Diplomacy in the Cuban Missile Crisis - Day 5 by Maxwell Rost

Diplomacy - Plan of Action

maxwell_rost — 2023-10-30 15:18:41 UTC

Diplomacy is the best option for the US at this time. Many problems in the past were due to people jumping to conclusions and not waiting to make sure their plan was the best. We do not want this to happen again. First, we know what the Russians have to work with. If we tell them that their best option would be the best option for them would be to remove their missiles, they may listen because of our reputation of imperialism. Second, the US is seen as a world leader, and we can not show the rest of the world that surprise bombings or blockades are acceptable things to do. We do not even know if these missiles can be used or if they have nuclear warheads for them either. This is another reason why this fast action is not necessary. Although I believe that military action should not be taken at all, if there is to be action, there needs to be a warning sent to Russia and Cuba beforehand. We know how cruel and destructive a surprise attack could be. Another main idea that I have is that we need to be willing to remove our missiles from other countries that are threats to Russia. Even though this could be dangerous, it is safer than having threats of nuclear bombings in the US. Finally, if action was taken, only the missiles should be the target. We do not want to give any false motives. We just want to get rid of the nuclear threat to our country and citizens.

World View is similar to diplomacy. There is no huge difference between our arguments because the world will not think highly of us if we take military action and invade or blockade Cuba. I think that as of now, we both agree that no military action should be taken as of now. The worldview team seeks that we blockade Cuba and have the UN inspect the country for missiles and make sure they are removed for good. The big idea of this viewpoint is that we communicate with our allies and other countries before taking action so we do not lose our support.

Blockading Cuba is another option that could be terrible but also may have a few benefits. First off, it is military action, so there is a threat to Cuba and Russia right off the bat. We do not want them to take the wrong idea of our intentions. The advisors stated that they believed Russia would not use force if Cuba was blockaded. The cons to this plan is that it is time and money-consuming. There could be many military lives lost. The few pros of this plan are that it does not need to be forceful and that they would not be able to bring in missiles that they do not already have there.

Invasion of Cuba is the last option and should be the last resort if necessary. This plan has the potential to have many lives lost. This action could start a chain reaction and start an all-out nuclear war. This is also because we would not even be able to destroy all the missiles if we were to invade or send an air attack. We do not want to show this cruel aggressive side of the US because other countries may be scared of what we may do to them. The advisors also talked about how the missiles may already be camouflaged and we may not be able to destroy any if we can not find them in the first place. Overall, the long-lasting effects of war on a country are not worth it and unnecessary lives will always be lost.

Diplomacy-

dakoda_hennen — 2023-10-30 15:18:48 UTC

Diplomacy: negotiations, and communication, to get missiles out without violence.

Diplomacy is a less violent but not as persuasive option for the president. We can negotiate with the Russians when the time comes although other steps will have to be taken.

A "quarantine" with diplomacy would include sealing off people and/or goods from entering or leaving. This would be ideal if we could inform the Turks and the Italians about the warheads or warn our allies about our plan. We have already ruled out the option of giving the Russians a warning because it has many repercussions. Our best bet would be negotiating with our allies about our plans. If the time comes when we end in a tight spot and Russia wants to negotiate, we may have to give up our missile bases in Turkey and Italy. We could start a blockade and prepare for an air strike to be launched if necessary. No option can be taken alone, diplomacy will most likely be cohesive with the plan. The best option would be a "quarantine." If we need alternative/backup plans, we will have them on standby. We will be open to negotiating if the Russians will negotiate the missile threat in Cuba. We will have to go into this prepared but not wanting a war. That is why the "quarantine" is the first step for us. Again we do not want war, so we will have to be strategic about this and make sure we are level-headed when we make this decision. We should consult our allies first and then make the final preparations necessary. It would be better in the world's view if we only attack the missiles but again we should have a backup and be prepared to negotiate.

Blockade:

Pros-

communicate with our allies
not a surprise attack
^if necessary we can have a backup plan and then we could air strike if we need too
lessens the chance of starting a war
negotations could be made

Cons-

slower

Diplomacy

james_brewer1 — 2023-10-30 15:25:14 UTC

Diplomacy- We should not take any military actions because if we do it could lead to the Russians in Cuba thinking we are trying to attack them and it could lead us to conflict with them, the same thing could happen if we air strike the missile pads which would lead to loss of lives and would most likely lead us to war. If we try to negotiate with them we could stop there from being any unnecessary violence and we wouldn't lose any of our people in fights. The Blockade route could cause us to push the Russians too far into a corner it could be a more peaceful option where we could negotiate with them and hopefully prevent any more conflict and fighting. We would also be able to give them a warning if they don't get rid of their missiles we would destroy them which would not be peaceful but at least we would give them a warning and we could prevent or lessen the losses that they would take from the strikes.

If this does not work we could always have a backup plan where we could negotiate or as a last option prepare for the worst.

Diplomacy world view

james_brewer1 — 2023-10-30 15:36:27 UTC

World view- Some people would say that our wanting to negotiate would be a sign of weakness, but I think it would be quite the opposite. I think that trying to negotiate is a smart option that shows that we don't always have to rely on our armies and our weapons, it shows that we can be peaceful and not immediately resort to fighting. so people may view us as weak for this but it just shows we are strong enough and smart enough to find another way to avoid fighting and in the future they would eventually see that by negotiating we are saving lives and showing we can be smart and strong.

If we air strike the missile pads the people of Cuba and the world could see this as us just trying to take over Cuba or trying to prove a point.

While the blockade would be somewhat strategic it could be viewed as us trying to starve the people of Cuba or us preparing for an attack.

Diplomacy

chase_laleman — 2023-10-31 16:27:38 UTC

Diplomacy is the better way to go because it is less likely to cause a war. It keeps the situation much calmer. It helped prevent a nuclear war. I believe that military action should not take place because a lot of them would get hurt or killed.

World view- the world will look at us like we are weak if we don't take military action. Are we weak or are we being smart about it?

Blockading Cuba would be a lot slower but it would be a lot less deadly. It would be less deadly because we are blocking off their recourses.

Invasion of Cuba is the deadliest way and probably the worst way because we can't even get all the bombs. The missiles left are going to be used to bomb us. It will scare all the other countries.