Other Voices · October 5, 2024 |
|
|
Everything is Under Control. Until it Isn't. |
October 27, 1962. We’ve gone close to the brink more times than most of us realize, but October
27, 1962 was the day the world we know almost came to an end. On that day, in the midst of the
Cuban Missile Crisis, the world was seconds away from all-out nuclear war.
The Cuban Missile Crisis arose out of a series of strategic calculations which made sense to
military and political planners on both sides. In the nuclear age, a miscalculation can result in
unspeakable catastrophe, but nonetheless, decision-makers continue to take risky actions which
they calculate will bring them an advantage. They assume that they can to push forward and
‘show strength’ and then push some more, while reserving the option of showing restraint if the
other side pushes back too vigorously.
The American side has always been the more aggressive. In the early 1960s this aggression
manifested itself, among other things, in a failed invasion of Cuba intended to overthrow Cuba’s
left-wing government, and then in the placement of American nuclear missiles in Turkey, right on
the borders of the Soviet Union itself. The Soviets regarded these missiles as intolerable because they potentially gave the Americans the capacity to launch a first strike nuclear attack on the
Soviet Union. A first strike has always been an option which American military planners have
regarded as a possibility to consider: a devastating surprise attack which would eliminate most of
the Soviets’ (or now, Russians’) ability to strike back.
The Soviets responded to the placement of American nuclear missiles in Turkey by placing its
own missiles in Cuba. The U.S. reacted very aggressively. They imposed a naval blockade on
Cuba (illegal under international law) and threatened to bomb and invade Cuba if the missiles
were not removed. For several days, the world teetered on the brink. People went to bed not
knowing if they would still be alive in the morning.
The crisis reached its climax on October 27, when the U.S. detected a Soviet submarine, the B-
59, in international waters near Cuba. The commander of an American warship in the area, who
may have been acting without authorization from his military superiors, decided to drop depth
charges on the Soviet submarine. This was an outright act of war. More than that, an attack on
the other country’s nuclear forces was understood to be the gravest possible provocation, a step
that would be taken only if a nuclear war was being launched.
There is often an element of chance in crises, and in this crisis an unforeseen circumstance was
that the B-59 had suffered technical problems which had put its communications system out of
commission. The commanders of the submarine could not contact Moscow for orders, and had
no way of knowing what was going on elsewhere. Had war in fact broken out, or was the
American attack on their ship the action of a rogue officer acting without orders?
If war had broken out, as the attack on their ship seemed to indicate, the Soviet submarines’
orders were to launched their nuclear missiles against American targets. In a situation such as
this one, where they were unable to contact their military command, the decision was left up to
the commanders of the ship. Recognizing the gravity and irrevocable nature of a decision to
launch nuclear missiles, the protocol was that the captain of the submarine, and the two senior
officers on board, had to unanimously agree to fire their missiles.
The captain of the B-59, Valentin Grigoryevich Savitsky, decided that it was probable that a
nuclear war had already started, and wanted to give the order to launch. Political Officer Ivan
Semyonovich Maslennikov agreed. The other senior officer, Vasily Aleksandrovich Arkhipov, said
no. There was a furious argument among the three men, but Arkhipov held firm, and eventually
persuaded the captain to surface and await orders from Moscow. It turned out that war had not
broken out. If the B-59 had launched its missiles, however, there would have been a nuclear war
between the Soviet Union and the United States. Hundreds of millions would have died.
The next day, realizing that events were spiralling out of control, U.S. President Kennedy and
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev came to an agreement to end the crisis: The Soviets would
remove their missiles from Cuba, and the U.S. would remove their missiles from Turkey.
There would be no war – this time. Because one man, Vasily Aleksandrovich Arkhipov, said no.
*
The world now finds itself in probably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile
Crisis.
In the Middle East, the danger of a major war which will devastate much of the region, with
incalculable human and environmental costs, is increasing by the day. In Israel, the Netanyahu
regime seems to have decided that, not a peaceful settlement, but an all-out regional war which
will bring in the United States, is its best strategic option. There are voices in Israel’s military and
security apparatus who are warning against the enormous risks this entails, but it seems they are
not being listened to.
The greatest danger to the entire planet, the potential flashpoint which could lead to a nuclear
war, is in Ukraine. The US/NATO alliance has a long record of pushing, pushing, pushing against
Russia. When Russia warns of red lines which will lead to serious retaliation, they pause briefly,
instruct their Ukrainian proxy to hold off, but not long after, the pushing, the testing of Russia’s
limits, starts again. American spyplanes and satellites provide targeting information for Ukrainian
missiles striking Russia. American warplanes buzz Russia’s borders. Ukraine mounts attacks,
fortunately so far unsuccessful, against nuclear power plants. Ukraine has even attempted to
attack an early warning station which would warn Russia of a nuclear attack: an act of sheer
madness, since an attack on such an installation would be the first step in a nuclear attack on
Russia, and would therefore be probable grounds for Russia to launch its nuclear missiles.
It has been clear for some time that Ukraine cannot win this war, but as it has from the beginning,
the United States and its NATO allies continue to insist that Ukraine keep waging war rather than
make peace, no matter what the cost in human lives. Their goal is to hurt Russia, no matter how
many Ukrainians (and Russians) are killed or injured. Zelensky’s increasingly isolated,
authoritarian, and desperate regime, for its part, has come to believe that the only way it can
salvage something from this war is to get the Americans directly involved in the fighting. So far,
the U.S. has sought to avoid going too far, well aware than a direct American attack on Russia
would almost certainly lead to a direct Russian attack on the United States. But at the same time,
American decision-makers disdain diplomacy: the only language they know is that of power
politics. That is a recipe for disaster, sooner or later.
All it will take is one misstep, one miscalculation, one reckless action by a mid-level military officer
acting without orders – and the missiles will start flying. And it will be game over for the human
race. In 1962, humanity survived because one man, Vasily Aleksandrovich Arkhipov, said no, and
because John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, were rational enough to realize that things had
gone too far and that they had to compromise. We have to hope that there are enough shreds of
sanity among those in power today to once again avoid disaster. Ulli Diemer |
Featured Articles and Interviews
|
|
|
|
Is it really "disinformation" to show Russians as human beings? |
Canada’s Liberal government is openly suppressing alternative views and escalating a war with a nuclear armed state. In recent days, says Yves Engler, they’ve helped ban an anti-war film, labelled a media outlet foreign interference and sought to bomb deep inside Russia. Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland boosted a campaign to suppress the screening of Russians at War at the Toronto International Film Festival. Read more.
|
|
|
| Is this how western media would report Netanyahu's killing by Hezbollah? |
Western journalists claim to report the news objectively and fairly. If they really did, writes Jonathan Cook, this is what coverage of Netanyahu’s assassination might look like… Read more. |
|
|
| Laundering Carbon and the New Scramble for Africa
|
The carbon offset market, says Adam Hanieh, is actually an integral part of efforts to prevent effective climate action. Most carbon credits traded today are fictitious and do not result in anyreal reduction in carbon emissions. Read more. |
|
|
|
Did The West Provoke The Ukraine War? Sorry, That Question Has Been Cancelled |
Is it possible for an entire ‘mainstream’ media system – every newspaper, website, TV channel -- to completely suppress one side of a crucial argument without anyone expressing outrage, or even noticing? MediaLens argues, with extensive evidence, that the role of the ‘mainstream’ media is to suppress evidence or arguments that conflict with the official narrative. Read more.
|
|
|
|
Deaths at sea: Mass media mourn the rich, ignores the poor |
The sinking of a super-yacht gets mass coverage, while thousands of refugees drown in darkness.
Read more
| |
|
|
| Not So Black and White: A History of Race from White Supremacy to Identity Politics
|
By Kenan Malik The ‘culture wars’ have generated ferocious argument, but little clarity. This book takes the long view, explaining the origins of ‘race’ in Western thought, and tracing its path from those beginnings in the Enlightenment all the way to our own fractious world. In doing so, Kenan Malik
upends many assumptions underpinning today’s heated debates around race, culture, whiteness and privilege. Malik interweaves this history of ideas with a parallel narrative: the story of the modern West’s long, failed struggle to escape ideas of race, leaving us with a world riven by identity politics. Through these accounts, he challenges received wisdom, revealing the forgotten history of a racialised working class, and questioning fashionable concepts like cultural appropriation. Read more.
|
|
|
Where Are They? The Disappeared: When Remembering is a Political Act of Resistance |
A Honduran organization, COFADEH is an example of the struggle, in all too many countries,
against political disappearances. COFADEH’s primary mission has been precisely this keeping of
memory alive “contra el olvido” (against the forgetting). Forgetting is not just an innocent slip. In
this context it is regarded as a deadly weapon of repression and dehumanization that must be
countered. The photos of many of those disappeared in the early 1980s, and some since, appear
on walls in the COFADEH office in Tegucigalpa. The organization has been developing a “Ruta
de la Memoria Histórica,” a route along which stops would mark the sites of places where the
detained and disappeared in the 1980s were known to have been held, torture, or killed. Read
more. |
|
|
Hollywood in the Klondike: Dawson City's Great Film Find
|
By Michael Gates
A highly readable account of the dramatic discovery of hundreds of old silent films buried in the
permafrost beneath the demolished site of an old hockey arena in Dawson City, Yukon. Many of
them were the only surviving copies of films long believed lost. Gates describes the significance
and drama of the discovery, and tells the story of what Dawson City was like in ins heyday when
these films were being shown. Read more. |
|
|
We want your memories – stories – photos |
|
|
Connexions is working on a project called “Getting the Word Out” about how activists and organizers communicated their messages in the days before the Internet, and we’d like your help.
We are looking for your recollections, stories, photos, and descriptions of your work, and we’re
also looking for samples of materials that you or your group produced. Can you help?
At this point, one of the things we are particularly interested in is arranging interviews with long-
time organizers, to expand Connexions’ collection of oral histories. Interviews can be in person,
or by phone or Zoom.
We’d also like photos from your days of political activism, whether of dramatic public protests or
of the nitty-gritty of behind-the-scenes organizing work. We also welcome examples of materials
your group produced, such as leaflets, posters, newsletters, etc., which we could scan and put
online. (But check with us first before bringing us your archives: we only have limited space in the
Connexions Archive.)
Please get in touch with us at mailroom@connexions.org or 416-988-9586.
Connexions’ ‘Getting the Word Out’ project is supported by Digital Museums Canada (DMC).
DMC is managed by the Canadian Museum of History, with the financial support of the
Government of Canada.
|
|
|
Your support is needed to keep Connexions going |
All of the work of the Connexions project is done by volunteers, but our expenses include rent, phone and computer costs and technical support, as well as expenses related to our ongoing project of converting printed archival materials into digital formats. You can make a one time or regular monthly contribution through the Donate page on the Connexions website.
|
|
Many of us have made working for social justice a lifetime commitment. If you are thinking about leaving a legacy for social justice that will live on, you might want to consider leaving a bequest to Connexions in your will. If you'd like to discuss this option, please contact us: Connexions Archive and Library, 200 Wolverleigh Blvd, Toronto M4C 1S2 Phone: 416-988-9586 or see the Bequest page.
|
|
|
Follow us on Facebook or Twitter |
|
|
Copyright Connexions 2024. Contents are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License. This means you are welcome to share and republish the contents of this newsletter as long as you credit Connexions, and as long as you don’t charge for the content. This issue was edited by Ulli Diemer. |
|
|
|
