Nuclear power comparison; 1962 Cuban Missile Crises and 2024 Ukraine Crises
Comparing the current crisis with the Cuban crisis would be helpful to make a sound analysis and evaluation on the possibility of a nuclear war; more like, the likelihood of an all out nuclear war or tactical nuclear war.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was over one specific issue and one dimension. The dispute was about the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba in exchange for the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Turkey.
Ukraine crisis is multi dimensional and in reality covers many issues related to the economic, political, and military “hegemony” of the US and West over the world. The U.S. hegemony through Neo-Con policy of conflict and destruction through wars, black mailing through imposing unilateral economic sanctions, and finally the proxy war in Ukraine backfired and bringing about its collapse. The outcome of the war in Ukraine will be decisive or at least will have an important impact on the status of NATO as well as the mythical “prestige” of the US.
The Cuban missile crisis brought Soviet Union and the United States dangerously close to a war which could have escalated easily into an all-out nuclear exchange.
The failed Bay of Pigs invasion attempt by US-supported Cuban exiles sparked the Cuban Missile Crisis. Castro turned to the Soviets for protection against future US aggressions. “The Soviets provided Cuba with nuclear weapons on the condition that the deal would remain secret until the missiles were fully operational.” (1) Khrushchev claimed that his motivation for providing Cuba with nuclear weaponry was to safeguard the Cuban Revolution against US aggression and to alter the global balance of power in favor of the Soviet Union. (2)
In August 1963, the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain signed a treaty banning atmospheric and underwater nuclear testing. Nevertheless, the test-ban treaty failed to halt the arms race, as Kennedy simultaneously authorized a massive arms buildup that vastly expanded the US nuclear arsenal and amplified US strategic superiority in the Cold War. (3)
Arms Control Organization states that; ” in October 1962, the United States had about 27,000 nuclear weapons, and the Soviets had about 3,000. In a first salvo of a nuclear exchange with its intercontinental adversary, the United States could have launched about 3,000 nuclear weapons and the Soviets about 250.(4) The total megatonnage in that initial exchange would probably have been approximately 50,000 to 100,000 times greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. Such use of nuclear weapons in 1962 would have imperiled not only the Soviet and U.S. peoples, but much if not all of humankind. That is 10 times more than the Soviets.”
“At the time of the crisis, the United States assumed it had significant superiority over the Soviet Union in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other delivery systems capable of reaching its main adversary. The U.S. numbers included about 177 ICBMs versus what was believed, incorrectly, to be about 75 Soviet ICBMs. It turned out, according to Soviet information released much later, that the Soviets probably had only about 20 to 44 ICBMs. Thus, the U.S.-to-Soviet ratio of at least 4-to-1 and possibly more than twice that gave the United States a near-counterforce capability. (5)
In other words, a U.S. first strike could destroy a very high number of the Soviet land-based ICBMs and might, according to the then-recent public explanations of counterforce thinking, make any Soviet retaliatory strike unlikely. Such analysis, with the continuing large U.S. buildup in missiles under Kennedy, meant that the Soviets were dangerously behind and that the situation would worsen for them. (6)”
The nuclear missile arsenals of today in many countries is fundamentally different. During Cuban missile crises, there were no high-precision missiles. At that time it was either nuclear war or conventional war. Today, it is ambiguous and the possibility of a combination with the use of “Tactical Nuclear weapon” seems to be justified. Hiroshima and Nagasaki may be considered as an example. However, the possibility of an all out nuclear war following the use of a Tactical Nuclear Missile on close border of a nuclear country is a likely one.
There was a constant communication between US and Soviets during the Cuban missile crises, where as in the case of Ukraine, all the communication lines are cut off and replaced by mutual “threats” and “warnings”.
There was a miscalculation on the nuclear power of Soviets that may have contributed to the agreement. Today, despite the known facts of the absolute quantity and quality of nuclear missiles, any miscalculation could result in war.
One may confuse with the statistical graphs of “Nuclear Power” some of which includes all the nuclear power production – energy related , others show nuclear bomb heads. Although the total count of Nuclear War Head is important, what more important is the quantity of the “delivery Systems” (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, heavy bombers etc.), quantity of deployed ready warheads, the quantity and size of strategic and non-strategic warheads (tactical-nuclear warheads).Using the US State Department data of September 2022, Russia deploys 1,549 strategic warheads on 540 strategic delivery systems. As of December 2022, Russia also maintains an arsenal of 1000-2000 non-strategic nuclear warheads.
United States deploys 1,419 strategic nuclear warheads on 662 strategic delivery systems.
The total number of U.S. “active” and “inactive” warheads is 3,750 as of September 2020. The current military stockpile stands at 3708 warheads, with 1,336 retired warheads awaiting dismantlement, leaving at 2,372 war heads.
Just to mention China with a speedy increase in the war heads and delivery systems, based on 2022 US Department data; China has approximately 440 nuclear warheads for delivery by land-based ballistic missiles, sea-based ballistic missiles, and bombers. Of that total, they estimate China has approximately 206 strategic launchers (intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.)
When we compare the Nuclear Bomb Arsenal of both countries during 1962 Cuba missile crisis with the current Ukraine crisis, we will see that the power has shifted significantly towards Russia.
One should consider the related facts in evaluating the “nuclear crisis” and “likelihood” of an “all out Nuclear war” ;
1) Fundamental differences in the issues
2) Fundamental differences in the dimension of issues
3) Fundamental differences in the total Nuclear War capacities of belligerent countries (blocks)
4) Question of who will, actually can, benefit from an all out Nuclear War.
Is it possible that US with its antagonistic contradictions to a country that considers as “communist” does not go for a nuclear war when it has total superiority over its nuclear power , yet goes for an all out nuclear war with a capitalist country with which its contradictions are not antagonistic and it has no superiority over its nuclear arsenal? It is true that as long as nuclear bombs exist, nuclear wars are possible. However, there is a difference between possibility and likelihood at each conditions and situations.
Erdogan A,
June 25, 2024,
Nepal
Related Articles ; On
the likelihood of a Nuclear war, Formalizing
the alliance of three; Russia-North Korea defense agreement, Unipolar
World versus Multipolar world
Notes
(1) Sergo Mikoyan, The Soviet Cuban Missile Crisis: Castro, Mikoyan, Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Missiles of November (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2012), 225-226.
(2) Strobe Talbott, ed. Khrushchev Remembers(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), 494.
(3) The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997).
(4) Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories, 1945-2010,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2010, p. 81; Raymond L. Garthoff, Reflections on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1989), p. 208;
(5) Garthoff, Reflections on the Cuban Missile Crisis, pp. 202-203, 206-207 (October 27, 1962, estimate on Soviet missile-launcher numbers and the figure of possibly 44 Soviet missile launchers, which was a much later U.S. intelligence estimate). Soviet Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov in 1989 stated that there were only “about twenty” Soviet ICBM launchers in October 1962. Most analysts seem to have accepted Volkogonov’s report, not the U.S. intelligence’s higher number of 44, and have assumed that the number of reported missile launchers indicated the number of Soviet ICBMs in October 1962. Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, Khrushchev’s Cold War: The Inside Story of an American Adversary (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 440.
(6) Fursenko and Naftali, Khrushchev’s Cold War, p. 430.
On the likelihood of a Nuclear war
Erdogan A, April 2024
A depiction of an Indian boy coincidently and
correctly shows the destruction of Europe
Late Professor Edward Said had said "... by creating "others" who would become Colonies, the Colonizers created themselves, the opposite of those who would be Colonies." Likewise, while the colonists who exploited the natural resources and manpower of the colonies became rich, the people of the colonies became poor and remained dependent on the colonizers. With consciously taken precautions and the methods used, the racist view that the colonizers were "superior human beings" reinforced, and the fact that the reason for their wealth was the exploitation of resources belonging to these people was thus hidden behind racist “superiority” view. In other words, the West saw and presented the inequality it created as a “human fact” that strengthened its own racist "superiority". Latest comment of EU rep’s on Ukraine war and his “forest and jungle comparison” and comment indicates how deep this superiority complex is.
For them, the West is “forest” (civilized) and the rest of the world is “jungle” (wild and uncivilized). This reinforced self acclaimed “superiority” of the West have become dominant and reflected itself in so many so-called “leftist” academicians and theoreticians' books, articles, and commentaries. That made them see and analyze the world from the point of view that “West is the world “ sharply reflected it self from the writings of Negri and Hardt and their theory of “multitude” to apply which is impossible to the rest of the world but to only to the most developed few of the West.
The outcries of the “total destruction of the world” in case of a nuclear war is another example of seeing the West as the entire world.
Here is the list of Nuclear Power Countries as of 2024
Country
Total Weapons
Russia
6,257
United States
5,550
China
410
France
290
United Kingdom
225
Pakistan
170
India
164
Israel
90
North Korea
50
Nations hosting Nuclear weapons
Italy 35, Türkiye 20, Belgium15, Germany 15, Netherlands 15, and Belarus unknown
Click to enlarge An inexpert but intelligent assumption would be that none of the nuclear power countries will waste its nuclear war heads for the countries other than those with nuclear power. Looking at the map, primary targets will be France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands, and depending on the objective conditions of strategic alliance, may be Turkiye in Europe.
Click to enlarge Looking at the “damage Zone” the destruction mainly will be where the bomb is blown up. Its secondary, tertiary and quaternary affects will be based on the quantity and size of the bomb. In other words, all the “South” is not within the “total destruction” zone. It would be the “total destruction of the West” not the total destruction of the “World”. West is not the world.
Our subject is not the technical analyses of the consequences of a nuclear war about which I have next to none knowledge or expertise. The fundamental question is what is the likelihood of an all out nuclear war, who really makes the decisions for the decisive subjects, especially for one that threatens the very existence of the world and world order, who, what classes have more to lose than others?
The likelihood of a nuclear war is entirely contingent on the “balance of powers” and coming out of it with minimal or no damage to the interests of Finance Capital. Based on the history and historical developments, we can divide the “world order” in three categories;
1- Unipolar world where one superpower is dominant and have nuclear power unequal to no one. In this situation nuclear-power is used for deterrence and the submittance of the others to the interests of superpower. The use of nuclear power if and when necessary will not impact the interests of the finance capital.
2- Bipolar world where there are two superpowers with equal nuclear-powered military. In this situation nuclear war is highly unlikely as long as both sides have destructive capacity leaving no room for the finance capital to minimize its loss.
3- Multipolar world where there are multiple superpowers and nuclear-powered countries. In this situation the possibility of a nuclear war arises however due to the inevitability of forming new strategic and economic alliances this type of world order transforms itself to a de facto Bipolar one.
Based on the current alignment; Russia, China, North Korea alliance have close to 7,000 nuclear heads.
United States, France, United Kingdom, Israel have around 6200 nuclear heads.
The preference of Pakistan and/or India on the two opposing alliance will not have any decisive affect. The likelihood is that they will have either each other to fight or remain impartial.
As I understood – I may be wrong- the numbers of nuclear heads each have is not decisive factor but the proximity plays significant role. Considering that the nuclear-powered and nuclear hosted countries in Europe are almost neighbors to Russia, they do not even have any chance against Russian military power never mind against its nuclear power. According to the military experts and as proven in Ukraine, Russia has nuclear head attachable hypersonic missiles that no country in the West can stop.The US is on the other side of Atlantic against Russia and Pacific against China.
For the US, in case of a nuclear war threat, it is likely that it may desert its European proxies but unlikely to wage a nuclear war against Russia and China since North Korea with its own intermediate hypersonic missiles, by itself is capable of destroying both South Korea and Japan.Practically that is why a nuclear war between US-West and Russia-East is highly unlikely.
Now lets study the theoretical aspect of the question.
Who makes the decisions on questions related to the vital interests of finance capital?
The dominant perspective is that “governments” make the decisions on any domestic and foreign policies. For a Marxist Leninist any government, either somewhat dictatorial or bourgeois democratic can only make decisions within the boundaries set by the elite-ruling classes. Their decisions cannot go above and beyond the interests of the ruling class at any given situation. Government and all the institutions are made up of bureaucrats in order to serve the ruling classes and as long as bureaucracy keep on serving their interests, bureaucrats can survive.
For a Marxist Leninist point of view, Bureaucracy does not create "value" by itself, but it controls the coordination, distribution, and consumption of the created "value" in the "production" process and its continuation. In other words, they are responsible for the preparation and implementation of "laws" in production relations whether it be domestic or foreign relations. In some countries governments have more flexibility in the domestic affairs as long as they do not contradict the interests of ruling elite.
Criticizing Hegel’s Philosophy of Right Marx said, “The bureaucracy has the essence of the state.” The "essence" is not the ownership of the state as an apparatus but its administrative function. The state is the apparatus of ruling class for which the bureaucracy carry out the administration of it. No decisive decisions can be made contrary to the interests of the ruling class and without their decisive input on any serious issue. Simply, decisions concerning the vital interests of the ruling class are made only by them or with their approval.The latest event in which Macron of France has gone above and beyond his “authority”. His declaration of Odessa and Kharkov as “redlines of EU” and his intention of sending French troops to Ukraine backfired when Russia drew its red line and declared its commitment to destroy any and all such attempts by any means necessary. Macron’s sudden retraction on sending troops to Ukraine and its domino affects is not a consequence of “objective thinking” of bureaucrats but a consequence of warning by the domestic ruling elite, more like of the world’s finance capital.
Ironically, while a section of the US neo-cons wants to leave Russia alone and focus on China as the real” enemy”, US business executives, including Blackrock visits China and had meeting with Xi Ping. One of the striking person is Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone. Blackstone together with Vanguard is the front financial company of the world’s largest finance capital groups-families second to none, if not larger than the rest is combined. They are the real decision makers behind any decision that concerns their interests, especially the existential ones.
On every decisions, especially on the decisions for a Nuclear War, the fundamental question is who will benefit and who will lose. The response to this question is elementary when the issue is Nuclear war and the destruction of the World.
Peoples in general have nothing to lose but the Finance Capital who owns or at least have a large stake in the banks, most large industries, information, trade, agriculture, trade transaction technologies and have stake on every sector of life will inevitably be the ultimate loser.
A destructive nuclear war where the meaning and function of money disappear, will mean the end of the “powers” and the use, exchange of money. Simply put, the end of the Finance Capital and its power. If they survive individually, they will be transformed in to unskilled laborers in a world where money means nothing but food and survival means everything.
Are the members of the finance capital so stupid to let a couple of bureaucrats make a decision for the world they control, dominate? That decision is an existential one not only for the members of Finance Capital, but for the rest of the industrialists who live a comfortable life.
Tracking backwards, is there really any bureaucrat who are dumb enough to act against the interests of the ruling elite, finance capital? History has shown that they disappear quickly from the political arena if not from the world.
Considering this fact, in a bipolar, multi polar world the possibility of a nuclear war is highly unlikely. There may be exceptions of regions far from the borders (with tactical-nuclear bombs), outside of the nuclear affect zone and outside of the strategic, economic alliances of one or the other with minimal use of tactical-nuclear weapons. However, the wars during the phase of multipolar world seems to be proxy wars in smaller scales, regional at worst, economic competition at best.
That is a fact that just the existence of nuclear bombs by itself makes a nuclear war possible. However, in addition to the fact that the use of nuclear bombs do not coincide with the interests of the ruling elites -either global or local- the technological developments in military warfare gradually making its use an obsolete one.
It seems that, especially in a multipolar world, the Nuclear Bomb lost its significance as the weapon for winning a war. During the monopolar world, it was always the weapon of “deterrence” and “subjugation” and ironically, it was dished out as a “benefit for humankind” by the hegemonic power. During this period, for the smaller or weaker countries, it played the strategic role of defensive “deterrence”. With strong strategic-economic alliances this may gradually diminish or (due to the law of uneven economic development) they themselves may become another superpower.
With the technological - satellites, Artificial intelligence, precisian guided sub-sonic, supersonic, hypersonic missiles, UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), USVs (Unmanned Surface Vehicles), lately introduced Robot Tanks, lasers, signal jamming, and so many other to count-development, the need for the use of nuclear weapons is diminishing. This new technological war machines are also extremely destructive but can be localized and their extent is controllable.
For these reasons I do not see any likelihood of nuclear world war.
Nuclear warheads will probably remain for a long time as a weapon of deterrence, new missiles will be produced for their possible use. It is similar to the fact that wars will be inevitable as long as capitalism exists. New technological weapons will continue to be destructive in the service and for the benefit of Military Industrial complex and of the Finance Capital. However, most likely the wars will be proxy wars with the use of new weapons at the expense of the people and the destruction of the proxy countries in where the new “technological weapons” will be tested on the field and improved accordingly.
Erdogan A
April 2024
Laos
