Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
AI Explains the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Biblical Style
In the book AI Snake Oil, the authors mention that one of the AI systems was asked how one could remove a grilled cheese sandwich from a VCR player…and to explain it in the style of the King James Bible. The system did a pretty credible job.
This month marking the 62nd anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis…see my post The Cuban Missile Crisis, as Viewed From a Soviet Launch Facility–I thought it might be fun to ask Perplexity to tell the story of the crisis in biblical style. Here’s what it came back with:
And it came to pass in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-two, in the tenth month, that a great tribulation befell the nations of the earth[1].
For lo, the kingdom of the Soviets had secretly placed weapons of terrible destruction upon the isle of Cuba, which lieth nigh unto the shores of America[1][4].
And when it was discovered by the spies of America, President Kennedy, son of Joseph, was sore afraid[4]. He gathered unto him his wise men and counselors, that they might devise a plan to save their people from destruction[2].
And Kennedy spake unto his people, saying, “Behold, our enemies have brought their swords to our very gates. We shall not suffer this transgression, but shall make a wall of ships round about Cuba, that no more weapons may pass”[2][4].
Then did the leaders of America and the Soviets exchange many messages, each man seeking to prevail over the other[2]. And the world trembled, for the shadow of death was upon all the earth[1].
But lo, on the twenty-eighth day of the month, Khrushchev, leader of the Soviets, sent word unto Kennedy, saying, “We shall remove our weapons from Cuba, if thou wilt promise not to invade this land”[1][2].
And there was great rejoicing throughout the lands, for the threat of war had passed[4]. Yet the people knew not that Kennedy had also agreed in secret to remove his own weapons from the land of Turkey[2].
Thus ended the Cuban Missile Crisis, and though peace was restored, the nations continued to watch one another with wary eyes[4]. For the hearts of men are ever filled with suspicion and the desire for power.
Citations:
[1] https://www.britannica.com/event/Cuban-missile-crisis
[2] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_(Cuban_Missile_Crisis)
[4] https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/cuban-missile-crisis
[5] https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/cuban-missile.html
[6] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/CWHIP_Bulletin_17-18_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_v2_s5_Non-Communist_Europe_Israel.pdf
[7] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book-special-exhibit/cuba-cuban-missile-crisis-russia-programs/2022-10-04/cuban-missile
[8] https://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/files/wcfia/files/jd_missile_crisis.pdf
Too bad it didn’t cite newspaper archives for information in September 1962 that the Kennedy narrative-makers tend to leave out.
in particular?
The right-leaning newspapers had been screaming about Soviet missiles in Cuba for weeks before the standard narrative has Kennedy learning about them. For some of us it was almost anticlimactic when Kennedy officially made known their presence. But after the U2 flights took photos they could hardly be ignored or denied any more.
Was it clear that they were ballistic missiles rather than air-defense missiles?
I don’t even know how it was known at all. Good question.
I should add that I just became a teenager that fall and trusted right-wing outrage screamers a lot more than I do now. Whether that trust was more justified back then is another good question. It’s probably a tough call.
More fun with Perplexity: Please tell me the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis as it might be told by a leftist, feminist academic.
A leftist, feminist academic perspective on the Cuban Missile Crisis would likely reframe the traditional narrative in several key ways:
## Challenging the Great Man Theory
The conventional telling of the Cuban Missile Crisis often focuses on the actions of individual male leaders, particularly John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. A feminist approach would critique this “great man” framing of history[1]. Instead, it would emphasize how the crisis arose from broader systemic issues and involved many actors beyond just the top leaders.
## Exposing Toxic Masculinity
A feminist analysis would highlight how performances of masculinity and machismo exacerbated tensions during the crisis[2]. The emphasis on “toughness” and unwillingness to back down or appear weak likely prolonged the standoff and increased the risk of nuclear war. The rejection of more “feminine” approaches like diplomacy and negotiation would be seen as a dangerous manifestation of toxic masculinity in international relations.
## Centering the Experiences of Marginalized Groups
Rather than focusing solely on high-level political maneuvering, a leftist feminist perspective would draw attention to how the crisis impacted ordinary people, especially marginalized groups. This could include examining the experiences of women, racial minorities, and working-class people who bore the brunt of civil defense preparations and lived under the shadow of potential nuclear annihilation.
## Critiquing Imperialism and Colonialism
A leftist analysis would situate the crisis within the broader context of American imperialism in Latin America and the Caribbean[1]. It would likely be more sympathetic to Cuba’s right to self-determination and critical of U.S. attempts to overthrow the Castro government. The deployment of Soviet missiles would be framed partly as a response to legitimate Cuban security concerns in the face of U.S. aggression.
## Emphasizing Structural Violence
Rather than celebrating the peaceful resolution of the crisis, a leftist feminist view might emphasize how it perpetuated structural violence inherent in the nuclear arms race and Cold War geopolitics[3]. The fact that the crisis was “solved” by secret deals between superpowers, without input from the Cuban people, would be seen as problematic from an anti-colonial perspective.
## Reframing “Strategic Empathy”
Some feminist scholars have reinterpreted Kennedy’s actions during the crisis through the lens of “strategic empathy” rather than masculine toughness[3]. This framing suggests that Kennedy’s ability to understand and relate to Khrushchev’s fears and motivations was key to finding a peaceful resolution, rather than simply outmaneuvering him.
By challenging traditional power-centric narratives and exposing gendered and colonial dimensions of the crisis, a leftist feminist retelling would aim to provide a more holistic understanding of this pivotal moment in Cold War history. It would likely conclude by connecting the lessons of the crisis to contemporary struggles for peace, justice, and decolonization.
Citations:
[1] https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/4/1129/6628392?login=false
[2] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/07/feminist-and-postcolonial-approach-nuclear-politics
[3] https://warpreventioninitiative.org/peace-science-digest/from-the-cuban-missile-crisis-to-russias-war-in-ukraine-strategic-empathy-as-feminist-foreign-policy/
[4] https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/12186
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfPCElEQlf8
[6] https://www.nti.org/atomic-pulse/ask-the-experts-the-60th-anniversary-of-the-cuban-missile-crisis/
[7] https://www.jfklibrary.org/events-and-awards/kennedy-library-forums/past-forums/transcripts/the-cuban-missile-crisis-an-eyewitness-perspective
[8] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301296389_My_Missile_is_Bigger_than_Yours_a_Gender_Analysis_of_Decision_Making_by_the_Executive_Committee_of_the_United_States_National_Security_Council_during_the_Cuban_Missile_Crisis
Sen. Ken Keating (R), New York, was an early and strong voice warning of Soviet ICBMs in Cuba. Keating was a typical Republican of his day, a rich patrician, not a pitchfork-waver, so he had what it took to get the establishment involved. On his secret tapes, JFK griped that the Crisis would put Keating in the Oval Office in 1964.
One forgotten oddity that slowed down the missile installations: incredible as it seems, the Russians didn’t realize that Cuba’s electricity was on the US standard (110-120v, 60 Hz) rather than Europe’s (220-240v, 50 Hz) requiring some improvisation.
I think news stories and history books would benefit from a KJV style.
I think a Douay-Rheims style would be better.
You can try it for the next Ricochet Silent Radio episode.
Good grief, bad staff work by somebody. I would have thought, though, that the Soviets would have brought their own generators so that they could be independent of the Cuban power grid.
I’ve been looking at old newspapers from September and October. When challenged Kennedy kept saying the buildup was only defensive but that offensive ground-to-ground weapons would be a serious matter. But not everybody bought that.
I have no problem with Kennedy waiting until he had the kind of proof he did to take the action he did. The information in the right-wing press seems to have been coming largely through the Cuban emigre network, which some people took more seriously than others.
My problem is with the purveyors of the narrative who portray it as a sudden problem that took the U.S. by surprise in mid-October. But the issue of the missiles in Cuba had been in headlines for several weeks prior. We went to North Dakota for a funeral in early September, but my mother was concerned about traveling when a nuclear war could start at any time. She probably took some of the more extreme warnings more seriously than my father did. We had thought we were going for her father’s funeral, though, and she was close to her father. We didn’t learn until we got there that it was her uncle who had died, though there had been some inklings that something had been miscommunicated. Her father lived for another 18 years, living at our house for a couple of his last years while I was in grad school.
The truth is that the Soviet’s move to nuclearize Cuba came as a direct response to the US putting nuclear missiles into Italy and Turkey. The end result of the crisis, and the part that’s never mentioned, is that Kennedy agreed to remove those missiles. The Soviet’s wanted those missiles in Italy and Turkey gone. And their Cuba gambit resulted in exactly that outcome. Worse, a Soviet presence in the Americas was normalized. It’s Krushchev who emerged victorious not JFK.
Some people say that. I’ve read it often in right-wing publications. But there seems also be a lot of agreement that Khrushchev’s status in the Kremlin was weakened by his ploy, and that it was a large factor leading to his ouster two years later.
He lost the PR war.
Sen. Keating did appear in one of the news articles I read today. I knew about the character of the Republicans of the time, but didn’t know about the rest of this.
They did for the major strategic stuff, but they didn’t expect to have to rewire a lot of mundane things like on-base street lighting and power for telephone exchanges. On some of these things, they could just “toss in a pig”–an extra transformer–but the 50 Hz/60 Hz issue was a problem for electronics as well as synchronous electric motors. The Soviets adapted, but yes, they appeared to be blindsided by something obvious.
It makes you wonder: Do the Dems use AI to find new ways to commit vote fraud? Hmmmm . . .