Operation AnadyrHypothesesAmerican BlockadeSoviet withdrawal of missiles from Cuba

13 days of Crisis between Soviet Union and United States

Cold War nuclear tension 16-28 October 1962

Soviet Union installed nuclear warheads in Cuba which is discovered by American U-2 planes

During the crisis President Kennedy initiated to establish ExComm

Why did Soviet Union attempt to place offensive missiles in Cuba?

Operation Anadyr: Strategic missile base in Cuba

Soviet governments first gave arms Cuba in 1959

Next phase of military assistance in 1962

The medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles transported to Cuba and followed by nuclear warheads on 4 October 1962 (first time Soviets install missiles out of its territory)

Soviet decision to operationalize missiles –secret operation

Deployed tactical nuclear weapons

Missiles were discovered by U-2 planes on 14 October

Soviets did not started worrying about the American discovery of Missiles until 22 October (until the news bulletins upcoming Kennedy's address to the nation)

Why missiles in Cuba: four hypothesis• Why did Soviets deploy missiles in Cuba?• Kennedy’s advisor consider following issues on

16 October, four hypothesis• Hypothesis 1:Cuban defence• To deter any U.S intervention to weaken or

overthrow Castro regime • Cuba was at risk of attack by U.S so as ally Soviet

Union would come to the aid of its weak friend (fail to invade Cuba in 1961, possibility to believe that U.S might attempt to invade again)

• Increase Cuba’s defensive capacity

But why not Soviet troops (tactical nuclear weapons/easier to deploy/less costly/be ready before discovered) but nuclear deterrence

Cuban defense hypothesis actually made Cuba’s position more dangerous in intense crisis.

Hypothesis 2: Cold War politics•Competition/rivalry between superpowers

•Soviet opportunity to extend its global powers

• U.S administration assumes that Soviet military buildup in Cuba demonstrates changing balance of power/Soviet offensive power in U.S own hemisphere

• What is on stake?• If U.S accepts/allows buildup it could

lose its allies in the region • Changing Soviet policy and its affects on

global balance of power

Kennedy believes there is three reasons of Soviet action:

1st: Soviet demonstrate it is capable to support communist revolutions (impressing China)

2nd:redifine context of Berlin3rd: Soviet deal with US and its political

implications

• Hypothesis 3: Missile Power• U.S strategic nuclear arsenal superiority

(intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBM)• Strategic balance of power motivated the

Soviet Union • Problem of hypothesis: why Khrushchev

urgently insists on strategic balance instead of developing ICBM/ why Khrushchev take risk to balance nuclear arsenal

• Hypothesis 4: Berlin-win, trade, or trap• If its not the missile power than reason is

“Berlin” (Khrushchev wants to solve Berlin problem) if U.S did not do anything than Soviet Union would force U.S to get out of Berlin

• Missiles in Cuba aim to deter U.S to start war!!• If U.S wants to bargain the terms it would

be trade off Cuba and Berlin (Khrushchev believes this is still win)

• If the U.S attack/blockade Cuba it gives Khrushchev opportunity to use this as an excuse to attack/blockade Berlin!!

• So whatever the U.S do in regard to Cuba it would increase the possibility that Soviets do the same thing in Berlin!!

• Worse case scenario European allies could blame US to lose Berlin which would be split and Moscow could be the winner

Most reasonable explanations are missile power and Berlin hypothesis

However still all hypothesis has inconsistency

Soviet Union did install the air defense cover on time to prevent shields the missiles from being discovered and why did Soviet Union permit U-2 plane to fly over Cuba and spot the missiles?

October 18-Absence of camouflage of missiles, and installation near U2 planes flying over/camouflage of missiles during the shipment to Cuba

U.S government concluded that Soviet government must expected the U.S to discover missiles after missiles shipped to Cuba!!

Group Think ExComm Committee (Executive

Committee of the Nations Security Council)-advise President Kennedy-diversity of ideas according to their job and backgrounds

declassification of tapes and documents help to understand crisis

Soviet decision making process still opaque-

President Kennedy under pressure, If Kennedy fail to respond the crisis

there could be undesirable outcomes: undermine confidence of the members of his administration, weak leadership view by public and Congress, difficulty of re-election in the weakness.

Why American Blockade?The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) wanted an

invasionDean Dusk, Secretary of State wanted

diplomatic –suggest o convince Castro to push Soviets out of Cuba.

R. Mcnamara, Secretary of Defense, believed that missiles were political problem

Raised the idea of blockading future weapons shipments to Cuba- but not solving the issue of missiles already shipped to Cuba but warned Soviet not to use them.

Options:Narrow air strike against the missile

sites onlyAir strikeInvasion follow up the air strike

Robert Kennedy against any surprise attack which would be immoral (like Pearl Harbour)

Blockade or immediate air strike???So Kennedy changed his idea from

surprise attack to blockadeBlockade-negotiate approach: following the

blockade U.S would negotiate for the removal of missiles from Turkey and Italy and closing U.S base at Guantanamo in Cuba but this option was disagreed

New solution: blockade and air strike ultimatum demanding removal of the missiles

Other option offered by Dean Dusk: blockade but instead of ultimatum or trade of US assets is to freeze the situation, leaving to the UN observation, installation of missiles would be monitored by UN

Kennedy refused blockade-negotiation approach: it raised an idea that US had been frightened

And he choose blockade-ultimatum (any air strike would be limited to missiles)

Advantages of blockade: middle course between inaction and attack, aggressive enough to communicate of intention but not as a strike, it gave responsibility/burden to Khrushchev of choice for the next step

Blockade began on the morning of 24 October, 500 miles off the coast of Cuba and Soviet ships turned around before challenging quarantine

Why Soviet withdrawal of missiles from Cuba?

US blockade was initial step in series of moves that threatened air strikes or invasion!!

Khrushchev sent two letters secretly to Kennedy

In the first letter he claimed to remove missiles from Cuba in return for ending US quarantine and not to invade Cuba

In the second letter adding new demand and seek into bargain with US removal of missiles in Turkey in return for taking Soviet missiles out of Cuba

So the second letter was problematic, US could simply reject bargaining, if US tradeoff NATO missiles in Turkey there would be consequences for the NATO alliance and US commitments in elsewhere.

US response to letters (Robert Kennedy met to Abassadorn Dobryin): no Soviet missiles in Cuba and no US invasion, no deal over Turkish missiles but they would be get out once the Cuban crisis was resolved.

R. Kennedy insisted on secrecyDeal that withdrawal of Soviet offensive

weapons in exchange for the non-invasion!!!!!

Blockade did not change Khrushchev’s mind but threat of further action in the form of alternatives did it succeed for withdrawal of missiles

Blockade with threat

Three conceptual frameworks for analyzing foreign policy

MODEL I:Rational Actor Model: why did Soviet Union decide to install missiles in Cuba? attention on goals and objectives of government-but also calculations about the situation

The actions of states are analyzed by assuming that nations consider all options and act rationally to maximize their utility

Analyst considers on objectives and alternatives

states are key players and decision makers try to maximize expected utilities by looking at all different options and calculating cost and benefits so decision makers look for highest benefits with lowest cost

Analyze why Khrushchev deployed missiles in Cuba or Why US responded with blockade and ultimatum./leaders choices as unitary decision maker

MODEL II-Organizational Behavioral Model: decision making according to regular patterns of behaviors

This model focuses on the standard or routine operating procedures and solves problems in immediate urgency.

Decision makers prefer to apply this routine procedure as automatic response to some problems

Model II extend first model and analyze organizations coordinated by leaders (Model I)

Soviet missiles in Cuba: Model II analyst focus on the existing organizations and their standard operating producers for acquiring information, defining feasible options, and implementing programme

Government is not the individual/presidents (rational decision maker aim to maximize utilities) but allied organizations

Government/leaders define alternatives and consequences as their component organization process information.

Large organizations functioning according to standard pattern of behaviors.

MODEL III-governmental (bureaucratic) politics model: decision is result of the bargaining within the government

Events in foreign affairs are characterized neither as unitary actor nor as organization outputs

Bargaining among national government players/ who did/what to/ whom that-decisions re result of these bargaining

What bargaining among which players yielded the critical decisions and actions?

Predictions are generated by identifying the game according to their bargaining skills and relative power.

Politics is based on bargaining between hierarchical government agencies.

Government behavior can be understood according to third conceptual model/as a result of bargaining games

Not unitary actor but many actors and players, so decision is not result of single person but bargaining games within the government

Model I: why Khrushchev deployed missiles to Cuba or why US responded with blockade and ultimatum.

Model II: the subjects are never individuals or governments instead explanations are organizations

Organizational purposes and practices common to the members of organization

Model III: focuses on the politics inside a government, A nation's actions are best understood as the result of politicking and negotiation by its top leaders.

Foreign relations result of bargaining games among players in the national governments

Puzzle posed by Soviet missiles in Cuba? Bargaining among players on critical

decisions players interest and actions/ their perception and stands on the issue

Competing preferences (secretary of defense-secretary of state)

Government action can be understood according to result of bargaining between players in government agencies. No unitary actor but many actors

Not by a single rational choice but by the pushing and pulling that is politics.

None of these three models simply describe events/each emphasized different factors in explaining puzzled of crisis.

Models complements each others

Why did the Soviet Union decide to place offensive missiles in Cuba?

Why did the United States respond to the missile deployment with a Blockade ?

Why did the Soviet Union withdraw the missiles?

Model I-Understand government behavior as the choice of a unitary decision maker

1-Nikita Khrushchev’s aim to make nuclear balance and believe that US would not respond aggressively after the Bay o Pig fiasco

2-Kenndy choose blockade option to give next move to Khrushchev and something between action/inaction, not necessary lead nuclear war

it forced the Soviets to make the next move.

3-Soviet leader cannot afford nuclear destruction, nuclear crises are manageable when vital interest are at stake-leaders/withdrawal was the only option for Soviet Union

High saliency (perception of threat)Short time horizon (high anxiety)Imperfect information

The Rational Model does not apply

MODEL II organizational routines that produce the information, options and actions.

1-First time missiles installed outside of Soviet Union, lack of set of procedures in both side

Soviets assigned the tasks to established departments, which in turn followed their own set procedures. However, their procedures were not adapted to Cuban conditions, and as a result, mistakes were made that allowed the U.S. to quite easily learn of the program's existence.

2-Blockade or air strike, risk of surgical air strikes by US Air Force so existing plans (routine behaviors) could create collateral damage during surgical air strike and possibility of escalation of war so US decided on blockade option

U.S. Air Force couldn't guarantee it would disable all the nuclear missiles

3-Lack of organized procedures to any U.S decision so only option was withdrawal

The Soviets simply did not have a plan to follow if the U.S. took decisive action against their missiles. Khrushchev's communications indicated a high degree of desperation. Without any back-up plan, the Soviets had to withdraw.

Model III-competing perceptions and preferences of each player

1-Governmental problems in Soviet Union, lack of trust to Khrushchev  (military and economy) so installation of missies in Cuba increase popularity of him and his policies

military leaders were unhappy with Khrushchev's decision to cut the size of the army. Placing missiles in Cuba was a cheap and quick way for him to secure his political base.

2-Failure of Bay of Pig fiasco (result of misinformation of CIA) and expectation of strong and decisive response from Kennedy administration but lack of trust to CIA and Robert Kennedy's (Attorney General) insist on Blockade/result of bargaining between government agencies

3-US government decision not to bargain missiles in Cuba with missiles in Turkey but guarantee of not to invade Cuba and withdrawal of Jupiter missiles six months later leaded to Soviet withdrawal.