Blaming Khrushchev for the Cuban Missile Crisis Is Wrong

Blaming khrushchev for the Cuban missile crisis is wrong, for it is kennedy who precipitated the crisis and no one else. Cuban missile crisis does not consist only the placement of missiles in cuba , but also the things before it, cubas nationalization of industries ,like the bop, the embargoes , the soviet giving of aid to ussr, Subject: outbreak / origins of the Cuban missile crisis Focus: role of superpower involvement Timeframe : 1959 to 1962 Keyterms to note: precipitation of crisis Arguments 1. Khrushchev was to be blamed as well as kennedy 2. Only krushchev should be blamed The personalities of who was to be blamed for the Cuban missile crisis can be traced as one looks at the events in th1950s which led to Cubas deteriorating relations with the USA and its subsequent alignment with the USSR, which led to the placement of missiles in Cuba and the consequent tensions that followed. This relations has its origins in the quest for self interest by newly elected leader, Fido Castro, as while as search for national security by both superpowers from the tension passed down from the cold war in Europe ( qualify). Kennedys search for national security precipitated the crisis when his search translated into actions that directly went against Cuba and pushed Cuba away from the US and into support of the USSR. Kennedy failed to consider that Castros intention to establishing diplomatic relations with the USSR was not to antagonize the US or threaten its national security but mostly for economic benefits. ( the US had earlier refused to grant a loan to Cuba and there were continuing disputes over American property in Cuba). This failure to interpret events correctly led US on its intense quest for national security by instituting economic embargoes on Cuba and direct intervention as seen in the Bay of Pigs invasion. However, such actions were needlessly aggressive for its national security was not threatened in the first place. This however caused a deep rift in the US-soviet relations which was an opportunity for USSR to gain a foothold in the Caribbean ; and thus allowed the opportunity for issiles to be placed on Cuba and arising to the tensions that followed. Khrushchev had a part to play in the Cuba missile crisis as well because his action of giving aid to Cuba, a traditional backyard of the USSR, further fuelled the already intense mistrust the US had of the USSR; eventually cumulating in the Cuban missile crisis, leaving Cuba on the edge of brinkmanship. The role of Castro in starting economic reforms directly affecting American industries also contributed to the US suspicions in the crisis. His actions of turning to the USSR for economic aid ( even though he was not communist) also reinforced US perceptions, and his final agreement for missiles to be placed in Cuba (although he knew the implications of doing so) was the ultimate trigger for USs knee-jerk response and the subsequent tensions that followed. Kennedys misinterpretation of Castros actions ( aligning close to the USSR)-as threatening its national security- stemmed from his perception of monolithic communist aggression and the loss of china to communism. communism expousedeventual showdown and triumph over capitalism. Communism has already extended to parts outside Europe such as China, and as such national insecurity has grown; thus the need to safeguard their national security. This misinterpretation of Castros actions , coupled with Kennedys inexperience in dealing with world affairs, caused the US to embark on its quest for national security through economic embargoes on Cuba the initial bay of pigs as a direct intervention . However, such actions were needlessly aggressive for its national security was not threatened in the first place when castros intentions were for economic benefits rather than to deliberately antagonize the US. Furthermore, due to his inexperience,Instead of turning to diplomatic action, kennedy set on the institution of a military solution (With the aim was to oust Castro from power and to reverse the effects of the reforms) caused Castros fear of more direct American intervention ( demonstrated by the case of Guatamalan) and the desire for military protection in anticipation of it and to seek protection from future efforts to unseat his revolution. This further motivated Castros shift to the USSR and his subsequent nationalizing of American owned industries, banks, etc, which created the conditions for the Cuban missile crisis to happen. Castros shift to the USSR directly coincided with Khrushchevs quest for a successful foreign policy and need to address nuclear strategic imbalance. Khrushchevs search for USSRs national security could be traced from the need to spread the Solidarity movement worldwide, to extend communist zeal into Cuba so that there would be countries supporting USSR and its line of communism. his need aroused due to events like the humiliation of the Berlin wall and the failed ultimatum over berlin, where the credibility of krushchev (in narrow terms) and Khrushchev( in broad terms) was lost. Krushchev also believed that it was right for soviets to extend their influence into the backyard of the us since the US has extended their influence in Europe. khrushchevwas aware of the weakness of Soviet weakness in terms of the number of nuclear warheads and missiles. Given the weakness of Soviet nuclear capability , placing missiles on cuba could be a quick solution to addressing the strategic imbalance. Khrushchev also had an overtly simplistic view that he must return the same medicine the us had been administering in turkey with the jupiter and thor missiles. thus his action of sending missiles to Cuba. However, the US did not see developments in the way that the USSR did. The US saw the placement of missiles as a provocative and aggressive threat to US security, given that the Soviet missiles could reach major US cities on the eastern coast. The fact that the US had seen Soviet tendencies to lead to aggression against the capitalists from the soviet testing of the atomic bomb, the collaboration with stalin during the nazi soviet pact, and the confrontational Berlin Blockade led the US to think that not only was Cuba turning communist ( that the USSR had indeed extended her sphere of influence and Cuba was a breeding ground for states hostile to the US, followed by states within Latin america), but the placement of missiles would mean a high probability of a pre-emptive first strike from the USSR . Put together with the fact that any changes with the political status qup (with US as a leading political power) would severely undermine the credibility of kennedy and america, and how the US was not prepared to forsake economic interests in Latin America where western Europe can overcome its dollar shortage and pursue economic revival, atop of its search for national security, the uss response was to choose a quarantine. alsothey to produce plans for an American invasion of Cuba and put all American bases around the world on high alert with the expectation that an American nvasion of cuba would provoke a soviet response in Europe. This equated to the intensification of the nuclear arms race when clearly it was dangerous; and led the countries to be on the edge of mutually assured destruction. as it reached crisis level It threatened the existence of the entire world. While it is undeniable that the issue that kickstarted the intensification of the nuclear arms was the soviet placem ent of missiles in cuba, it should be noted that both superpowers played a part in their quest for national security and self-interest. Kennedys perception of monolithic communist aggression led it to its attempts to try to cripple Cuba to prevent it from posing any threat to the US national security through the institution of actions that were needlessly hostile towards Cuba, causing it to turn to the USSR. This granted the USSR the opportunity to place its missiles there to address nuclear strategic parity and to spread the zeal of communism to safeguard its national security; which was again viewed as aggression by the US. This led to the oncoming of the Cuban missile crisis, where the nuclear arms race threatened the existence of the entire world.

The Coming Anarchy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The Coming Anarchy - Essay Example Kaplan argues that all these developments which are a result of natural resource scarcity and overpopulation will lead to a global anarchy where war and crime are indistinguishable. Kaplan cites loss of power of central governments, political borders becoming obsolete and transfer of power to security firms and private armies as the reason for the rise of global anarchy (Kaplan, 1994). Kaplan’s thesis of the coming anarchy has great support not only from other scholars and experts in the field but also from general public and political community. The support for the thesis mainly rises by the fact that it has been very accurate in predicting the current events in Africa. Also it has been praised for its broad range of reasoning and thought provoking style. The thesis is not free of criticism. It has attracted a lot of criticism for its unscholarly presentation and unprofessional approach. It is argued that there are many flaws in the argument along with poor interpretation of the findings and methodological errors. This paper is an argumentative essay that refutes the claim that resource scarcity will lead to anarchy. The supporters of the thesis believe in it for the logical explanation that is used to prove it. The environmental scarcity of resources which is due to increased demand as a result of overpopulation, degradation of resources, unequal distribution, etc will result in civil violence. Ecological marginalisation and resource capture will be the causes behind civil violence and this in turn will lead to social effects such as migration, legitimate institutes become disrupted and agricultural production is constrained (Barbier & Homer-Dixon, 1996). The supporters agree with the end result of these will be the one predicted in â€Å"The Coming Anarchy†. Further explanation is that convinces many of its supporters is that as scarcity of natural resources

Bib 8 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Bib 8 - Essay Example According to the Acts, Peter had to flee from Jerusalem after the threats of persecution by King Agrippa and spent his time henceforth traveling and building churches all over. There is mention of Peter returning to the church in Jerusalem later but not much account has been given of him other than that in the Acts. Peter’s writings indicate that he was on missionary work in the areas of Asia Minor and also in Rome, working with Mark to translate his experiences with Christ and document the teachings and history (Niswonger, 1992). Peter’s ministry was mainly to the Jews. Peter’s First Epistle was written from Rome and addressed to people in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (Barlee, 1837). The issues raised by Peter mainly comprised the church persecution. Also, Peter detailed his own understanding of apostolic ethic. Peter’s second letter was addressed presumably to the same churches but the topic under discussion was the false teachers in the church. In the final years of his life, Paul saw the killing of his wife, was thrown into the Mamertine prison where he converted his jailers, was subjected to immense torture and was killed in 67AD by Nero (McBirnie). According to the Galatians, apostle John was in Jerusalem in the about 49AD where he rose to a position of great influence in Christianity; shortly after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, he moved to Ephesus (McBirnie) and stayed till his last years as a leader in the Ephesians church (Niswonger). Here under the Roman king’s decision, John was exiled to an island called Patmos where he was presented with the sacred book of Revelation and he recorded the events in New Testament book of Revelation (McBirnie) along with John’s letters. John addresses the people as the pastor and the apostle in a very personal manner and refers to himself as the ‘elder’. The main subject