At the Edge of Reason

Countries possess nuclear weapons primarily for national security, however, a single detonation can destroy entire cities. National and international governing bodies would likely collapse, massive population displacement would occur, and we will have a global long term impact on our environment. A dispute between two powerful nations would cause a catastrophe, millions would pass, a climate chaos would happen, and a chain reaction would completely collapse the global economy.

The United States and the Soviet Union already had disagreements and conflicts. After consideration, the US president, John F. Kennedy, stated that the recent developments in the Caribbean was a threat to security, adding that their response would not be an aggression, but a necessary response towards an issue they didn't initiate.

Yet, from the other side, a different ideology is emerging from the Soviet Union and Cuban Leadership.

What is unfolding is not merely a clash of weapons, but a collision of ideas. Each side interprets the other’s moves as a menace and wants to establish dominance. The Soviet Union believes that they should protect Cuba, considering their actions as protective rather than provocative against the real threat. The US and their attempts to restore American sovereignty and remove naval blockade. To dismiss either perspective outright would be dangerously simplistic.

“We’re not going to sit there and let them have missiles against us without us having a protection mechanism.” Stated Vasily Kuznetsov, Soviet Union prime minister of affairs.

Your first impression would be that the position of both sides is almost identical, states seek security and protection, if they retreat they would be left vulnerable, etc. However, this argument becomes useless when instead of protection, missiles become preparation for mutual destruction. Each side questions the legitimacy of the other’s actions. The true horror is not the possible bomb, but the quiet progression of it without anyone noticing. A catalyst for destruction.

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/09c9e7_a209133664eb474088899d08adf43a40/1080p/mp4/file.mp4

Paul Nitze, US government official, shared that after taking into consideration all possible casualties and consequences, the best option for both sides would be a negotiation. Which casually went along with the proposal the Soviet Union and Cuba presented. A mutual agreement of removing missiles and for the US to stop infringing on Cuban sovereignty. This last one, still being in consideration.

Negotiation emerges not as a weakness, but as a necessity. However, neither the US nor the SU resolved their ideological conflict, they simply stepped back. “We don’t need to annihilate the world” Vasily Kuznetsov. In this context, an act of political courage.

At the end there was no established winner nor victory. Neither side recognized their mistakes, but acknowledged that continuing would only affect citizens and not involved nations. The world was saved not by trust, but by  careful and the recognition of mutual destruction.