October 16, 2012
By Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
If the phrase “missile gap” rings a bell, you probably remember one of the most frightening periods of the Cold War era: when the United States and Soviet Russia, 50 years ago this month, came perilously close to launching World War III.
Not that it would have been a long war. Considering the relatively new nuclear capabilities of both nations, the horrifying prospect of leveled cities, mass casualties and general chaos loomed as what became known as the Cuban missile crisis took place.
How that crisis unfolded in October 1962 was dictated largely by how World War II had ended. The U.S. had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and suddenly conventional wars fought by armies in the field seemed obsolete. The fact that a nation’s leaders could lay waste to an enemy simply by pushing a button forever altered the way leaders could broker conflicts.
The result: proxy wars in global hot spots, such as Korea in the early 1950s, as the freedom-loving West sought to oppose communist expansion worldwide. So when Cuba, just 90 miles off the coast of Florida, became the seat of a communist government in 1959, it set off some serious alarm bells for the United States.
The U.S. attempted to unseat the Cuban government through covert operations such as the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Then came news that shocked U.S. officials: the Soviet Union was helping the Cubans build secret bases for missiles capable of reaching the U.S. Every “duck and cover” exercise, every air-raid drill, seemed like the prelude to a horrifying reality.
Thus began the tensest stand-off in modern history, with President John Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev attempting to stare one another down. Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba to prevent any more offensive weapons from going in, and demanded that the missiles there be dismantled and removed. The world waited -- and prayed.
After several tense days, Khrushchev relented. His main condition: that the U.S. agree to never attempt to invade Cuba again. The world’s brush with nuclear annihilation had ended.
Or had it? Perhaps subsided would be more accurate. Because from then on, a situation known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevailed between the two global superpowers.
The arms race continued. Missile silos were filled with enough nuclear warheads to bury both sides in rubble many times over. And neither side dared press that button -- a first strike would certainly bring enough retaliatory firepower to make the attempt completely foolhardy. Détente, or “containment,” became the order of the day.
That changed under President Reagan, who wisely stepped up the arms race enough to make it financially unsustainable for the Soviets. He also conceived of a missile defense that would shoot down any incoming Soviet missiles.
Funding for President Reagan’s dream continued after he left office, and the Cold War ended. Today we have the technological capability to protect ourselves from certain missiles fired at U.S. territory or allies. But the system isn’t as comprehensive as what we would need to ensure that the potential missile threat posed by Iran, for example, can be shot down.
In fact, President Obama has undercut missile defense since taking office. That has to change -- and soon. We need a shield that will intercept missiles during all three stages of flight. It’s especially important to pursue a space-based component, which would enable us to shoot down missiles earlier in their flight, when they’re moving more slowly.
50 years ago, the world stood on the brink, and lived to tell the tale. We can’t assume we’ll get lucky the next time. Let’s build the kind of missile defense that will make us impervious to threats, and keep World War III at bay.
Ed Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org)
First appeared in The Washington Times.
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2014, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973