Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cuban missile crisis introduction
Cuban missile crisis introduction
Cuban missile crisis introduction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cuban missile crisis introduction
Introduction
Game Theory, originally derived from the subject of Mathematics, aims to provide a way to understand strategic social interactions; such as in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It can be understood as the study and explanation of strategically, mutually-dependent actions and decisions (strategies), made by what are assumed to be ‘rational’ decision-makers (players) in competitive conditions that involve both conflictual and cooperative options (games); where the objective of each player is to achieve the most desirable outcome from a set of potential outcomes (payoffs) (Carlson & Dacey 2013; Myerson 1991; Prisner 2014; Turocy 2001). Despite being a mathematical theory, its application in international relations has been prominent
…show more content…
The Cuban Missile Crisis is therefore extremely fitting to use as a case study for analysis in order to determine the practical usefulness of Game Theoretic proposals, models, and applications. Two basic models; Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) and Chicken, will be individually demonstrated in the form of a payoff matrix in order to analyse the crisis. The aim of this is to determine the usefulness of applying game theoretical models to a real-life situation of conflict, as applying the example models to the case study will also help in highlighting the flaws of the theory; such as whether the theories are over-simplified or rigid in that they do not, or cannot, take into consideration circumstances surrounding a particular case …show more content…
An event that may provide insight into the instigation of the Cuban Missile Crisis is the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961; a plot to remove then Prime Minister Fidel Castro and his regime from power in the newly revolutionized Republic of Cuba due to the political structure of the country becoming increasingly communist. The military invasion involved the training of Cuban rebels, against Castro, by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with the consent of both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. The failure of the event through the defeat of the rebels by Castro’s leadership and forces therefore resulted in the strengthening of Cuban ties with the USSR, as well as the severing of ties with the USA (Absher 2009).
This failure early in Kennedy’s presidency therefore, arguably, led to the escalation of the Cuban Missile crisis due to the determination of the Kennedy administration to ‘redeem themselves’ from the humiliating event; not only the failure of a CIA military organized operation, but also the loss of many US assets within Cuba during its
It seems that the United States has been one of the most dominant, if not the most dominant, countries in the world, since the Declaration of Independence. Yet, on Monday, April 17, 1961, our government experienced incredible criticism and extreme embarrassment when Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba, instantly stopped an invasion on the Cuban beach known as the Bay of Pigs. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, his advisors, and many Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials, made the largest error of their political careers. Once the decision was made to invade Cuba, to end Castro and his Communist government, Kennedy and his administration were never looked at in the same light nor trusted again. Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev was affiliated with Castro, and the two countries made many military decisions together. As Kennedy and the United States tried to stop Cuba and Russia from becoming a threat to the world, an invasion was planned out and executed. The results were a disaster. The Bay of Pigs invasion was the largest military mistake ever made by the United States government and the CIA in the 20th century and brought America to the brink of war with Cuba and Russia. The Bay of Pigs invasion was not a quick decision, many hours of meetings and conferences occurred before President Kennedy gave permission for the attack. President Kennedy was inaugurated on January 20, 1961, and immediately wanted to take the initiative with the Soviet and Cuban governments (Pearson 12). Russia was already under Communist control, and Fidel Castro took over the Cuban government with heavily armed troops and policeman. Castro’s policemen filled the streets, and he ran the newspapers, as well as many assembly buildings (Frankel 60). At the beginning, Castro did not run a Communist government, but once he began to meet with Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev, Castro started a Communist government (Crassweller 23). Max Frankel, writer for the New York Times, summarizes the situation in Cuba by saying, “Little by little, the vise tightened. Little by little the free people of Cuba came to realize it could happen there. The grim facts of life on an island that became a police state” (Frankel 59). Every day, Castro came closer to controlling every aspect in life in Cuba. Fidel Castro even took control of the schools in Cuba, throwing out any teacher who he thought...
...ity of the blame went onto Kennedy's record as not being the one that had planned it out and not giving the go ahead for the second air raid. It was later proven that no matter what the outcome of the second air raid would have been, it would not have mattered. The CIA also released a document taking the full responsibility and blame for the incident at the Bay of Pigs. The Cuban Missile Crisis not only worried the U.S. but also worried the rest of the world as to how it would turn out. The Soviet's backed Cuba as an ally and fed them missiles and the supplies to build the missile silos in Cuba. The Soviet's said they did this as a counter measure incase we did in fact invade Cuba. Between these two major conflicts of the time, it can be said that the two countries were not battling over Cuba in itself, but more or less battling over the belief of Communism.
Perhaps the most critical moment that had occurred to the United States and the world of the last century is the Cuban Missile Crisis. The significance of this event was that it had brought the world to the closest it could ever be to a nuclear war. Millions of lives, cultures and infrastructure would have been lost if it was not splendidly dealt with. Yet, a man was able to prevent this devastation, and he was none other than President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) of the United States. How was he significant to the event? This research paper will discuss it with the points that are based on JFK’s characteristics. Hence, to provide an overview of this paper; the outbreak of nuclear warfare was prevented in the Cuban Missile Crisis specifically by John F. Kennedy’s many distinguished characteristics.
The Bay of Pigs invasion was one of the most controversial political decisions that John F. Kennedy had to make. Unfortunately for him, it took place in his first months as president, so he was not fully aware of certain aspects of Eisenhower’s administration. In general the Bay of Pigs, previously known as the “Trinidad Plan” (Bates & Rosenbloom, 48), was a way for the United States to help free the people of communist Cuba from their leader, Fidel Castro. Through many misunderstandings and miscalculations, however, Kennedy’s primary goals were not met.
Gates, Scott, and Brian D. Humes. Games, Information and Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
It is useful to examine the past in order to craft salient policy and effective strategy today. Once a state determines that more is to be gained by “going to war than by remaining at peace,” the resulting war is shaped by the goals of the states involved, the constraints with which they must contend, and their strategic options available. However, as both the First Crusade and the Spanish Empire’s failed invasion of England in 1588 demonstrate, a war’s outcome is as subject to chance as it is to rational statecraft and the enmity that sparked the conflict.
The tropical island of Cuba had been an object of empire for the United States. Before the Missile Crisis, the relationship between Castro and the US were strained by the Bay of Pigs occurrence in 1961. This was where counterrevolutionary Cubans were American funded and tried to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. However, the counterrevolutionaries failed. Castro then found an alliance with the Soviet Union and an increase of distrust that Castro had on the US. On January 18, 1962, the United States’ Operation Mongoose was learned. The objective would be “to help the Cubans overthrow the Communist regime” so that the US could live in peace. Consequently, Castro informed the Soviet Union that they were worried about a direct invasion on Cuba, thus longed for protection against th...
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
He extends Robert Jervis’s argument that offense-defense balance and distinguishably causes war. Jervis argues that technology and geography alter the balance between a military’s offensive and defensive capabilities. If a state has a more offensive than defensive posture, then it can be a sign that it is an aggressor. If there is no geography that aids a state in defense, then it is likely to take land as a buffer to protect itself. Offense-defense balance is a cause of the security dilemma because it is difficult for a state to determine the intentions and balance of another state. For example, a state has an incentive to keep military technologies a secret. Any state analyzing another state’s capabilities will then misinterpret its offense-defense balance. It is also hard for states to distinguish between a technology’s offensive or defensive use. A fort is easy to interpret as defensive, but a machine gun can be either used as an offensive or defensive weapon (Jervis 1978). Van Evera argues that military beliefs lead to heavy offensive weighted balances which cause the security dilemma. Great Powers believed in the superiority of offensive military strategies. This belief stemmed from past wars according to Van Evera. These doctrines held that offensive swift blows were the key to military victories. Van Evera concludes that if a state’s
The Cuban Missile Crisis exhibits the struggle for power between the two dominant powers of the time. The realist theory believes that world politics is a repetitive struggle for power and or influence. Power, in politics is largely perceived as influence and military capability. Power in mass amounts are located in objects such as nuclear missiles that have an immense influence on others. (Schmidt, 2007; Sterling-Folker & Shinko, 2007). This is clearly depicted through the actions taken by both leaders, as the simple placement of a missile had such a tremendous effect.
In modern military theory, the highest level is the strategic level, in which activities at the strategic level focus directly on policy objectives, both during peace and warfare. In the study of modern military strategy, there is a distinction between military strategy and national strategy, in which the former is the use of military objective to secure political objectives and the latter coordinates and concentrates all the elements of national...
Stern, Sheldon M. The Cuban Missile Crisis in American Memory: Myths versus Reality. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ., 2012. Print.
1. Viminitz, Paul. Philosophy of Game Theory, 1st Installment, Artificial Prudence. University of Lethbridge. January, 2001.
To illustrate, if District 13 decides to not create nuclear weapons, the Capitol must determine if they will choose to create nuclear weapons, or not. If they choose to create nuclear weapons, then they receive their most preferred outcome, (cn), thus giving them the power advantage. In contrast, if District 13 chooses to create nuclear weapons, the Capitol faces a more difficult decision. However, they will decide to also create nuclear weapons (cc), since that is preferred over District 13 gaining power, (cc > nc), and it will provide them with a higher payoff than the alternative strategy. Furthermore, since the prisoner’s dilemma is symmetric, both the Capitol and District 13’s dominant strategy is to create nuclear weapons. Therefore, this game theory infers that the Capitol and District 13 are inclined to face a nuclear arms race, “we implicitly assume that the prisoners (players) can't attempt collusive agreement since they choose their actions simultaneously”(Ross,
With this being said, it’s important to understand the difference between strategic theory and strategic studies. Thomas G. Mahnken talks about strategic studies in an article called Strategic Theory, in this article he discusses what strategic theory is, and how it provides information on how “strategy is ultimately about how to win wars.” Strategy is using the means of war to gain political advantage, to use the military to fulfil the ends of a policy. With the creation of nuclear weapons Thomas G. Mahnken explains that “strategic theory expanded to include peacetime military competition, such as the four-decade cold war between the United States and Soviet Union.” The cold war between both countries proved what the political context was: both nations knew what was being at stake and had an understanding of what had to be done. After the cold war, strategic theory took a different route and it emerged out as strategic studies in retrospect after the cold war. Strategic studies is completely different from strategic theory and Columba Peoples assess in their article, Strategic Studies and its Critic, that strategic studies offers the “legitimation of strategic violence for the purpose of maintaining a particular vision of world order, and this vision reflects the geographical-political context.” Strategic studies is the discipline in which it attempts to construct the world through a “western set of values and geopolitical vision” Unlike strategic theory, strategic studies prefers to have a view of the world than to actually start a war, but if the world is not following the western values then violence will be asserted in order to fulfill the political