FORCASTING AND SCENARIO BUILDING – CASE STUDY 1

What if the Cuban missile crisis had turned into massive nuclear war?

Student Name

Institution

Course/Class

Instructor

Date
FORCASTING AND SCENARIO BUILDING – CASE STUDY 2

Introduction

The Cuban Missile Crisis involved leaders from two superpower countries on

loggerheads, The United States and the Soviet Union. This happened in the year 1962, and it

took around thirteen days to get to a standstill. The soviets had assembled a nuclear missile in

the Cuban island not so far from the American borders, President F. Kennedy of America

addressed the nation on the issue and highlighted on the planned defense plan (Shattuck,

2002). Us would deploy its military to barricade and block Cuban borders and was ready for

any form of military force to provide security to its people. This though, did not turn out as

worst as it could be through negotiations that were done by the Kennedy and Khrushchev to

get rid of the Cuban missiles.

An address by President F. Kennedy on the 22 nd day of October drove not only

Americans but also the whole world into fear. The announcement also made it known to the

Soviets that the Americans had gotten a tip of their plan. Khrushchev being the soviet’s

president, responded the following day on a letter asking out Kennedy for a war daring him to

be the first to strike the missile. A meeting was organized between Khrushchev and Kennedy

in Geneva, where they identified as a neutral point for a discussion. Negotiation was done on

the 23rd day of October and on the same day a letter arrived from Khrushchev to Castro

assuring him that that he would be his ally and support him in anything. The paper is a

forecast scenario case study of the Cuban Missile Crisis (CMC) of 1962 (Perkovich, 2018).

The core; What if the Cuban missile crisis had turned into massive nuclear war?

Counter-Factual Scenario-Building

Probable Scenario

A launch of a single missile from the Cuban island would lead to the United States

retaliating against the Soviet Union. The installation of the missiles would have led to a very
FORCASTING AND SCENARIO BUILDING – CASE STUDY 3

intense shooting war. It would not be a surprise if the missile crisis turned out to be a massive

nuclear attack on America’s Eastern European states and the USSR. Even though a number

of diplomats and intelligence, as well as military officials, wanted Kennedy to forge for the

invasion, the president intelligently reminded them occasionally of the implications that

would come alongside military war. The consequences of the nuclear war are some of the

repercussions that would be caused by CMC if it turned out to be a big war.

Among the obvious repercussions of nuclear war that Jeff Kennedy was implying in

his reply to the government officials is the health risks that primarily arise from events

associated with the missile bombing. The effects could be air blast, fallout, thermal radiation,

and initial radiation (Perkovich, 2018). First, a blast can probably occur during a missile

explosion and can cause major impacts that are just similar to those of conventional

explosions. The shock from the blast can harm humans by destroying their eardrums or even

hurling people at high speeds. However, most casualties take place because of falling

buildings and flying debris. Thermal radiation causes a more intense pulse of thermal

radiation that can cause burn skin over large areas. In other instances, a fire started by a

thermal explosion causes a firestorm that prevents the escape of any survivor. Initial radiation

also arises from nuclear detonations that release several amounts of gamma radiations and

neutrons (Shattuck, 2002). This type of radiation is always responsible for almost all low

yielding explosions. Lastly, in the fallout, when a nuclear is being detonated, those

detonations that come closer to the ground form have high radioactivity.

Possible Scenario

The loss of Randolph would have led to the death of very many sailors and mariners.

If B-59 would have been destroyed, the American’s would have very little solace and would

ensure that they revenge it. Now, since the U-2 plane had been shot down, and the pilot
FORCASTING AND SCENARIO BUILDING – CASE STUDY 4

murdered, the best target for American would have been to bomb the entire missile site set up

by the soviet. The air force had a drawn strategy for the revenge but was hindered by the fact

that it had to possess more than a hundred sorties to bring down 90 per cent of the missile

site. Since they had a few sorties before the soviet response, more than 24 sites and more than

36 missiles would be missed. In order to ensure that the missiles were not utilized, the

American government should have just ordered for a small invasion and a small assault too to

push hard next year (Nye, 2018). The small invasion would have therefore triggered a serious

war against each other.

The plan by the United States of America to invade Cuba led to 18,500 casualties

within the first ten days of the of fighting for the land. However, the United States estimated

the number of Soviet Forces to be around 12000 and had no tactical weapons like nuclear

weapons. Certainly, the Soviets had 40,000 troops and more than 90 tactical weapons. The 12

Luna carried two kilotons of warheads or a maximum of 17 miles. On the other hand, the 80

Sopka-variant missiles for a range of 40 nautical miles carried 12-kiloton warheads. America

could easily lose all of its 180,000 troops with such a large number of tactical weapons on the

island (Nye, 2018).

Preferrable Scenario

On the realization of the possibility of a crisis, President Kennedy and his

executive committee were not pleased with the news of a planned launch of a

missile by the soviets. They coined several methods all aimed at avoiding the risk

of a conflict, and worst is to avoid a nuclear war. Their consultation took around

seven days, and they arrived at options on how to handle the issue. It included

bombing the missile sites in the Cuban island and barricading Cuba using the Navy.

Set a base in Cuba to bare the Soviets from launching their missiles and blocking
FORCASTING AND SCENARIO BUILDING – CASE STUDY 5

them from bringing more military equipment into Cuba (National Research Council,

2005). The US also ordered the Soviets to take back their missiles. Jeff Kennedy

did all this as a way of trying to avoid a nuclear war that would turn out to be fatal.

An agreement was made between President Kennedy and Khrushchev to get rid of

the missiles from Cuba. This was reached at with the promise of F. Kennedy not to

impose any sanction nor invasion on the Cuban people. Kennedy as well through

the advice of his Executive Committee heeded to pull out the US missiles that were

in Turkey.

High tensions were built, but the USSR and the American presidents talked

out the issue and were able to maneuver. At the height of the crisis, F. Kennedy

and Khrushchev used letters and communicated using other forms, on one letter

dated the 26 th day of October, Khrushchev addressed Kennedy saying that he was

willing to get rid of the missiles in Cuba on a condition that the US will not bring

any harm to Cuba. Another letter was also sent from the soviet to the US urging the

US to pull out its missiles Turkey as well (National Research Council, 2005). The US

president, Kennedy agreed to the terms on the first later openly but then secretly

accepted the deals offered in the second later. Cuban Missile Crisis brought about

the good relationship between the Soviets and the Americans. Communication

through a hotline was connected to Moscow and Washington DC. The signing of 2

treaties on restrictions on the use of Nuclear weapon.

Conclusion

The CMC has been studied severally since its unfolding in 1962 and has been

analyzed in very many power and crisis management case studies. From the interviews with

the soviet and US partakers, it can be deduced that the CMC is captured as a case of chaotic
FORCASTING AND SCENARIO BUILDING – CASE STUDY 6

consequences of crisis management and presidential power. That said, we can learn from the

crisis that US leaders can decide to take actions that would likely lead to an escalation of the

war. This means that the crisis management process is incomprehensible and remarkably

risky. The interaction of internal games such as those that took place in the White House and

Kremlin could have possibly yielded a very tough nuclear war (Allison, 2008). However, the

mix of personalities, experiences, inspirations and characters allowed the three leaders to

classify options that even snipped over different partialities into contexts that could be clearly

understood.

Therefore, the theory of realism in international relations has been manifested through

the acts of the three leaders. Dashes of Realism is whereby countries try to show their

dominance and overdo other countries considered to be of lower power (Thornley, 2011).

These countries are in search of self-protection to remain the dominating country in all issues,

be it on development or economic issues. The struggle for power between the soviets and the

Americans is what led to the Cuban missile crisis as a result of greed for power and need to

be a country of influence. We can conclude that all the events in the CMC case unfolded out

of a fight for international dominance. The theory of realism, therefore guarantees

sovereignty, meaning that a nation will not have a higher authority to be answerable to

anyone for their actions. This explains why such a big crisis was being planned just a few

years after the Second World War.

FORCASTING AND SCENARIO BUILDING – CASE STUDY 7

References

Allison, G. (2008). The Cuban missile crisis. Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases,

256-83.

National Research Council. (2005). 6 human and environmental effects | Effects of

nuclear earth-penetrator and other weapons | The National Academies Press. The

National Academies Press, https://www.nap.edu/read/11282/chapter/8

Nye, L. (2018, April 2). What could've happened if the Cuban missile crisis had turned

into all-out nuclear war. We Are The Mighty,

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/cuban-missile-crisis-escalation/

Perkovich, G. (2018, January 4). The other terrifying lesson of the Cuban missile crisis.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/01/04/other-terrifying-lesson-of-cuban-

missile-crisis-pub-75161

Shattuck, J. (2002, October 6). Cuban missile crisis: A historical perspective. JFK

Library,

https://www.jfklibrary.org/events-and-awards/forums/past-forums/transcripts/

cuban-missile-crisis-a-historical-perspective

Thornley, T. (2011, August 15). The Cuban missile crisis: The importance of power and

knowledge. E-International Relations, https://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/15/the-

cuban-missile-crisis-the-importance-of-power-and-knowledge/