Brinkmanship in Cuban Crisis (Case Study Sample)

Name
Professor’s name
Course number
Date
Brinkmanship in Cuban Crisis
The Cuban Missile Crisis was between the United States of America and the former United Social Soviet Union (USSR), present day Russia. The crisis was one that was likely to lead to a nuclear war. The United States feared that with the placement of weapons by Russia in the nation, Russia would be in a position to intimidate it. However, in resolving the crisis, there is the conclusion that there was the use of Brinkmanship strategy. The strategy assumes that there is the implementation of rational decisions by the two nations. In addition to the decisions, there is the control of risk that under the strategy in the issuance of threat by the United States. There is the consideration that the threat issued by the United States was effective and acceptable by Russia to enhance obedience the United States. However, there are issues in the case study that show that the Brinkmanship strategy is not fully applicable. It includes the aspect of lack of total control over the situation and the issue of rationality of the decisions made by the two leaders. Lack of rationality and control limits the use of Brinkmanship in the case study.
There were plenty of constraints that ensured that the decision-makers did not make fast and personal decisions. The constraints are clear and similar to each decision-maker. The decisional goals by the two nations are not clear to some degree; the decisions were ambiguous in the specific expected objective. The flow of information is poor and ineffective especially from the top level of the decision-makers to the other people on the ground. The threat is credible as it helps in the resolution of the crisis. The strategy is in partly a promotion of lesser risk circumstance as it is the most riskless alternative of all alternatives available. The other part of the strategy cannot be termed as a riskless alternative as if not obeyed; it may have led to the other alternative that is high-risk alternative.
It is evident that there are constraints in the decision-making process. A decision that is made by an individual is straight forward. However, the decisions made in the case study are after great consultations with other national leaders and advisers. The act of consultation is a constraint as it leads to a long process of decision-making. In the United States, the ExComm had the responsibility of consulting with the president on the way forward. ExComm had many people who after consulting amongst each other made consultations with other people such as the former Secretary of State among other individuals. The consultation decision-making process is a long, tedious and time-consuming. Consultation brings together people with different ideas that may influence the decision maker to a significant magnitude. Therefore, consultation was a constraint to the United States president. His Russia counterpart sent a private letter to the United States president on Friday and sent another letter the following day with a different opinion, which is an indication that the first letter was personal. The second was not personal meaning that there is the influence on the decision-makers from the advisers. The other constraint is the uncertainty or probability that is unknown. Any decision-maker is uncertain of the actions of the other decision-maker meaning they will make their decisions based on probability or likelihood and not surety.
The goals of the decision-makers are not clear at all. The goal of the Russian president to put the missiles is not clear in any way. What is clear is the fact that there was the need for the United States to act. There is the conclusion that the Russians were attempting to increase their offensive capacity towards the United States, but this is an assumption by the U.S. and not a goal. The possible goals could have been to threaten the United States after placing all the missiles in Cuba, defending themselves against all potential threats especially from the United States or even firing those missiles in case of resistance. The goal of the United States is not clear. There was the issuance of blockade against the Russians. There is the declaration of the blockade as mechanism aimed at ensuring that there is the communication, to the Russians, of the start of a course to stop them. However, there was no timeframe; the United States did not issue a limit to when it would advance its actions if the Russians did not withdraw their missiles. It means that there is no clear objective of the United States in the implementation of the blockade. In addition, the United States showed great restraint in the blockade enforcement. The U.S. Navy agreed to a tanker’s passage even without boarding it, meaning that the seriousness of the blockade is missing.
There is evidence of poor flow of information through the hierarchy and chains of command. There is an illustration of the actions of the United States. Despite the ongoing crisis, the United States Air Force did not adjust itself in accordance with the new instructions as there was the drifting of a plane into the USSR’s space. Under the command of General LeMay, a U-2 plane was accorded permission to fly into the Soviet air space even without the President’s authorization. It is an indication that there was the lack of flow of information on the situation. In addition, the Soviet leaders allowed the building of missile sites using the same procedure used in Russia. The danger was the vulnerability of the sites to airstrikes. The flow of information was weak as the construction supervisors were not aware of the crisis that the activity would result.
Brinkmanship game theory ensures that there is the issuance of threat that looks real. However, for the threat to remain under the control there is the need to ensure that the game is a two-person. In the Cuban Crisis, the threat issued is the blockade. It is an effort of the United States to try to ensure that the Russians withdraw their missiles from Cuba. The threat is the smaller risk strategy as the other alternative is an airstrike targeting the construction sites. It is the first part that the strategy gets recognition as less risky alternative. The other part of the strategy is the risk of air strike attack, which is dangerous as there is the likelihood of thousands of human casualties. The consideration of the alternative as either less risky or riskier is dependent on the results that it achieves. In the case study, it is under the consideration of less risky alternative as the threat led to the Russia’s removal of the missiles. It means that there was the achievement of the objective without the use of force. However, if the threat would not have worked, then the airstrike would have been authorized by the president, which would not have been within his powers to halt but that of the advisers. In addition, ev...