The Instigator
quarterexchange
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Sniperjake1994
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

USSR v.s. U.S.A Cuban Missile Crises

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,769 times Debate No: 15886
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

quarterexchange

Pro

This is a debate where my opponent and I will take the sides of the Worlds superpowers at the the time of the Cuban Missile Crises

This debate is where my opponent and I will attempt to prove our side was justified from a neutral perspective.

Pro
I will be arguing that the Soviet Union took the right course of action in giving Cuba nuclear and conventional arms during the Cuban Missile Crises

Con will argue that the United States took the right course of action in the Cuban Missile Crises by preventing to

The first round is simply for acceptence and I will begin the debate by posting my arguments in Round 2.

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
Sniperjake1994

Con

I would like to thank quarterexchange for this awesome debate. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
quarterexchange

Pro

Thank you for accepting Con, this should be a good debate.

Here are the reasons why the USSR had every right to put weapons in Cuba

1. The United States had nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey

The United States had placed nuclear missiles capable of striking the Soviet Union in Turkey. It would have only taken a couple hours for a U.S. missile from Turkey to attack major Russian cities.

The U.S. installing nuclear missiles so close the the USSR gave the USSR a legitimate reason to place nuclear missiles in Cuba capable of striking the U.S. in a quick amount of time was a reasonable reaction.

2. The U.S. had already attempted to attack Cuba

In the famed Bay of Pigs invasion, over 1000 cuban exiles were trained and armed by the CIA to launch an attack on Cuba. This gave Cuba a legitimate reason to fear future U.S. attacks and it was their right as a nation to accept conventional and nuclear arms from the USSR to defend themselves seeing that nations that feared a Soviet invasion were given nuclear and conventional arms by the United States.

For these reasons the USSR was justified in sending arms to Cuba and the U.S. had no reason to intervene.

http://www.armscontrol.org...

http://library.thinkquest.org...
Sniperjake1994

Con

Begin!

Pro:
1) Look at the map (https://jspivey.wikispaces.com...). Ahead of Turkey is Russia. Obviously Russia has antinuclear missiles/weapons, hence it is capable of eliminating incoming nuclear missiles if allowed enough time to take action. Russia is capable of launching a second strike with ICBM missiles. Russia is also equipped with sub-launched nuclear missiles (R-13 to be exact), run those subs around the US coast and Russia has a deterrence; there is no need to be involved with Cuba. Rather than making a fuss over it almost causing WW3, Russia can turn the deaf ear like the US did with the Hungarian revolution in 1956.

2) Because Cuba was a US territory under rebellion, US had every right to quench this rebellion because a mutual treaty was violated. Similar to Berlin and Hungarian revolution in 1956, Russia had every right to crush rebellions within its territory under any means. England had every right to crush any colonial rebellion because British colonies were under the idea of mercantilism (countries wealth measured in gold (linked ->) self sufficiency (both in colonies and mother country) for more foreign exports = more gold), influence, and British protection. There must be a countermeasure for violating a mutual agreement.

Con:
1) Monroe Doctrine states US will protect the Americas from foreign colonization. It is the US' obligation to invade Cuba to prevent Russia from colonizing it. The doctrine has been in effect and will still be enforced since 1823. The US had its commitment and is required to fulfill it.

2) US heavily invested oil in Cuba. After the revolution Cuba nationalized US built oil derricks without compensation. US had every right to invade and reclaim its heavy investment since Cuba refused to compensate.
Say for example during your computer's warranty period the company undergoes new management, unfortunately your hard drive crashes (without back ups) along with important business and personal data and the new management refused to acknowledge your warranty or compensate it, would you sue or fight back?

3) Russia had alternative means such as sub-lauched R-13 missiles patrolling US coast. Geographically, (https://jspivey.wikispaces.com...) it would had been easier and fewer resistance to deploy from China or northern Russia, go around Alaska, and bombard the US west coast rather than supplying Cuba, which is surrounded by US allies (in blue). If Russia supplied Cuba from Europe, there would have been heavy resistance; if Russia supplied from China down to Vietnam, US had strong presence for the Vietnam War. Basically there would had been more US resistance if Russia supplied Cuba. Submarines would had been a better alternative for Russia.

For these reasons the USSR had no right to send arms to Cuba and US was justified in intervening.
Debate Round No. 2
quarterexchange

Pro

1. ABM systems were just in their development stage at the time of the Cuban Missile Crises and were simply experimental. Hence they were not very effective nor was there immediate reassurance in their ability to effectively eliminate a nuclear strike. The first true Anti-air missile was the Wasserfall built in Nazi Germany, did it eliminate the bombings conducted by the allies, of course not. The same reason it wasn't effective was because it was in the experimental stage, hence it was not totally effective, hence they weren't mass produced to make a difference.
To say that Russia had ABM's therefore they could eliminate a nuclear attack from Turkey is just like claiming that simply because Nazi Germany built the Wasserfall they could eliminate the allied bombing threat.

http://www.ucsusa.org...

The truth is is that neither side had effective ABM methods during the Cuban Missile Crises.

The U.S. also had sub launched missiles and could launch counter strikes. During the 1960's the U.S. Air Force was mass deploying B-52 Stratofortress bombers (seen in my icon), which were stationed at air bases all over the world and were capable of traveling large distances, strike with multiple nuclear arms, and fly back to safety. The USSR did not have such a capability as most of their bombers had shorter ranges and had smaller payloads. All in all, the U.S. out matched the USSR in striking capabilities not counting the fact that the U.S. placed nuclear missiles in Turkey that could strike the USSR in the same amount of time a missle from Cuba could strike the U.S.

Russia did not make a fuss over it. They simply sent ships carrying arms to Cuba, it was the United States that initiated the blockade and was preparing for an invasion from Florida.

2. None of those counter rebellions were justified.
The country you are arguing for was established by rebels who saw it as unjust to be ruled by foreign powers that impose a form of government you don't agree with.
The colonists did not want to be run by England and their government therefore they were justified in breaking away.
The slavs did not want to be run by the USSR and their government so they were justified in revolting.
The cubans did not want to be controlled by the U.S. in the 60's so they broke away.

All of the rebellions above were acts against outright imperialism and the

1. The Monroe Doctrine is not international law, simply a rule the U.S. created and follows. To put this in perspective the USSR had the stated goal to "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State" (https://www.mi5.gov.uk...)

Therefore by your logic the USSR was following their obligation to use all available methods to overthrough the bourgeoisie by suppling Cuba.

2. The UK also lost money and resources when the U.S. and India broke away. Does that mean that the UK has the right to raise an army and launch an attack on the U.S. and India now that all is said and done? Of course not.
The USSR lost large sums of treasure when half of the continent of Europe was granted independence. Russia can't go back and take it. A lot of what makes an independence movement justified is whether you win or lose to set the precedent. When you lose a territory you can't go back laterr to take it by means of military force. For instance if th South had won the U.S. Civil War back in the 1860's, it would be ludicrous for the Northern U.S. to attack the Southern U.S. igniting a second war in the year 2000 because they couldn't get their objectives accomplished the first time.
Cuba won fair and square and was an independent nation. We attempted to aid the Bastista regime but the revolutionaries won. It was ridiculous to send thousands of men to their deaths in the Bay of Pigs invasion to re-correct the mistakes we made in the past.

Cuba won their independence as a nation and were able to defend that precedent.

3. The U.S. had the alternative of not installing nuclear missiles in Turkey to begin with.
Again the U.S. had long range bombers with larger payloads stationed at airbases all over the globe.
The U.S. had submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles as well.
The U.S. had installed nuclear missiles in Turkey capable of striking Russia in the same amount of time a missile from Cuba could strike the U.S.

The USSR had submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles as well, what the Russians did not have were large numbers of long range heavy bombers or nuclear missiles capable of striking the U.S. in a matter of a few minutes.

The USSR didn't bring the globe to the brink of war when the U.S. planted nuclear missiles right next to them, the U.S. did.
Sniperjake1994

Con

Pro:
1. Experimental development is still very effective. The devastation of the experimental A-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved highly effective. The first experimental satellite, Sputnik 1, successfully reached space. Are all experimental developments failures?
The Wasserfall missiles were never deployed in WWII, hence how could Wasserfall missiles stop Allied bombings if it was never deployed? http://www.century-of-flight.net...
The R-13 proved effective and was deployed by 1961, but it was never fired in anger. Therefore it was possible to launch nuclear armed subs and use them as deterrence. (http://www.fas.org...)
In the end, both countries had ICBM missiles. According to my opponent if both countries failed to have effective ABM methods it does not matter who struck first as there are no effective methods to stop the nuclear strikes from both countries once launched.
Why Russia did not make a fuss over it? Because Jupiter missiles deployed in Turkey were largely ineffective and vulnerable to Russian bombers.

2. Pro's argument has no tie with my argument. These countries were justified in crushing rebellions because the colonies violated a mutual agreement. Under the Warsaw Pact, Berlin and Hungary were under Soviet control. Under the royal charters, Britain had control in the American colonies. Under the Platt Amendment, US had presence and control in Cuba with a limited Cuban government after the Spanish American War.
When one party violated mutual agreements, the other party has the right to enforce these agreements.

Con:

1. No qualms here. We're neutral, both sides had its commitment to fulfill.

2. Unlike the UK (who made agreements after the break between India and US), US did not recognize complete Cuban independence. Under the Cuban constitution Platt Amendment, US had the right to intervene. http://www.mtholyoke.edu...
USSR fell after the Cuban missile crisis, thus this argument is invalid according to our agreement in R1 "at the time of the crisis".
Like the UK, US failed in stopping the revolution. Unlike the UK, US did not sign a peace treaty formally recognizing a communist Cuba. It is still under US authority and US had the right to intervene to enforce a democratic system. "The Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence" -Platt Amendment.
Legally, the US had the right to do so.

3. Agreed on US should not have installed, but by the time of the crisis Jupiter missiles were exposed and obsolete rendering it as a poor deterrence.
Both countries had surface to air missiles capable to eliminating bombers. This would be highly ineffective.
US had subs, but the Russia's major cities are landlocked or surrounded by Soviet territory rendering it useless for US subs attacking Russian cities directly.
The first US/Turkish nuclear missiles were completed by 1961 during the time of the Cuban missile crisis. And the missiles were obsolete due to above ground launch, short range, heavy payload, and time consuming launch procedure. (Russian air strike would had destroyed them if US attacked)
http://www.missilethreat.com...

For all the reasons above, US had the right to intervene with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Debate Round No. 3
quarterexchange

Pro

1. Sometimes. When a certain weapon is in its experimental or development stage, it is still being tested, improved on, and studied. Its effects and abilities aren't certain and therefore isn't mass produced.
The R-13 is a submarine launched ballistic missile, not an ABM system capable of taking out incoming nuclear threats, it was simply another delivery system and the U.S. already had this ability as well during the Cuban Missile Crises. The U.S. could have used their own nuclear launched nuclear weapons as well as their own deterrence rather than placing nuclear missiles in Turkey
Yes it is true that neither side had effective methods to prevent nuclear attacks such as incoming rockets, but before the U.S. placed nuclear weapons in Turkey both sides had the same amount of time to react to incoming nuclear strikes if one side launched rockets or bombers from their own territory at the other.
When the U.S. placed Jupiter missiles in Turkey within minutes of striking the USSR, that balance of power was tipped too far in favor of the U.S.

According to your own source Jupiter rockets placed in Turkey had the ability to strike Moscow along with other major Russian cities and every target between Moscow and Turkey with a 1.44 Megaton nuclear warhead each. To put this in perspective the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima was at most 18 Kilotons as oppose to 1440 kilotons of the Jupiter missile, much more powerful.

The reason the Jupiter missiles had so much significance was that they had the ability to be launched before hostilities opened up and despite a time consuming launch procedure, could be launched before the Russians knew how to react. It would have only taken a matter of minutes in the single digit range for a Jupiter missile to hit Russia, and if it was a surprise attack, which everyone feared and prepared for, the fact that Jupiter missiles had lengthy time procedures and were vulnerable to attack would be irrelevant if the U.S. decided to open up hostilities after the Jupiter missiles first entered Russian airspace.

The U.S. put 15 such missiles in Turkey according to your sources by 1961, who says they wouldn't have put more if the USSR hadn't retaliated by sending arms to Cuba?

2. Yes the UK had the right to attempt to crush the rebellion in the colonies before they won their independence
Yes the USSR had the right to crush the revolts in the Eastern Bloc before the Slavic nations received their independence
Yes the U.S. had the right to aid in the destruction of the communist revolution before they succeeded as well.

What all of those instances have in common is that the movement being crushed or destroyed by the powers of the USSR, UK and the U.S., all won in the end
What the difference is is that the USSR and the UK never went back after the fact to re correct their mistakes and ignite further conflicts, the U.S. did.

After the U.S., India, Poland, East Germany, etc all became sovereign nations, the powers that used to have control or influence over them, have no right to intervene again militarily. What you are saying by suggesting that the Bay of Pigs was justified because the U.S. used to have control over Cuba and lost, is that the UK has the right to launch an invasion on the U.S. and India because the UK used to have control over the U.S. and India, and the USSR has the right to take back the former Bloc nations by force if need be because they used to control those nations and powers as well, simply because the nations they used to control of moved on, became sovereign nations, does not mean they won't be attacked again.

The CIA fact book also states, "The Treaty of Paris established Cuban independence from the US in 1902 after which the island experienced a string of governments mostly dominated by the military and corrupt politicians."

https://www.cia.gov...
You will see it halfway through the Introduction on Cuba

was independent since 1902, the country, before the revolution succeeded, was run by Batista, U.S. backed, but runned the country without the U.S. legally in control due to the Treaty of Paris effectively establishing Cuba independent from the U.S.

Cuba was a sovereign nation before and after the communist revolution and was able to successfully defeat the CIA planned Bay of Pigs invasion, the fact of the matter is is that Cuba was an independent nation before the revolution, during the revolution, and after the revolution. The U.S. has launched an attack on Cuba just 1 year before and like any other rational nation would do, Cuba had a legitimate reason to fear a future U.S. attack and got aid from their ally, the USSR.

2. According to the CIA World Fact Book (link above) the US granted Cuba independence in 1902 under the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. had already granted Cuba independence in 1902 under the Treaty of Paris, the Platt Amendment which my opponent quoted from which states, "The Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence", was in 1901.

The Platt Amendment was abrogated in 1934 according to these sources
(http://www.u-s-history.com...)
(http://www.loc.gov...)
(http://www.fordham.edu...)

The U.S. granted Cuba independence in 1902 and the Platt amendment that allowed for U.S. military intervention was eliminated in 1934, well before the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Cuba was absolutely a sovereign nation free from unwanted foreign intervention during the Bay of Pigs, and because they were such they had every right to call upon foreign aid for support against the very likely threat of future attacks.

3. I refuted this above but I'll explain further.
The fact that the Jupiter missile was slow to launch and vulnerable would have been irrelevant in the instance the U.S. decided to launch rockets at Russia which could hit Russia in a quick matter of time in the event of a very likely surprise attack, Russia wouldn't have been able to know if the missiles were being prepared to fire, only after they were fired.

If you were to go to states in the Northern and unpopulated states of the U.S. such as Montana and North Dakota, you would notice that there are many nuclear missile silos there. This is for two reasons, one, if those silos were targeted by missiles themselves, there would be very few civilian losses, and two, missiles launched from the North would hit Russia quicker then missiles launched from the South when they travel over the North Pole, the quickest route.
The USSR followed this very same logic and many of their missile silos were placed in unpopulated northern areas, not near Russian cities. Many missile silos in Northern Russia were considered military targets. Now hold that thought.

The U.S. developed the Polaris missile in 1960, launched from submarines, with variants of the Polaris able to hit targets 2800 miles away.

http://www.britannica.com...

With a range of 2800 miles the submarine would not have had to been nearby at all to hit Russian cities, military installations and missile silos. Use this map and measure out 2800 miles and you can realize how much potential these had to strike targets in Russia

http://www.daftlogic.com...

A sub off the coast of Greenland or Spain could launch rockets at Moscow, Russia being landlocked is irrelevant.
A sub off the coast of Norway could strike at missile silos all over Northern Russia.

In conclusion the U.S. had no right to interfere with Cuba seeing as they were independent and gave them good reason to seek foreign aid after the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the U.S. had a significant military advantage by installing missiles on Turkey giving the USSR a justified reason to aid Cuba

Please vote for Pro
Sniperjake1994

Con

Pro:
1. Putting nuclear weapons in Cuba would have no significant effect if US launched first. Both Russia and US would launch 2nd strikes, and because US had more nuclear weapons than Russia US would obviously win. By putting half of Russia's nuclear arsenal in Cuba, a US air-strike would eliminate a large majority tipping the scale in US favor.
By putting more nuclear weapons in Turkey at the time of the crisis, USSR would had launched its nuclear weapons in fear, causing Russia to be the aggressor.

2. At the time USSR controlled these previously independent countries under the Warsaw Pact, they were not fully sovereign nations until the USSR fell. Poland and East Germany eventually won independence after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Technically, UK did invade the US in the War of 1812 but pulled back because they would gain little from the war. These superpowers invaded previously conquered countries at least once. Does it make it an obligation to enforce a mutual treaty? At least under Russia's Warsaw Pact, yes.

Con:
2. Even if Cuban fear another US invasion by putting nuclear weapons in Cuba, Russia only opened Cuba even further to potential US air-strikes and giving the US a petty reason to destroy the island and half of USSR's nuclear arsenal. Russia isn't really aiding the Cuban cause.

3. Again in either case, putting nuclear weapons in Cuba would have no significant effect as second strike would be launched and both countries destroyed.

In conclusion, I obviously lost. :P It was a fun one though and I enjoyed it. :D I still believe US took the right course of action and intervened causing Russia to lose credibility. In either cases, adding nuclear weapons in Cuba would have no counter effect once nuclear weapons are launched as both countries had ineffective counters against nuclear weapons.
Again, it was an interesting debate! Good job!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
I just want to announce that I may or may not believe that the USSR was actually the correct party in the Cuban Missile Crises.

I just debate to win occasionally, not necessarily out of ideological stances I take.
Posted by WillhelmIII 5 years ago
WillhelmIII
quarter exchange, you are EXTREMELY correct, the U.S. was putting missiles everywhere in Europe, within striking distance of Moscow, and the Soviets didn't do anything to stop them, so why should the Americans stop the Soviets, like I understand it was a "psychological" war, but fairness should have been considered when Kennedy made his decision to blockade Cuba
Posted by Sniperjake1994 5 years ago
Sniperjake1994
@mcc1789:
1) US still has the obligation to enforce this doctrine.
2) Pretty much, but Cuba never compensated after nationalizing everything American. Similar to Iraq and pretty much any country that took over foreign property that foreign country invaded. For example, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, immediately France and Britain launched an offensive on Egypt.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
I would also like to point out that the Polaris A-1 had a range of 1400 miles and the Polaris A-2 had a range of 1700 miles.
If you use the map I provided you can see that at 1400 miles a sub can be off the coast of Denmark or in the Adriatic sea to strike Moscow and every target between
With a range of 1700 miles the A-2 could strike Moscow from the English Channel and a sub equipped with A-2's off the coast of Norway could strike at several targets in Northern Russia including the cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow and countless other military targets. With most nuclear silos in the North a sub in the Kara sea a sub could strike just about anywhere in the North with an A-2 missile.
The U.S. had a very capable ability to launch a nuclear strike via submarines.

Sorry I had to do this in the comments but I war running out of room in the debate rounds.
Posted by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
I would have loved taking this debate so much - either side i'd take.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
I just want to state that in my argument when I was discussing about B-52 bombers I said it was shown in my icon, it was at the time, but now I changed it to an Su-47 Berkut, just in case there was any confusion.....which I don't think there was.
Posted by mcc1789 5 years ago
mcc1789
Con:
1) Monroe Doctrine states US will protect the Americas from foreign colonization. It is the US' obligation to invade Cuba to prevent Russia from colonizing it. The doctrine has been in effect and will still be enforced since 1823. The US had its commitment and is required to fulfill it.

Actually, the Doctrine was to prevent "other" foreigners from colonizing the Americas, as it was in our "sphere of influence." The US itself happily colonized it, and many would say it still does.

2) US heavily invested oil in Cuba. After the revolution Cuba nationalized US built oil derricks without compensation. US had every right to invade and reclaim its heavy investment since Cuba refused to compensate.
Say for example during your computer's warranty period the company undergoes new management, unfortunately your hard drive crashes (without back ups) along with important business and personal data and the new management refused to acknowledge your warranty or compensate it, would you sue or fight back?

There was long-standing resenment in Cuba over the Platt Amendment which let the US intervene as they deemed necessary as its conditions of independence. Cuba was basically made a self-governing colony of the US. I am no fan of Castro, but his anti-American backlash was popular because the US had done this. Much the same thing can be said (if not worse) in most of Latin America.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 5 years ago
Sniperjake1994
i'll take it
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by detachment345 5 years ago
detachment345
quarterexchangeSniperjake1994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering Con's votebomb when Pro obviously made better arguments, had even spelling with Con, and sources as well and did not concede. liljohnny is a votebomber
Vote Placed by liljohnny818 5 years ago
liljohnny818
quarterexchangeSniperjake1994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted on the "significant effect" arg. The concede at the end lost the conduct point
Vote Placed by AznWords 5 years ago
AznWords
quarterexchangeSniperjake1994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments were back and forth the first round or two but Pro made the better case. In addition Con conceded his defeat.