Does Ukraine War Pose Greater Risk of Nuclear Armageddon Than Cuban Missile Crisis?

[Boats]

Does Ukraine War Pose Greater Risk of Nuclear Armageddon Than Cuban Missile Crisis?
By: RM Staff & Associates - Russian Matters News - 10-13-22
Re: https://www.russiamatters.org/analys...missile-crisis

Map link: https://www.russiamatters.org/sites/...?itok=ZAj516UC

This month humanity will mark the 60th anniversary of what American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. described as the most dangerous moment in human history. But has his 1999 proposition remained valid? Or has the current crisis in relations between the U.S. and its allies on one side and Russia on the other become more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis?1 If yes, when why? If not, then why not? These are the questions we have posed to some of America’s top experts on U.S.-Russian relations. We have also searched for answers to these questions in parallels drawn2 by not only experts, but also officials in the U.S. and Russia, between the current crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis (CMC). Given the fog of crisis, it should, perhaps, come as no surprise that our search has revealed a significant divergence in answers to the questions we have raised. For instance, while Harvard’s Graham Allison and IMEMO’s Alexei Arbatov don’t believe the current crisis has reached the level of risk seen during the CMC yet, Stephen Cimbala of Penn State Brandywine and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress see the “likelihood of a deliberate or miscalculated escalation to nuclear first use” as greater today than it was 60 years ago.

Alexei Arbatov, Russia’s IMEMO: “The USSR and the U.S. approached the brink of nuclear war. I would not say that we are now standing as close [as during the CMC], but, unfortunately, there is no movement in the opposite direction yet. On the contrary, step by step, Russia and the United States with their allies are moving toward a cliff. At the last moment, the USSR and the U.S. were able to move away from the dangerous line. How it will be now is unclear.” (Kommersant, 10.13.22)

Arbatov’s explanation of the differences between the CMC and today’s crises speak to some of the reasons why today’s situation may not be as dangerous:

1. First, the USSR deployed nuclear weapons on Cuba’s territory. "There are no nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine today."

2. Second, while the CMC lasted 13 days and resulted in one death, “[t]he current conflict has been going on for more than seven months, tens of thousands of people have died.”

3. Third, in the 1960s “the United States could win a nuclear war … Now the situation is different. Everyone recognizes that there can be no winner in a nuclear war and therefore it should never be waged."

4. Fourth, there was no arms control regime in 1962. (Kommersant, 10.13.22)

Ernest Moniz, co-chair and CEO of NTI: “Regrettably, the 10th [NPT] Review Conference ... concluded without agreement on a final document after the Russian Federation blocked a consensus outcome. … It is another indication of the dangerous moment we face—where the risk of use of nuclear weapons is as high as at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.” (NTI, 08.27.22)

“Heightened tensions among nuclear weapon states pose an increased risk of miscalculation and escalation to nuclear war, with catastrophic humanitarian consequences.” (NTI, 08.27.22)

Comment by: Stephen Cimbala, Penn State Brandywine, and Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress : “The likelihood of a deliberate or miscalculated escalation to nuclear first use is now as great, or greater, than it was during the fateful Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.” (Just Security, 04.12.22)

1. “First, the initial five weeks of fighting left Russian military leadership short of their objective of taking Kyiv and toppling the Zelensky government. ...

2. Second, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s unsuccessful scheme to deploy Russian nuclear missiles to Cuba was eventually the source of his undoing two years later as leader of the USSR ...

3. A third aspect of the Ukraine crisis that makes it potentially more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis is the nature of communications technology and its influence on public and media opinion now compared to the situation in 1962. ...

4. Fourth, the Cuban missile crisis took place in a world order dominated by two nuclear superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union. ...

5. Fifth, history matters. Leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union in 1962 came from the World War II generation. ...

6. Sixth, nuclear deterrence depends upon a rational model of decision-making, but states in conflict may bring different rationalities to the table. ...

7. Seventh, nuclear weapons do not easily lend themselves to piecemeal or disaggregated use for messaging purposes.”

Russia’s “leading figures, especially President Vladimir Putin, have engaged in egregious nuclear saber-rattling that has been unheard of since the Cuban Missile Crisis, sixty years ago this October. Russia is behaving like a big nuclear pariah state.” (Senate.gov, 09.20.22)

Comment by: Andy Weber, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense: “This crisis is more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis.” (Politico, 10.07.22)

There wasn’t a “hot war” in 1962 like there is now and Russia’s military doctrine allows for the use of nuclear weapons when faced with an existential threat, “which is how he [Putin] has defined Ukraine.” (Politico, 10.07.22)

Those who say or imply the two crises are comparable, but do not explicitly say which is more dangerous:

Joe Biden, U.S. President: “[F]irst time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of the nuclear weapon if, in fact, things continue down the path they’ve been going. … We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis. ... It’s part of Russian doctrine that they will not—they will not—if the motherland is threatened, they’ll use whatever force they need, including nuclear weapons. I don’t think there’s any such thing as an ability to easily lose a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.” (White House, 10.07.22)

Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister: When asked to comment on Harvard Professor Graham Allison’s assessment that the current situation is as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis, Lavrov said that risks of a nuclear war are “quite substantial.” “The danger is serious, real. It must not be underestimated … Can this be compared to the Caribbean crisis? In those years, there was a channel of communication that both leaders trusted. Now there is no such channel. Nobody is trying to create it.” (RM, 04.26.22)

Sam Nunn, former U.S. senator: “We’re in the most dangerous period we’ve been in since the breakup of the Soviet Union,” Nunn said, comparing it to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. ... “We have the threat of escalation, we have the threat of Russia bombing supply lines which would involve Poland and NATO. We have the increased dangers of cyber interference to command and control, [and] warning systems leading to blunder. The Russian invasion makes that all more likely. As you mention, we have the added danger of turning a nuclear power plant into a military base.” “It is a very dangerous time.” (South Bend Tribune, 09.25.22)

Sergei Ryabkov, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister: “The approaching 60th anniversary of the Caribbean crisis, when the Soviet Union and the United States of America almost crossed the fatal line, has a direct projection on what is happening today in the context of a tough confrontation around Ukraine, where the collective West has actually unleashed a proxy war against our country.” (Kommersant, 10.13.22)

Dmitri Trenin of Russia’s IMEMO: “The trajectory of the current crisis, in my opinion, is leading Russia and the United States to the last line, when the question of the physical survival of both countries and the whole world will arise. This is the main thing that unites the two crises. Sixty years ago, prudence prevailed at the last moment. Will it be the same now?” (Kommersant, 10.12.22)

Note: The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the individuals quoted. Image by the CIA available in the public domain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal note: I don't think Putin will risk his country
by nuclear activity. He knows he's pushed it as far
as he can right now. Bringing up the nukes will be
his downfall - most likely by being taken out by
someone who would be hired to do so. The risk
and damage to life and property will be horrendous
and extremely costly. His people don't support his
action's and his military really doesn't want to go
there! It's a catch 22 - he has to make a decision
or risk - ill will from his people. Pull out of Ukraine
altogether and work it out to where both sides
find a resolve or this war will go on and on.
-