Cuban Missile Crisis: Who won?

 U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, far right, describes aerial photographs of launching sites for intermediate range missiles in Cuba during an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on Oct. 25, 1962.
U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, far right, describes aerial photographs of launching sites for intermediate range missiles in Cuba during an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on Oct. 25, 1962.


At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, the United States had decisive nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union. This country had more than 400 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) compared to 78 ICBMs in the Soviet arsenal. The huge strategic advantage also included the sophisticated Polaris submarines with a devastating nuclear punch and the overwhelming striking power of some 1,300 bombers with nuclear ordinance, as opposed to less than 200 belonging to the Soviets.

Moreover, in the early 1960’s the delivery time from the launching site to the target was a crucial factor. It took approximately 30 minutes for the Soviet missiles to reach the United States. This was enough time for the Americans to retaliate with a devastating counter-strike, which was an essential deterrence for peace. From Cuba, the Soviet missiles would have been able to destroy most of the U.S. military and urban centers in 7-10 minutes.

Another important factor was that the missile accuracy significantly increased with the proximity of the target, making the Marxist island of Cuba the perfect choice to greatly improve Soviet nuclear capacity.

Yuri Pavlov, former head of the Soviet Latin America’s Foreign Ministry and responsible for Soviet-Cuban relations, wrote in 1994: “The Soviet leadership decided to use the island in order to bring a substantial part of the United States territory within range of Soviet medium range ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Khrushchev, who initiated this idea, hoped that it would help to address the imbalance (in) strategic nuclear force.”

Anatoly Dobrynin, Soviet ambassador to Washington and a decisive figure with Robert Kennedy in finding a solution to the crisis, stated, in his memoirs published in 1995, that Khrushchev’s motives for the missiles deployment in Cuba was strategic. He wrote: “The move was part of a broader geopolitical strategy to achieve greater parity with the United States.”

A principal factor in the Kremlin’s decision to introduce nuclear missiles into Cuba was the Bay of Pigs disaster, where John Kennedy was perceived as a weak, indecisive president who would cave in under pressure. The next move was to get Fidel Castro’s cooperation. The messenger was Ambassador Aleksandr Alexeyev, a veteran KGB agent and close associate of Raúl Castro.

Fidel Castro welcomed the idea of nuclear missiles in Cuba. In his meeting with Aleksandr, the Marxist dictator stated: “That is a very risky move . . . but if making such a decision is indispensable for the Socialist bloc, I think I am in favor of placing the missiles in our island. This way we will be able to be the first victims of the encounter against imperialism.” With Castro’s endorsement, the secret shipment and deployment was on.

But on Oct. 14, a U.S. aircraft (U-2) took photos that provided Washington with the first hard evidence of the Soviet missiles in Cuba. Two days later, President Kennedy was informed. For the next five days, in absolute secrecy, the president and close advisors analyzed the available options. At the end it was decided to confront, head-on, the Soviet challenge.

On Oct. 22 at 7 p.m., President Kennedy addressed the nation in a televised speech disclosing that Soviet nuclear missiles were in Cuba, announcing a strict quarantine of all offensive weapons being shipped to the island and warning Moscow that if they were not immediately withdrawn, the United States was ready to remove them by force.

Dobrynin knew that the Kremlin was caught empty handed by the forceful American reaction.

In his memoirs he said, “The fatal miscalculation was made by Khrushchev himself. He did not anticipate that his adventurous thrust would be discovered in time for Kennedy to organize a sharp reaction, including a direct confrontation.”

It was in this critical moment that Fidel Castro’s apocalyptic behavior became evident. He wrote to Khrushchev, calling on the Soviets to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the United States.

On Oct. 27, a U-2 plane was shot down over the island and its pilot killed. The U.S. military began the final stage of a massive deployment for the attack on Castro’s Cuba. Late that night, Robert Kennedy met with Dobrynin and went straight to the point. The president demanded the immediate withdrawal of the missiles from Cuba. Otherwise the United States would do it by force.

At 4 p.m. on Sunday, Oct. 28, the Soviet leadership sent an urgent message to Dobrynin in Washington indicating that Khrushchev had accepted the president’s demands. To avoid any delays, the news was broadcasted on Radio Moscow. The agreement also included a secret covenant for the gradual dismantling of the obsolete American missiles in Turkey and a pledge not to invade Cuba. During the negotiations, Castro was ignored and consequently felt humiliated.

But who won? Kennedy was murdered a year later by a pro-Castro assassin. Khrushchev was sacked as prime minister within two years and Castro has remained as Cuba’s bloody tyrant for over half a century. You decide.

Pedro Roig is senior research associate at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami, historian, attorney and author of the book “The Death of a Dream: A History of Cuba.” He is a veteran of Brigade 2506.

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  • In My Opinion

    When journalism is too good to be true

    When a Gallup poll this summer showed that 80 percent of Americans have little faith in the news media, there was a good deal of consternation in U.S. newsrooms. Some of it came from me. We’re used to getting called liars by the hucksters and connivers and knaves we write about. But it’s pretty frustrating to hear that readers don’t trust us, either.



    Past looms large in Islamist outlook

    The radical Islamists want to kill Pope Francis, according to the Italian daily Il Tempo. I’m not surprised. The permanent enemy of these anachronistic characters is Christianity, not the Jews.


    Finding justice on racial issues through the ballot

    The eyes of America remain focused on Ferguson, Missouri, gripped by the aftermath of Michael Brown’s death. The anguish of Ferguson — from the murder of an unarmed young person of color, to the lack of accountability fueled by a sheer disregard for black lives — is all too familiar for Florida.

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category