This is a standard case study in International Relations (which I did in grad school in addition to, or subsequent to, philosophy, long story), but that was a while back. I recall being impressed with this point about the micropolitics of US decisionmaking in view of what was known 20 years ago (well, a little less, 15 years ago), namely that US policymakers became deeply irrational in the crisis.
There was the general strategic point Chomsky makes, but the willingness to risk nuclear war to make the point requires additional explanatory factors, and the JFK White House was a particularly macho place. They seem to have got caught up in the showdown aspects of thing, although Bobby K did, somewhat uniquely, have an appreciation for what nuclear war would mean. Still, they bet on the fact that Khrushchev would be a grown up and "blink," and K, who had seen what total war looked like on the ground, and who was the world leader before Gorbachev who most lucidly appreciated what nuclear weapons could do, indeed acted rationally.
That's the conclusion I came to the last time I looked at this.
jks
--- Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
> > How would you explain the US posture during Cuban
> missile crisis?
> >
> > Ulhas
>
> I always liked Chomsky's take, which I think is
> pretty accurate: The Cuban
> Missile Crisis established the right of the US to
> place nukes on the border
> of any enemy, as it did in Turkey, aimed at the SU,
> but no one else had that
> right, esp the SU. And JFK was willing to risk
> nuclear war to enforce this.
>
> DP
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com