60 years on from Cuba

Opinion: Commander Robert Forsyth RN (Ret’d)

From END Info 34 DOWNLOAD

60 years on from Cuba we have not escaped the nuclear weapon nightmare

Sixty years ago this month and having only recently joined my first submarine HMS Auriga, I found myself loading fully armed torpedoes in a scramble to sail on war patrol for reasons history now recalls as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Aged 23 and full of youthful exuberance I thought this was very exciting and exactly what I had joined for. Perhaps just as well for my peace of mind, I was also blissfully ignorant of the fact that, while we were describing underwater circles in mid Atlantic trying to detect our Soviet equivalents heading south from the Iceland-Faroes Gap, the rest of the world was facing possible nuclear Armageddon.

It was only later that the harsh facts as to how close we had come to that Armageddon emerged with the stark reality of what nuclear war might have meant. It took until 2002 and a 40th anniversary meeting between the three protagonists – Cuba, USA & USSR - that the real reasons it was peacefully resolved became known. The common factor was rational thinking by rational people. Khrushchev had sent missiles to Cuba in direct response to Kennedy having stationed missiles in Turkey. Both of them feared that this politically driven act of nuclear weapon ‘show boating’ by Khrushchev might cause an accidental exchange through some unforeseen and uncontrollable incident. Behind the scenes they secretly negotiated while tensions rapidly rose on the ground and, less visibly, in the four Soviet submarines submerged off Cuba.

In return for Kennedy agreeing to withdraw his missiles from Turkey, Khrushchev agreed to withdraw his from Cuba. The deal was that the US withdrawal would remain secret – as it largely did until 2002. Rational thinking had prevailed, albeit the world at large thought Khrushchev had been forced to back off by nuclear force. But, while all this was being put in place, underwater the very unforeseen act both leaders feared came close to starting a nuclear war. A US warship had detected one of the Soviet submarines and dropped some underwater charges to ‘persuade’ it to surface. The submarine captain interpreted this as a hostile act justifying the firing of one of his nuclear tipped torpedoes. Fortunately a cooler head and more rational thinker was onboard. In addition to the captain and political officer (both of whose authorisation was needed), Flotilla Commander, Vasilii Archipov’s approval was also needed to fire the ‘special weapon’. Recognising the horrific implications of firing a nuclear weapon, he would not give his permission. The others finally accepted that they could not fire and the captain surfaced his submarine. Archipov is generally credited with having saved the world.

Sixty years later, having avoided a strategic nuclear war and dodged some 14 nuclear near misses since, the world is facing the all too real threat of President Putin unleashing tactical nuclear war. This time though there is a big difference. Putin shows no sign of the implied rational thinking behind defensive nuclear deterrence that supports the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Putin has demonstrated that, in his hands, nuclear weapons are not defensive but offensive weapons and his threats have been directed at deterring NATO from more direct action in conventional warfare which, incidentally, may well encourage other States to acquire them for similar reasons.

So where does NATO stand now and what should it do? To threaten and then possibly launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against Russia would result in further, escalating, nuclear exchanges which NATO cannot seriously contemplate initiating unless prepared to turn Europe into a wasteland. So all the $/£Bns spent on nuclear deterrence are shown to be ineffectual when faced with the leader of a State who does not play by the established rule book. This makes it crystal clear that the rule book is - and always has been - deeply flawed. The fact that there has been no nuclear war since 1945 is no proof that one could not occur. The only way to avoid a nuclear war is by the total elimination of nuclear weapons as required by the UN Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Once it is clear, as surely it must be in the end, that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has failed, Russia will need to integrate back into the rest of the world. This will be the time for the west to take a bold and imaginative step forward on disarmament in a way that encourages Russia – probably and hopefully under new leadership – to engage in disarmament negotiations and this, in turn, will encourage China to join in.

Firstly - recognising that the presence of nuclear weapons based in Europe exacerbates rather than resolves conflict, the US should withdraw all of theirs retaining only its US based strategic strike missiles just for the period of negotiations.

Secondly, NATO should immediately and unconditionally declare a policy of No First Use and Sole Use as proposed by states and organisations at the recent UN NPT review. If nuclear weapons are supposed to be a ‘last resort’ then at least give meaning to the phrase.

Thirdly, the UK and France should disband their respective nuclear forces as part of the negotiations.

Lastly, negotiations should be conducted with respect towards Russian dignity and not as winner’s reparations. One of the main political drivers towards the war in Ukraine has been a failure by the west to support post-Soviet Russia integrating back into the world from which it has become totally isolated. We should not risk giving an extreme right wing leader the opportunity to replace Putin.

All of this will require courage by State leaders. But they should not he afraid to follow in the footsteps of former US Defence Secretary William (Bill) Perry who now actively promotes the elimination of nuclear weapons by all means and as swiftly as possible.