To: President John F. Kennedy Classified
CC: Vice President Lyndon B.
Johnson
From: CIA Director Brady Gambone
Date: October 15, 1962
Subject: Solution to the situation in Cuba
Memorandum
Context
The U.S.S.R. has successfully delivered what analysts at the
CIA agree are multiple nuclear missile launch sites in the communist island
nation of Cuba. Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of Florida, and if these
missiles are set up effectively, they can reach much of the mainland United
States. This vastly improves the strike capability of the Soviet Union. It is
imperative we take immediate action to this event and communicate with the
Soviets directly regarding the weapons removal.
Task
We must implement a strategy that will keep the United
States safe from Soviet attack. That is our number one priority. These weapon
systems have the capability to not only destroy the United States, but the
world. Mutually assured destruction is inevitable if this situation boils over.
An effective means of negotiation is required to end the situation peacefully.
Unfortunately, this means we need to offer the Soviets reason to leave Cuba.
Flexing our military muscle could be detrimental. Officers at Langley have come
to a few possibilities that the Soviet Union may accept.
Solution
The United States Navy must place a blockade around Cuba
immediately, to ensure no more weapons enter the nation. At the same time, we
must contact Secretary Khrushchev to inform him that we know of the missiles,
that this is a hostile display of aggression, and that it is imperative these
weapons be removed from Cuba immediately. In order for this to happen, the
U.S.S.R. will almost inevitably ask for something in return. The United States
has missiles in Turkey. These could be removed from the Soviet border if they
agree to remove their weapons from Cuba. The State Department’s red team has
come up with the same conclusion as our analysts that this may be the most
effective compromise for Khrushchev.
Evidence
Secretary Khrushchev is a rational man. His love for his
nation is comparable to our love of the United States. Khrushchev does not want
to see the destruction of the U.S.S.R. Negotiations will inevitably work, as
long as we perform rationally and keep our fingers as far away from the red
button as possible.
Failed Solutions
There are only two options in this situation. War, and the
ensured destruction of both the United States and the U.S.S.R, or a peaceful
negotiation. It is imperative that negotiations succeed. The United States must
not invade communist Cuba. This would be an equal or even more drastic act of
aggression, and could compromise any negotiations here on out. This is not a
proxy-war, and should not be treated as such.
Implementation
Through the use of our military, department of state, and
yourself Mr. President, negotiations and the security of our state can be
ensured. We must implement this plan swiftly, and with absolute confidence. We
cannot waiver from our goal, and we cannot afford to make one single mistake.
The chronological implementation of this plan is as follows:
(a) Establish a ‘quarantine’ of the island of Cuba to prevent
the entry of more weapon systems.
(b) Establish a secure line to Moscow to communicate with
Secretary Khrushchev directly.
(c) Demand the removal of nuclear weapons inside Cuba in
exchange for the security of Cuba and the removal of American missiles in
Turkey.
(d) Address the public regarding the crisis and ensure their
safety and security to prevent civil unrest.
Summary
This is the largest, and most immediate threat to the United
States, and to democracy in human history. Nuclear weapons in Cuba is a
situation beyond our nightmares. Implementation of a peaceful negotiation is
the only solution to prevent catastrophe. Through a secure ‘quarantine’, a
direct line of communication to Moscow, and the composed mindset of our
military and intelligence branches, the United States can achieve success in
this crisis.
John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Cuban Missile
Crisis, https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx
The National Security Archive, The George Washington
University, Memorandum, CIA Special National Intelligence Estimate Memorandum, “Major
Consequences of Certain U.S Courses of Action on Cuba”, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/19621020cia.pdf,
October 20, 1962
Brady,
ReplyDeleteI really like how clear and concise you were in your memo. There was no "fluff" or unnecessary information that took up space or made the reader lose focus. I also like how confidently you wrote. There were no "I think that", you wrote with purpose and it showed. I was a little confused at the failed solutions section however. Maybe I didn't understand Shirk's instructions but I thought that that section would be other things we have done in the past in similar situations that have failed. In yours you were writing about methods that would fail in the future. I like that but I would also connect a historical event to it as well. Over all I think you did a really good job.
Thanks Allison! I think you are right, I could have cleaned up the 'failed solutions' section a bit. I think it is tough to find historical examples because there was never an example quite like this of a situation similar to mutually assured destruction in history, especially on this global scale. But I probably could have explained that better, thanks!
DeleteHi Brady,
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what Allison had to say. I love the clarity and how pinpointed/direct this was. That's the goal of these memos. I believe the failure section is to illustrate historical examples to advocate your policy. I know everyone in our class knows what M.A.D. is but please explain these terms in your memos going forward. Was this term commonly used in 1962? In the evidence section, you make it seem as if diplomacy is a sure thing. It really isn't. Adversaries even today try to sit down and come up with an agreement and fail. Overall really good job!
Thanks D.J., again, yeah, I think I could have made the section clearer. Briefly looking online, it seems that M.A.D. was a new phenomenon in warfare, after the creation of nuclear arms. Looking back, I agree that I probably should have put historical context, or in this case, the fact that there is no history of this type of warfare. Also, in terms of diplomacy, I think if I explained more about M.A.D. then my point may have been clearer. I was attempting to say that diplomacy HAS to work, otherwise the world will end, literally. I believe that both sides knew at some point it would come to a peaceful end. I think both Kennedy and Khrushchev were rational, and never planed on 'pressing the red button.' Thanks for the insight!
DeleteGreat job, Brady! I like how concise you were in this post--this helps your message come across with more clarity. I think that your quick analysis of Khrushchev was a nice touch. Analyzing his personality attributes including his love for his country only further proves your point that action is beneficial for not only the United States but also for Khrushchev and the U.S.S.R. Touching upon the United State's missiles in Turkey as a bargaining tool to have the U.S.S.R.'s weapons in Cuba was also a nice addition to your argument. My only recommendation is further clarification on failed solutions or ways that negotiations could go south. Well done!
ReplyDelete