On October 16th in 1962, the world watched in suspense as the United States and the Soviet Union started a political standoff over the placement of nuclear weapons, and for the first time in history stood on the precipice of Nuclear War. The Soviet Union, having noticed a growing US boom in nuclear weapon capabilities, moved to challenge America’s dominance. Led by Premier Nikita Khrushchev, medium-range nuclear missiles were placed in Cuba within range of US soil, increasing the threat to the United States and strengthening the Soviet ability to deter US actions. In the coming days, both nations would be put on nuclear alert and mobilize their forces in anticipation of nuclear war. Finally, after careful deliberation and discussion both countries arrived at a compromise, narrowly avoiding unprecedented destruction. This essay will reflect on the ways global security has been impacted by the crisis and discuss the measures put into place in its wake by addressing 3 major outcomes of the event: global nuclear weapons law, the effects on global political communications and the potential threat of similar events in future.
Both nuclear and non-nuclear nations acknowledged the destructive power of nuclear technology, and the mutually assured destruction that went hand in hand with it. Following the crisis, nations mobilized to implement a number of treaties and agreements surrounding nuclear weapons which still stand today. The first was a ban on above ground nuclear testing. Next, came the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); an agreement between nations to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries beginning with diplomatic discussions and a summit in Glassboro in 1967. Following that in 1969, came the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It is apparent from the worlds rapid movements, that the Cuban Missile Crisis had had a profound effect on many nations including those not directly involved. Enacting treaties to restrict the creation, testing and use of these weapons illustrated an awareness of the potential devastation and a willingness to compromise in order to avoid it. In 2011, similar agreements were implemented such as President Obama’s New Start initiative, which aimed to have US and Russian nuclear weapons reduced to no more than 1,550 each. This is a clear descendant of the treaties formed following the Cuban Missile Crisis, and a result of nations desire to continue the monitoring and restrictions on nuclear security.
It can be argued that the crisis was the result of a lack of communication. The speed and secrecy of the missiles transport startled Kennedy and the US intelligence, which contributed to the assumed aggression from the Soviets and encouraged Kennedy and his advisors to believe sinister objectives and rush their decision making. However, Garthoff later stated that “in the United States, there was almost universal approbation for President Kennedy’s handling of the crisis.” Learning from this valuable lesson, less than 7 months after the crisis, a “hotline” was established between Washington and Moscow. This direct link between the nations leaders gave the countries unprecedented potential for communication, and reduced the chance of further misunderstanding. New Start reinforced this, by stipulating that both US and Russia are entitled to semi-annual data exchanges. Though this continuing focus on nuclear transparency is a result of lessons learned in 1962, it is already being challenged by current US President Donald Trump. In a recent phone call with Vladimir Putin, Trump stated that this agreement was “another bad deal” and voiced a desire for America to be at the “top of the pack” regarding nuclear weapons2. This sort of nationalism and desire for unrivalled and unchecked power flies in the face of the lessons learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis and begs the question of how effective treaties are when leaders openly voice a lack of concern for them.
It is important to recognise that this is the world’s only real threat of nuclear warfare so far, but that as weapons technology develops and borders become increasingly contested the potential for another standoff increases. Wars throughout history represent a recurring predilection towards military employment over civil discussion, so can we safely assume that the process that worked in 1962 will work in future? History tells us that humanity is not traditionally this rational when provoked. So far these agreements seem to deter nuclear aggression, but may need updating as technology progresses. Present day nuclear weapons have been estimated to be 50 times more powerful than those deployed in WWII, and with the documented impulsive nature of current world leaders like President Trump, strong laws and nuclear alternatives are needed now more than ever.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a valuable lesson in the importance of democracy, deliberation and compromise over aggression. But if a similar standoff happened tomorrow, would we be so lucky again? Would the security and laws implemented be enough to avoid nuclear annihilation today? Would the conflicting parties find a resolution again whilst maintaining a steady trigger finger? What is clear, is that as weapons technology progresses, so should the security measures governing them.