't see any need to have a second version, a secondary or a rerun of the Trump Biden debate if it's going to be like that. Um, I'm, I don't think we're going to learn anything and it felt, uh, I don't know, to me it kind of left a, a blemish it's one more blemish on the political process in a, in a season of many blemishes on the political process. No argument, no Speaker 1: (31:32) Argument, John, thank you so much for all your time and perspective. If, and I think a lot of people would now, after hearing you talk about all of the debates, you've moderated, they'd like to go and watch some of them. Where do they see Speaker 3: (31:44) John intelligence squared us has a URL and an app. Um, but if you Google IQ to U s.org, that's IQ, the number two U s.org, um, all of our, so that would be through a web browser. All of our near 180, 185 debates are online. Interestingly, almost all of them. Uh, we've been doing them for a now 14 years, hold up still. And, um, and some, some of them are interesting for having happened 10 years ago. How forward-looking they turned out to be? And we also have an app, uh, IQ T U S debates on the app store and Google play store and the Apple store. So, um, join us. We're on YouTube also. That's great, John Donvan thank you so much. Pleasure. Speaker 1: (32:30) And that's our backstory on presidential and not so presidential debates, please subscribe to backstory. And if you don't mind share our link, your network, Speaker 6: (32:40) We're on every major podcasting platform we are growing and appreciate your support. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Lewis and I'll talk to you again.

[hudsonespie]

Could India Blockade Chinese Trade in the Indian Ocean?

[By Dr. David Brewster]

Last month’s clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Ladakh was the most significant conflict between the two countries since 1967. Despite signs of a partial tactical pullback in some places, there is considerable risk of further confrontations and even escalation along the disputed border. Some have been urging the Indian government to respond to China’s moves in the Himalayas by placing pressure on Beijing in the Indian Ocean. What are India’s options and how likely is it to take such actions?

The Indian Ocean holds a particular place in the India-China strategic relationship. In almost every dimension, whether it be economic, nuclear or the conventional strategic balance along the Line of Actual Control in the Himalayas, India is probably at a considerable strategic disadvantage to China. Only in the Indian Ocean, which includes China’s vital energy routes from the Persian Gulf and Africa, does India have the upper hand.

This has important implications for the strategy dynamic. Decades ago, prominent US Sinologist John Garver argued that in the event of a conflict between the two countries, India might be tempted to escalate from the land dimension, where it may suffer reverses, to the maritime dimension, where it enjoys substantial advantages, and employ those advantages to restrict China’s vital Indian Ocean trade.

In strategic jargon, the Indian Ocean represents “interior lines” for India – where the Indian Navy is close to its own bases and logistics – and “exterior lines” for China, where its navy is operating with limited logistical support, away from home. Strategists tell us that you should meet your adversary in your own interior lines and their exterior lines. (That is the reason the Indian Navy is far from keen to get into any confrontation with China in the South China Sea.)

Short of all-out war, or perhaps an Indian Ocean equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis, any attempt to interfere with trade would be subject to massive pushback from countries around the world.

This vulnerability gives the maritime dimension of the relationship a special significance. For example, the 2012 Non-Alignment 2.0 report by leading Indian strategic thinkers advocates that India should leverage “potential opportunities that flow from peninsular India’s location in the Indian Ocean” as part of an asymmetric strategy towards China.

These considerations have driven the Indian Navy to adopt a strategy of building its naval capabilities near the Indian Ocean chokepoints, particularly around the Malacca Strait, to create an implicit threat of interdiction of China’s sea lines of communication. The navy considers that its previous threats of blockade made against Pakistan in several previous conflicts had a significant impact.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the Ladakh clashes in June, the Indian Navy was placed in a heightened state of alert and reportedly deployed additional ships to sea, although it is not clear precisely where. In recent weeks, Indian naval commentators have suggested that while India would have a difficult time imposing a blockade on Chinese shipping, it should nevertheless consider interdicting Chinese tankers as they pass near India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands, or otherwise deter, delay or divert shipping traffic to and from China.

Others have also noted the potential for Washington to move its carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt into the Malacca Straits/Bay of Bengal area to deter any serious escalation of conflict in the Himalayas. (Which, incidentally, would be an interesting replay of President John F. Kennedy’s decision to send the carrier USS Kitty Hawk to support India during the 1962 Sino-Indian war.)

Sailors aboard aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson greet the Indian navy guided-missile destroyer INS Ranvijay during Exercise Malabar 2012 (US Navy/Flickr)

This has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. According to China’s Global Times, the PLA Navy’s Southern Theatre Command (which has responsibility for China’s operations in the Indian Ocean) responded with naval drills in the South China Sea on 18 June.

Putting aside all this sabre-rattling, what are the realistic options for India (or others) to pressure China’s trading routes in the Indian Ocean?

In fact, some naval analysts are deeply sceptical of the ability of any navy to impose a distant blockade of China in the Indian Ocean. Short of inspecting every ship – which would be a huge task – how could a blockade identify those that are actually headed to Chinese ports? What is to stop ships being rerouted in transit, a common event even in normal times? Even if a blockade could be successfully imposed, could China obtain sufficient energy supplies from other sources (which currently includes an “epic” 73 million barrels of oil reserves floating off the coast of China)? Just as importantly, what is to stop China retaliating with its own blockade or interdictions?

Even more important than these practical considerations, the political and diplomatic costs to India would be enormous. Short of all-out war, or perhaps an Indian Ocean equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis, any attempt to interfere with trade would be subject to massive pushback from countries around the world – including from India’s most important strategic partners.

In short, the Indian Navy might (or might not) have the capability to block Chinese trade through the Indian Ocean, but would Beijing take the threat seriously?

Dr David Brewster is with the National Security College at the Australian National University, where he specialises in South Asian and Indian Ocean strategic affairs. He is also a Distinguished Research Fellow with the Australia India Institute. His previous career was as a corporate lawyer working on complex cross-border transactions and he practiced for almost two decades in the United States, England, France and Australia. 

This article appears courtesy of The Lowy Interpreter and may be found in its original form here. It was produced as part of a two-year project being undertaken by the Australian National Security College on the Indian Ocean, with the support of the Australian Department of Defence.

  from Storage Containers https://maritime-executive.com/article/could-india-blockade-chinese-trade-in-the-indian-ocean via http://www.rssmix.com/

[realyoungdarius]

An Excerpt and the Whole Paper from My Cuban Missile Crisis Essay, Entitled “Thirteen Days” Essay

“The initial reaction to the discovery of the Soviet missile installments was a general consensus among the President’s staff about how the diplomatic consequences of making an error would be too terrible to contemplate. The initial standard operating procedures adopted were to increase the surveillance coverage over Cuba. The initial contingency plan options were to secretly consider the increase of international pressure and to hit Cuba with an air strike before the missiles were operational. The initial thought of an air strike evolved into further considering the military contingencies for an air strike hitting the Soviet installations, the Russians moving against Berlin, and then an attack against Berlin would involve NATO. Getting NATO involved would lead to the beginnings of World War III.”

Above, was an excerpt from my paper on the Cuban Missile Crisis, entitled “Thirteen Days” Essay, in my undergraduate International Relations class:

The whole paper:

““Thirteen Days” Essay

Michael Darius Johnson

POLS 293

“Thirteen Days” Essay

The movie “Thirteen Days” is a docudrama released in 2000, starring Kevin Costner and Bruce Greenwood. It is a two hour and twenty five minute, full feature film, which describes the proceedings of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. The purpose of this essay is to provide a brief synopsis of the situation, describe the initial reactions taken by the President and his staff, describe what the options were for the decision makers, describe the role the advisers played in regard to the decision making, describe what forms of negotiations were observable, describe what the turning point in the conflict was, describe the outcome, and then describe my own impressions of the situation and its outcomes.

What was the situation? (Brief synopsis of the problem)

The story begins when U.S. U-2 surveillance planes took photographs of Soviet missile installations being built without any camouflage in Cuba. Examination of the photos revealed that the missiles were likely SS-4’s, which are medium-range ballistic missiles with a range of 2,000 miles and the capacity to carry a 3 megaton nuclear warhead. The Missiles that were speculated as being installed had the capacity to reach as far as Washington, D.C. within 17 minutes, reach many different cities and military installations, and  could reportedly kill up to 80 million Americans and significantly degrade the retaliatory options of bomber bases. The secret move by the Soviet Union was  a doctrinal shift in Soviet thinking to a first strike policy, which could be a massively destabilizing move for the United States.

What were the initial reactions?

The initial reaction the discovery of the Soviet missile installments was a general consensus among the President’s staff about how the diplomatic consequences of making an error would be too terrible to contemplate. The initial standard operating procedures adopted were to increase the surveillance coverage over Cuba. The initial contingency plan options were to secretly consider the increase of international pressure and to hit Cuba with an air strike before the missiles were operational. The initial thought of an air strike evolved into further considering the military contingencies for an air strike hitting the Soviet installations, the Russians moving against Berlin, and then an attack against Berlin would involve NATO. Getting NATO involved would lead to the beginnings of World War III.

 What were the options for the decision makers?

The decision makers close to the President had a number of options to consider and complex contingency plants to make to coordinate the best possible result, which they wanted to carry out with timeliness and diligence. There was the option of doing nothing, which would be taken as a sign of weakness and would have been taken advantage of. There were the diplomatic and political options, which included informing key members of Congress about the military installation build up and starting diplomatic negotiation by meeting with the Russian ambassador for the removal of the weaponry. There were military options, including surgical air strikes on the missiles, much larger air strikes against anti-air targets and the missiles, a naval blockade which would not allow any more Soviet ships to enter Cuba, and a full scale invasion. Another theory was considered where the air strikes would be followed up by an invasion that could remove all of the missiles and also remove Castro.

What role did the advisers play in regard to the decision making?

Many members of the President’s most senior military advisers found themselves at odds with President Kennedy’s initial lack of decisiveness, which they saw as weakness, incompetence, and a lack of resolve. They saw both John and Bobby Kennedy as holding on to ideology and not initially accepting a pragmatic military solution. Eventually, however, it became apparent how the situation was going to play out and the complex set of contingencies worked toward President Kennedy’s advantage.

After Soviet Ambassador Valerian Zorin denied that there were missiles, but described installations in Cuba as being for defensive purposes, the United States started finalizing their military preparations. President Kennedy started by proposing and signalling a naval blockade into law through an act of Congress, which was dubbed a quarantine. With this blockade in effect, the United States officially started upholding the quarantine that Congress enacted into law.

The announcement by the U.S. government was instantly responded to by the Soviet government, who instantly came out, in outrage, against the measures taken by the United States. This outrage from international leaders prompted UN Security Council discourse, in which Ambassador Adlai Stevenson brought his case before the hearing.

 What forms of negotiation were observable (internal and external)?

With formal external negotiations having little effect, it was the back channel negotiations which had the most effect on the outcome of the crisis. These back channel negotiations were done privately and were strategically conducted diplomatic talks for both sides of the conflict. These diplomatic talks include the negotiation plans laid out with Alexander Fomin, who was presumed to be President Khrushchev’s trusted ally and correspondent for the soviets; they include the letters sent to be read by President Kennedy and his staff, and, eventually, with longtime Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Bobrynin.

What was the turning point?

 The turning point in the story was U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson’s presentation before the United Nations Security Council, in which he confronted the Soviet Union’s permanent representative, Valerian Zorin. Mr. Zorin denied the existence of the missiles and questioned the photograph’s authenticity, but it brought the challenges made by Adlai Stevenson before an international court of opinion that resulted in the diplomatic pressure that the United States needed to force the Soviets to consider back channel negotiations and any solutions to prevent a diplomacy mess from resulting and allowing the threat of war to become a reality.

What was the outcome?

After the deals were struck with longtime Russian Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, the Soviet Union withdrew its missile installations from Cuba, the United States secretly removed its “obsolete” weaponry in Turkey and withdrew from being on the brink of invasion, and the Soviet Union and the United States have not, to this day, been so close to being on the brink of war.

What are your impressions of the situation and its outcome?

Ultimately, the resolution that was made was likely to best course of action that could have been taken with all of the potential pitfalls that could have resulted from alternatives considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, etc. The Cuban Missile Crisis revealed many revelations about the international community’s distaste for nuclear proliferation. When news hit the airways about a potential missile strike and when the international community learned that there could have been a nuclear war, there was new ground being charted in the history of international relations. After sifting through all of the facts, it still seems like the diplomatic consequences were just as potentially “too terrible to contemplate” for both the United States as it was going to be for the Soviet Union if both countries were to go to war (consider mutually assured destruction or MAD). This is especially true since both countries had long wanted to expand their influence with footholds across the international community.

Instructions for writing the essay

Students will not attend class today. Instead, students will view the film “Thirteen Days” about the Cuban Missile Crisis. You will have 4 days in  which to view the film (from 26-29 January–but don’t wait until the last minute!!!) via video on demand. These are the instructions for viewing the video on media site:

To access video clips from Media site click on the following link:

http://mediasite.bsu.edu/bsu40/catalog

Enter your BSU username and password and then click “Sign In”.

Then in the left hand column you will see “My Mediasite Classes” with a plus mark to the left of it.

Click on the plus and then you will see your professor’s name with a plus mark

(click) and then you will see the Class and Section Number of the class you are enrolled in.

Click on the class name and your videos will be displayed in the middle of the screen.

To play one of the clips just click on the title and a second window will open.

Player controls are at the bottom of the screen.

If you have trouble viewing the film, please contact JWHITEMAN@bsu.edu. When you have finished viewing the movie, please write a short essay (due on 29 January) covering the following points:

ESSAY ON “THIRTEEN DAYS”

1.      What was the situation? (Brief synopsis of the problem)

2.      What were the initial reactions?

3.      What were the options for the decision-makers?

4.      What role did the advisers play in regard to the decision-making?

5.      What forms of negotiation were observable (internal and external)?

6.      What was the turning point?

7.      What was the outcome?

8.      What are your impressions of the situation and its outcome?”

[everythingtimeless]

Historical Hour With Hilary: 1x03

If you’re interested on catching up on the earlier installments of this feature, they can be found here. Otherwise, I’m guessing you know the drill by now -- grab your Atomic Cocktail and put on your radiation stunna shades, we’re heading to Las Vegas in 1962 and yes, it actually was that crazy...

This week’s episode showcases the ways in which Timeless takes the time (see what I did there?) to tell stories that aren’t as well known: while the Hindenburg disaster and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln are hugely famous, landing the Time Team in ‘62 Vegas, not in the middle of any particular major event, gives them an opportunity to explore something that most of us probably didn’t know much about beforehand: the United States nuclear program at the height of the Cold War and the strange, strange world of the sixties. And if you’re wondering: yes, Vegas has always been that weird, but what happened there at the height of the Nevada Test Site’s operation didn’t exactly stay there. Established in 1951, about 65 miles northwest of Vegas, the site ran almost constant detonations until above-ground testing was banned (at least technically speaking) in 1963. And as you might expect, the rates of cancer and other diseases in the surrounding areas have been, for many years, a major problem.

The innocent world of the 1960s did not care about such things, however. An information brochure published in January 1955 by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission had this cheery advice for you:

Recovery of people injured by overexposure to radiation depends, as in the case of accidents, burns, or sickness, on the kind of injury and its severity. Many people who were severely injured by bomb radiation in Japan during World War II apparently made good recoveries. The important fact about radiation is that it takes quite a bit of overexposure to cause illness. Only when overexposures are very heavy is recovery problematical.

I don’t know about you, but to me, “don’t worry, some of those people at Hiroshima or Nagasaki were fine!!!” sounds an awful lot like, “don’t worry, not everyone who got the Black Death died!!!” The entire booklet is worth a read-through, because it will give you a sense of how minimal the danger from radiation to civilians was made to appear: both as a combination of limited understanding and purposeful misinformation. (What? you cry, clutching your pearls. The U.S. government lie to us in order to do something legally suspect? Never!) Meanwhile Vegas, always a place on the lookout to make a quick buck, but still a scrappy frontier town in those days, went in whole-hog on its newfound notoriety as “Atomic City.”  The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce published schedules advertising detonation times and the places to get a best view; hotels bragged about windows overlooking mushroom clouds; “Atomic Cocktails” and “Atomic Parties” were big, and “America’s Only Atomic-Powered Singer,” performing early gigs in Vegas in the 50s, was a kid from Tupelo, Mississippi named Elvis Presley.  Seriously, go look at some of these pictures, but you might want to take a hazmat suit along with you. (Also look at some of these. It was a strange time. Though, given the existence of the National Atomic Testing Museum in modern-day Vegas, I’d say they’re still doing it.)

Furthermore, in 1962, the U.S government wasn’t just shooting off bombs in the middle of the desert for the hell of it. The Cuban Missile Crisis came very, very close to ending the world for 13 days in October 1962, and Sergei Khruschev’s account of it makes for terrifying reading; as the son of Nikita, he was present at the Kremlin throughout all of it and offers an insider’s view of the Russian side of the crisis, crediting U.S. President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khruschev with, basically, saving the world from annihilation. At one point, nuclear war was less than a half-hour away, and the crisis was only backed down by Kennedy and Khruschev negotiating personally. (And then America and Russia never had any rivalry again and there were no more nuclear tensions, especially now that we have two unhinged megalomaniacs in charge of both countries... sleep tight, kiddies!) Sergei Khruschev’s perspective is a bit of an antidote to the highly politicized, American-nationalist, “Red Scare” view of the missile crisis that obtained both in 1962 and for many years after, and he remarks, “The press further inflamed emotions; the country lost its bearings; and the Cuban Missile Crisis became primarily an American psychological crisis” -- with which, I think, one must tend to agree with him. In the finale, the Time Team ends up in 1954 at the height of McCarthyism, less than ten years before the events of this episode, and we can see how fear of a supposedly all-powerful enemy was used to justify a massive civil rights crackdown and baseless persecution of any citizen who might be working for it. Boy, good thing we never did that again either!

In 1963, as a result of post-Missile Crisis diplomatic actions, the Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed, prohibiting above-ground nuclear testing (though it didn’t achieve full enforcement until 1980). It’s important to remember, however, that nuclear testing completely decimated the island and lives of those on Bikini Atoll, the Pacific test site, and most of the Nevada Test Site is, in fact, located on sacred Native American grounds. Its history has often been shrouded in secrecy, but if you want to read the very, very long list of the full tests conducted between 1945 and 1992, knock yourself out.

In this episode, we also meet Judith Campbell, one of JFK’s (many, many) mistresses and a considerably enigmatic figure; she claimed to be the mistress of multiple high-ranking Mob bosses as well as JFK’s, and to serve as a point of contact between them, but changed her story several times. She also claimed to have been part of negotiations between Kennedy and the Mob to kill Castro, which, given Kennedy’s obsession with killing Castro, aren’t all that out of the question. Kennedy’s own legacy has become controversial; generally admired for his work on civil rights and the Cold War, his constant extramarital affairs, bad health, and driving political ruthlessness and obsessions, have called into question some of the glow around his halo. Modern biographies range from sharply critical to more even-handed, though they tend to agree that Kennedy’s “Camelot” -- like, one may remark, “Atomic City” -- was a glittering illusion of the 1960s, which warrants a careful and critical look today. At the same time, the Department of Depressed Historians will pour you an “Oh My God We’re Doing Exactly the Same Shit All Over Again” drink (Atomic Cocktail optional). Cheers.

Next week: Big party with the Nazis! This should go well!

[abbybowcutuvu]

Motivations for U.S. Sponsored Invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs (Best Work I’ve Written)

Introduction

In 1961, a unique action was taken by the United States government at the beginning of John F. Kennedy’s presidency. A pre-emptive action against a rising communist leader close to home was initiated in secret and ultimately failed. This project involves discovering what would motivate the United States to order an operation carried out by the CIA against Cuba, attempting to overthrow Fidel Castro, resulting in the Bay of Pigs Fiasco.

This case is extremely unique because it involves a regional hegemon that was by far the most powerful in the America’s and a small neighboring country. However it is more complicated because decisions made here by U.S. statesmen were influenced by the Soviet Union in the beginnings of a long cold war. The United States embarrassingly failed in a secret mission that went against typical U.S. foreign policy at the time. This case is also unique because it involves heads of state as well as members of United States intelligence agencies.

The goal of this paper is to explore different political theories to search for an explanation of why the United States government would attempt to overthrow Castro’s regime at this time. Examining work done by John Mearsheimer, Robert Gilpin, and Charles Kupchan will do this. These authors may help in finding the best explanation for the United State’s decision. In discovering the best explanation we can better understand the importance of the event and the way it shaped relations with Cuba, the Soviet Union, and future events in the Cold War. We will find that even though the country of Cuba is a small country with little power, it plays a big part in the larger international system.

History

In 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt had initiated the ‘Good Neighbor Policy’ in which the United States would practice non-interference in Latin America. After FDR’s death the United States slowly implemented imperialism again in the region mostly due to the rise of communism (Higgins). In February of 1960 President Eisenhower refused to meet with the newly appointed Prime Minister Fidel Castro when he visited the United States. Instead he met with the Vice President Nixon. In 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy spoke about Cuba on the campaign trail. He blamed the Eisenhower administration for Fidel Castro’s anti-Americanism. In his book The Strategy of Peace, he said if Eisenhower had given “the fiery young rebel a warmer welcome in his hour of triumph, especially on his trip to this country,” Castro might not have turned to the communists. However, once he was president himself Castro was considered a major threat that was the big task their administration needed to deal with.

The Bay of Pigs was a clear move to contain communism in Latin America.  The United States was leading an anti-communism movement and to have a developing communist country so close to home was a threat to Latin America and the Caribbean and therefore stability in the Americas as a whole. Tension with the communist Soviet Russia and Nikita Khrushchev were rising and for them to have an ally so close to the United States was a threat to national security.

The Director of Central Intelligence at the time Allen Dulles “presented an agency proposal for sabotage of sugar refineries in Cuba” (Gleijeses). Eisenhower wanted a more aggressive plan. Mr. Dulles returned with a task forced called WH/4. The actions needed to be kept quiet and preferably unattached to the White House so that the Russians would not retaliate. So far 3000 guerillas had begun to be trained by the CIA in Guatemala.

The plan was not developed very much further before the new President John Kennedy was in control. Eisenhower briefed Kennedy on Cuba during both of their transition meetings. Notes from their meetings say that Eisenhower “pushed strongly for Kennedy to continue what his administration had started in Guatemala” and that “it was his responsibility to do whatever is necessary to follow it through” (Friedman). When the time came for President Kennedy to make a decision about whether to go through with the operation Eisenhower had started, he decided to authorize the plan and move aggressively. There was now a fine line they had to walk to carry this out. The United States could not be seen as being involved in this or else risk retaliation from Russia but action needed to be taken by the new president to not appear weak and to eliminate upcoming threats of communism in their neighboring regions.

Kennedy’s close advisors were briefed on Cuba including Secretary of State Rusk, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and Deputy Secretary of State Chester Bowels. There was some pushback from McNamara and Rusk who raised concerns about the CIA’s plan (Friedman). They were concerned that this plan would not be capable of overthrowing Castro and cutting through the Organization of American States would be a bad political move (Higgins). There were concerns over reactions from the United Nations and in general, there were moral concerns about this kind of operation. Senator Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was against the operation saying, “it was the wrong thing for the U.S. to get involved in” (Time). It is with no doubt that this failure led to the increased arms build-up in Cuba and soon led to the most pivotal moment in the cold war, the Cuban Missile Crisis. This was the closest the two countries ever came to nuclear war. The Bay of Pigs is essential to the story of the cold war and current US-Cuban relations today.

John Mearsheimer

The first theory I will be exploring to possibly explain the reason why the Bay of Pigs happened is John J. Mearsheimer’s theory of Offensive Realism that he writes about in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.  John Mearsheimer falls among structural realists but is critical of other schools of realism. His coined term offensive realism has specific characteristics in terms of power and the behavior of states in the international system.

Offensive realism suggests that because of the state of anarchy that we exist in, great powers will always look for opportunities to gain power and position themselves better in the international system. The international structure will fall into several different types of systems. There may be a single regional hegemon (the most stable of all the systems), a bipolar system, a balanced multipolar system, and an unbalanced multipolar system (the most unstable of the systems) (Mearsheimer).

National security is enhanced when military capability is distributed so that no state is strong enough to dominate the rest. Mearsheimer stresses that the balance of power theory is important to offensive realism and how states behave in the international system. When there is a rising state or hegemon other larger powers will form alliances and balance themselves against them. Therefore balancing is defined as allying with others against the prevailing threat while another term ‘bandwagoning’ states have aligned with the threat. This is usually only done when balancing is not an option. States may also buck-pass. This is when states will allow another state to take care of an emerging threat and avoid having to expend resources on solving the issue. These state behaviors can be applied to all conflicts according to Mearsheimer. Major states that are involved in the changing of the international system will follow one of these patterns.

   Offensive realism also suggests that land force is the dominant military power and they should seek military superiority as well as nuclear. Mearsheimer claims that states do not like to live in a MAD world but would rather strive for nuclear dominance. States should also maximize their wealth because wealth is the foundation for military might. It is the best form of latent power (along with a sufficient population to support it.) Power according to Mearsheimer is extremely important. A country may have latent power which would be sufficient population and wealth but will stay latent if not used properly, meaning used to build their military which is the most important form of power.

   For a state to achieve global hegemony is impossible according to Mearsheimer. The stopping power of water prevents this so a state can only hope to achieve regional hegemony and to be the only one existing. It is too difficult to project your power across oceans and therefore impossible to be a global hegemon. However when considering nuclear weapons it is possible to be a global hegemon with considerable nuclear superiority and technology. Living in a bipolar world is also very dangerous so the regional hegemon should work to keep other potential regional hegemons from rising (Mearsheimer).

Application of Mearsheimer:

Mearsheimer would analyze the United States and the Soviet Union as black boxes and subsequently you could view democracy vs. communism in this way. Cuba isn’t a great power but when looking at the bigger picture with the Soviet Union, we can see the United States’ actions can still be explained with offensive realism. By the 1960s the United States is in an increasingly more difficult position as the Soviet Union’s power increases and their reign as the regional hegemon is being threatened.

In terms of measuring power at this time, the Cuban population in 1960 was just over 7 million compared to the United States’ 180 million. It is difficult to get information on Cuban gross national product in 1960 but based on numbers we do have in 1970 it can be estimated that it would be no more than 6 billion USD versus the United States’ 543 billion USD at the same time. According to Mearsheimer Cuba would not be a primary contender as his explanations deal strictly with great powers. The Soviet Union’s population was 120 million at the time. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had a large population, wealth, land and military power. Whether the U.S. had more power or not is not exceptionally important according to Mearsheimer. The military is extremely important and because of the stopping power of water neither country can be incredibly threatening to the other. Nuclear domination is something to worry about but because neither country had a sufficient nuclear advantage over the other this was also not incredibly threatening.

The United States is still the regional hegemon but as such they need to be cautious of rising powers in other regions so as to avoid a bi-polar system which is a more threatening position to be in. A bi-polar system is not the most threatening. An unbalanced multi-polar system is very problematic; however, states are still striving for maximum power and the most secure position to be in is the only regional hegemon. As communism starts rising in Latin America before the attempted overthrow of Fidel Castro, Mearsheimer would argue that the United States would be nervous about possible relationships growing here that could enable a country like Cuba to act as an offshore balancer against the United States. This would strengthen the Soviet Union’s position in the international system as a possible new regional hegemon.

The stopping power of water will avoid the Soviet Union from being able to invade and directly threaten such a powerful country as United States across such a large ocean; however, states are always striving to gain the most power and place themselves in the best position and that position is to be the only regional hegemon. With the Soviet Union gaining power and now influence so close to the United States this puts them in an more vulnerable position. Cuba in particular plays an important part in this story as a potential offshore balancer against the United States (Mearsheimer).

Robert Gilpin

Another school of thought on global politics is that of cyclical theories surrounding hegemonies and the problem of their declines. Robert Gilpin explains the hegemonic stability theory in his book, War and Change in World Politics. According to Gilpin all of history can be understood through the cycles of hegemonic rise and decline. Gilpin takes on a different approach to the school of realist thought in international relations. “International relations continue to be a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy” (Gilpin). This will be the second theory to explain the Bay of Pigs. Gilpin’s writing is based on the hegemonic stability theory. This theory argues that the international system is to remain stable when a single nation-state is the dominant world power or hegemon. Thus the decline or fall of the existing power leads to international instability. A hegemon can use its preponderance of power to influence the international system in its favor. The hegemon provides public goods such as setting up international political economic and security systems over time. The system is a collective good and there is a problem of ‘free riders’. The hegemon will champion their values and try to incentivize other states to follow their system. This is not sustainable, as the hegemon doesn’t have the resources to keep providing for other states as well as their population. After some time after new technologies and economies develop other states rise and the hegemon’s power is threatened. Therefore, as the hegemon declines and another nation that has the wealth and population grows to take its place. The international system only changes when a hegemonic war takes place and this happens when a hegemon is in decline and another state challenges the system and wants to create its own rules.    

Robert Gilpin discusses costs, benefits, and profitability in relation to states An international system is stable (in a state of equilibrium ) if no state believes it profitable to attempt to change the system. He lays out a framework for understanding political change:

“1. An International system is stable (i.e., in a state of equilibrium) if no state believes it profitable to attempt to change the system. 2. A state will attempt to change the international system if the expected benefits exceed the expected costs ( if there is an expected net gain). 3. A state will seek to change the international system through territorial, political, and economic expansion until the marginal costs of further change are equal to or greater than the marginal benefits. 4. Once an equilibrium between the costs and benefits of further change and expansion is reached, the tendency is for the economic costs of maintaining the status quo to rise faster than the economic capacity to support the status quo. 5. If the disequilibrium in the international system is not resolved, then the system will be changed, and a new equilibrium reflecting the redistribution of power will be established” (Gilpin).

Gilpin’s theory on international relations is different than the balance of power theory and Mearsheimer’s arguments. The system will naturally tend to seek equilibrium and hegemonic wars will break out in times when the system is not in equilibrium. The stronger and more decisive the hegemonic war is, the more stable the international system will be post-war. The cycle of a rise and decline in a hegemony marked by war will continue to happen throughout time. The historical record of the hegemonic stability theory is as follows: Portugal 1494 to 1580, Holland 1580 to 1688, Britain 1688 to 1792, Britain 1815 to 1914, and the United States 1945 to 1971.

Application of Gilpin:

According to Robert Gilpin’s story of equilibrium and disequilibrium, the U.S. would be the hegemon at this time following the last major change in the international system, World War II. The U.S. had been providing public goods and influencing the system in it’s favor. According to Gilpin, the system will change when a state finds that the expected benefits will exceed the costs. The Soviet Union’s economy had been growing since their low at World War II and their rise led to an increasingly bi-polar international system. This instability led to many crises’ that made up the Cold War. States around the world were prescribing to communism or democracy following in the footsteps of the U.S. and Soviet Union.

As tensions between the United States and their Latin American neighbors grew, the Soviet Union’s influence in the region grew as well. When Fidel Castro overthrew Cuban President Fulgencio Batista and started spreading an Anti-American message as well as promoting socialism, U.S. president Eisenhower decided that he should be overthrown and gave the task to the CIA. This is in line with Gilpin’s explanation as the U.S. acting as the hegemon would strive to have as much power and influence as possible, attempting to resolve the disequilibrium and reduce Soviet influence around the world and especially right next door. Gilpin’s theory does a sufficient job at explaining the rationale for the U.S. attempting to overthrow Castro’s newly established regime. Growing disequilibrium in the system incentivizes the hegemon to act to re-stabilize the system to expand its power so much so that the costs for other states to challenge the system outweighs the benefits. Gilpin outlines environmental factors that influence change:

“..factors such as economic growth and demographic change are among the most important forces underlying international political change. A steady rate of economic growth or a population shift may be the most significant cause of political change over the long term. Frequently, however, the triggering mechanism for change may be major technological, military, or economic changes that promise significant gains to particular states or major losses to other states in an international system” (Gilpin).

Gilpin’s explanation here fits well with what was going on with the larger powers at hand (U.S. and the Soviet Union), leading up to this event but doesn’t really explain Cuba. Cuba was facing a regime change and revolution not major technological military or economic changes. However, the focus of this paper is on the United States’ decision to oust Fidel Castro.

The United States was attempting to act carefully in the case of Fidel Castro. They didn’t want new and possibly worse leaders to spawn in his place. “The United States had to be sure that a new government acted in America’s interests” (Jones). Gilpin would explain that as the hegemon, the United States will attempt to gain as much power as possible and control the international system. It is the hegemons job to keep the order they have established.

An important part of Gilpin’s story is also that the hegemon will provide public goods. These public goods can be economic/political institutions, democratization, trade, protection etc. Part of their motivation to change the Castro regime would be to keep good relations in the area and most importantly spread democracy.

Charles Kupchan

In his book The Vulnerability of Empire, Charles Kupchan offers an alternative explanation for the rise and fall of empires, specifically in the self-defeating behaviors that states participate in. He shows how states respond to changes in the international system by pursuing strategies that strengthen their security. Kupchan makes the argument that the states perception of national vulnerability drives them to these behaviors. A states’ vulnerability as well as their current status (rising, or declining) plays an important part in their behaviors as well as strategic culture and beliefs from statesmen (Kupchan).

According to Kupchan, when a state has low vulnerability, the elites of the state believe that there are no imminent threats to the core or that if there were threats, they would have the resources to deal with them. If a state has high vulnerability, they don’t have the resources to deal with impending threats to the core. The elites recognize this and concerns of their reputation are high. Whether the state is rising or declining in relation to their vulnerability can predict a state’s behavior:

1. Low vulnerability–declining power: deterrence in the core and recovering resources from the periphery. The state will retract in this case. They do have resources and have no need to build up a reputation. They will retract in order to build up the core to hold on to as much power as possible.

2. Low vulnerability—rising power: The state will decide to deter or compel. The state will not over expand. They want to avoid states balancing against them.

3. High vulnerability—rising power: The state will compel in both the core and the periphery. The state will want to demonstrate as much power as they can to mislead others.  Strategic culture will drive expansion.

4. High vulnerability—declining power: The state will choose to accommodate and deter. They will want to appear to be stronger than they are to save their reputation. If they make the periphery look strong the core will appear strong as well even though it is not. The empire is important to the strategic culture of the nation (Kupchan).

   The elites of states adopt strategic beliefs about long-term security, strengths, and military strategies such as compellence, deterrence, and accommodation. Strategic beliefs refer to a statesman’s foreign policy positions as well as their perceptions on the state’s position in the international system and how the statesman believes they should behave.

   Another element Kupchan spends time with is strategic culture. This is the culture of the nation and how they perceive the actions of the heads of state. Their reactions to current events and opinions on the behavior of the state’s they live in make up strategic culture. This can most certainly affect the elite’s strategic beliefs and help direct their actions. Just as the strategic culture can influence statesmen, the statesmen can influence the strategic culture using their influence as a leader and the control of information as well as propaganda campaigns.

Changing policy and direction can be difficult depending on the type of government, the transparency that exists, and the distribution of power within a state. Kupchan explains that it can be difficult for leaders to carry out actions that oppose the strategic culture or make rapid changes in reaction to a changing system if the state’s system is structured for a slow change in culture.

Application of Kupchan

When analyzing Charles Kupchan’s work we can compare his explanations to that of the example of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Kupchan would have described the United States at this time as being a not vulnerable, rising state. This would mean that he would expect the United States to deter or compel in both the periphery and the core. They will be cautious of overexpansion but will want to demonstrate their power to others. This is in alignment with their behaviors at this time. The use of force in the case of the attempted overthrow of the Castro regime is the United States compelling in the periphery because of their capabilities to do so and their vulnerable position in the international system. Initially, “Esterline prepared to organize Cuban exiles into paramilitary agent teams for covert entry into Cuba. Where they would commence intelligence, propaganda, political action, sabotage and guerrilla warfare activities.” (Hawkins).

   Strategic culture is an important analysis in the reason the United States invaded Cuba at this time. “Kennedy said that operations would have to be conducted in such a way that U.S involvement would be plausibly deniable” (Hawkins). The CIA and Kennedy working together to overthrow Castro are walking a fine line at this time, pressured by strategic culture and their strategic beliefs. The American cultural beliefs at the time included the spread of democracy but the assassinations of heads of state were frowned upon. This kind of force used against countries that didn’t agree with you was seen as a bit authoritarian. This kind of operation against Cuba went against American values and turned out to be extremely unpopular later when details came out about the Bay of Pigs about 15 years later. Ethical questions about a democracy implementing regime changes in this way were certainly raised after this failure. Gilpin’s explanation of strategic culture is a good one for explaining why the Kennedy Administration chose to appear to be not involved with the operation at all.

   Strategic beliefs explain why the Kennedy Administration chose to go forward with Eisenhower’s directions for the CIA in the first place. Despite opposition between Kennedy and his close advisors he went along with it anyways. “Senator William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, denounced the proposition out of hand: it was the wrong thing for the U.S. to get involved in”, “what bothered them was the ‘immorality’ of masked aggression” (Time). The Secretary of State Dean Rusk feared the operation claiming that it appeared to be too much like an invasion and that it would provoke the Soviet Union into action against them in Berlin (Hawkins). Kennedy was eager to make an impression early into his presidency as an aggressive leader in the cold war. He went ahead with the covert action that he hoped would work because “it was his first opportunity to strike a real blow at the Communist world when to do otherwise would be an admission to defeat having serious long-range consequences” (Jones).

Comparisons

When analyzing the explanations the three authors would have made in the case for the American supported Cuban invasion at the Bay of Pigs, I found that all of them adequately explained the event but that Charles Kupchan’s analysis of self-defeating behaviors empires experience is the most comprehensive. While John Mearsheimer’s offensive realism can explain the event, at times it doesn’t quite fit with the reality of the statesmen’s decisions. Mearsheimer chooses to ignore states like Cuba in his theories. He would care to analyze the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and see Cuba as an insignificant player in the Cold War. Mearsheimer would analyze the U.S. and the Soviet Union as black boxes and while looking at the bigger picture can oftentimes explain an event, it is sometimes the smaller details and factors of the situation that better explain it. The structure of the international system does explain the bigger events of the cold war but fails to adequately explain the particular details of the Bay of Pigs. Mearsheimer chooses not to look into the inner relationships of the leaders of the United States and the CIA, the American people, and Fidel Castro. Robert Gilpin’s theory argues that the international system will remain stable when a single nation-state is the dominant world power or hegemon. His theory adequately explains the instability of the Cold War but again does not attempt to look at the smaller details of the Bay of Pigs. However, Gilpin does do a better job at looking at specifics than Mearsheimer. A strong point of Gilpin’s argument is that of the hegemon’s duty to provide public goods. This is a good explanation as to why the United States would care so much about Cuba. Gilpin’s argument while still looking more broadly does narrow in on the story more than Mearsheimer. The biggest weakness of both Mearsheimer and Gilpin’s explanations is that they are too broad and doesn’t attempt to explain internal factors that may change behaviors of states. “Obviously these assumptions are abstractions from a highly complex political reality. They do not describe the actual decision processes of statesmen, “ (Gilpin, 11). So while these realist theorists don’t meticulously explain the events at hand they don’t really intend to, which is why I believe Kupchan does a more extensive and detailed explanation of the events. Kupchan narrows in on multiple individual factors that explain the self-defeating behaviors of states. A state's vulnerability and their status is extremely important in how statesmen choose to interact in the international system. State’s strategic culture and beliefs from statesmen also play a large role in this. Kupchan’s explanation looks at the big picture of state’s statuses and how they stack up in the international system as well as smaller details that truly have a place in explaining events. States’ vulnerability and whether they are rising and declining is different than how Mearsheimer and Gilpin would explain states. Mearsheimer only analyses great powers and values them all as the same. It does not matter to Mearsheimer that one great power may be rising and vulnerable and another may be declining and not vulnerable. Gilpin would also only focus on the hegemon and how much more or less powerful it is in comparison to the other states in the system. Though Kupchan has demonstrated that out of the four possibilities the states can be categorized as, their behaviors will change drastically. This is why Kupchan provides the most comprehensive explanation. The details of the state as well as the cultures of both the people and the government all play a role in determining how a state will proceed. Kupchan’s explanation in the case of the Bay of Pigs accurately explains why Kennedy authorized the invasion and why it was a failure. The state’s vulnerability and status at the time explains why Kennedy authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion and the strategic culture and strategic beliefs explains the aftermath and the failure it became.

Policy Implications

Policy implications in regards to the Bay of Pigs fiasco is important because the United States ultimately failed at what they intended on doing and as perplexing as that is, future leaders can take care to remember vital mistakes made in the decision to carry out the attack. The most immediate impact of the Bay of Pigs was that it soured America-Cuban relations to a new low; their relations stayed nearly this bad until just recently. The Bay of Pigs invasion embarrassed the United States and complicated relations between the new President Kennedy and his intelligence services and the United States moved to more covert methods of trying to dispose of Castro. Soviet Union and Cuban relations were strengthened and the Soviet Union stepped in and sent weapons to Cuba and build up their nuclear arms in the area so close to the U.S., ultimately leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This case is important because it is a complicated and unique situation that involved many actors in the United States elite affecting major events and outcomes in the Cold War. The Bay of Pigs is critical for understanding how the Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded and understanding the development of the relations between the states involved in the Cold War. Being able to understand the culture of the people of the United States as well as the statesmen and leaders can better explain the events that unfolded and the decisions that were made that resulted in these events. Today’s leaders should pay close attention to strategic culture in making moves to compel or deter.

This case is important to the class because it can provide answers to the course’s four main questions. The first question is what factors shape and constrain states, actors, governments, or individuals in the international system. From the example of the Bay of Pigs we can deduce that factors such as strategic culture, strategic beliefs, the status and position of the state can shape the actions of the elites. The second question being, how can one explain recurring patterns in history? Again, using the factors determined before we can possibly explain recurring patterns and foresee how states behave based on Kupchan’s ideas on the state. The Bay of Pigs provides a good scenario of state’s behavior to help shape how we can explain these recurring patterns and behaviors in history. The third question is why do states, actors, governments, or individuals make suboptimal or self-defeating policy decisions? The Bay of Pigs and Charles Kupchan provides a possible answer to this question. States make policy decisions based on the factors we have discussed and if a statesmen perceives something wrong it can lead to poor decisions that later seem self-defeating. The last question the course seeks to answer is, as good social scientists, what is our best prediction about the likelihood of increasing cooperation or conflict in the coming decades? My analysis of Charles Kupchan’s work as a possible explanation for the Bay of Pigs can predict the steps statesmen can take in analyzing their position in the international system and measuring factors that can determine the steps the state should take for optimal success.

This case is relevant today because while we are not in the same circumstances, similar things are happening around the world today. There are tensions between the United State’s president and his intelligence services as well as nuclear and ideological tensions between the United States and a small power that can draw parallels from Cuba: North Korea. In the case of Cuba, luckily the Cuban Missile Crisis ended peacefully but the Bay of Pigs should serve as an important reminder to leaders today of how they compel and carry out relations with nearby small countries that could ally with a more powerful enemy.

Bibliography

Friedman, Rebecca. "Crisis Management at the Dead Center: The 1960-1961 Presidential Transition and the Bay of Pigs Fiasco." Presidential Studies Quarterly 41.2 (2011): 307-333.

Gilpin, Robert. War & Change in World Politics. New York City: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Gleijeses, P. "Ships in the Night: The CIA, the White House, and the Bay of Pigs." Journal of Latin American Studies 27.1 (1995).

Hawkins, Jack. "An Obsession with Plausible Deniability Doomed the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion from the Outset." Military History 15.3 (1998): 12-17.

Higgins, Trumbull. The Perfect Failure: Kennedy, Eisenhower, and the CIA at the Bay of Pigs. Ontario: Penguin Books Canada Ltd., 1987.

Jones, Howard. The Bay of Pigs. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Kupchan, Charles. The Vulnerability of Empire. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tradegy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2003.

Time. "How the Cuban Invasion Failed." Time 78.9 (1961): 16-18.