Discovering the term "Prisoner's Dilemma" on Wikipedia initially made me realize that the nuclear brinkmanship between the United States and the Soviet Union could be seen as a classic case of this dilemma. For humanity, trusting one another has always been a formidable challenge. As the Bible tells it, God divided humankind with various languages to prevent people from building the Tower of Babel, leading to quarrels, alienation, and the erosion of trust. In modern times, amid the grand narrative of modernity, scenes of bloody slaughter and wars unfolded, seemingly lowering humanity's faith in each other to new lows. Unfortunately, this time, ideological forces exacerbated human distrust.
War and Revolution
Classic historical narratives describe the October Revolution as a gunshot that established a new Soviet regime on one-sixth of the Earth's land. Indeed, as an epitome of Marxist revolutionary philosophy, Vladimir Lenin's success was iconic. However, regrettably, Marxists often found themselves entangled in determinism, and the newfound power compelled them to be genuine believers, convinced that seizing power through armed struggle and toppling the capitalist system worldwide was the only righteous path. Witness the zeitgeist of that era: "War provokes revolution, revolution stops war!"
The logic is simple. War is evil, instigated by the bourgeoisie. Seizing the moment of their warmongering, workers worldwide unite in revolution, establishing socialist regimes. Yet, as a shrewd politician, Vladimir Lenin quickly discerned the impracticality of this slogan. He realized that perhaps the fledgling Soviet Union was destined to coexist with the surrounding villains, even engage with them. However, making peace with them was also impossible; that would be a betrayal of the revolution. What to do? Vladimir Lenin resentfully stated, "Once we can defeat the bourgeoisie, we will immediately strangle it."
Fate indeed provided the Soviet regime with an opportunity to accumulate power. During Nikita Khrushchev's era, with the victorious might of the Red Fascists over the Black Fascists in World War II, the Soviet Union's military strength had transformed. In Eastern Europe, nations with rich historical and cultural legacies shifted from Adolf Hitler to Joseph Stalin. In the East, People's Republics, Democratic Republics, and Socialist Republics sprouted like mushrooms, and nearly half of the world's population lived under the Marxist-Leninist system. The Soviet Union found allies even in tropical rainforests and places like Cuba. In the West, leftist movements flourished in the backyard of capitalism: Eurocommunism, Neo-Marxism, Social Democracy, Trotskyism – a continuous succession. In third-world countries and colonies, resistance and struggle seemed to merge into the Soviet-style surge. The Soviet Union became a carrier of values, systems, and lifestyles in direct opposition to the West, adored by many Western intellectuals and people alike. The world seemed not just good but very good.
At this point, politicians and military strategists quietly discovered a problem that theorists hadn't seen: the emergence of nuclear weapons brought profound changes to the entire theory of war. In the backdrop of the Cold War, amidst ideological isolation, and behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet system, if conflicts escalated between major powers, minor conflicts would inevitably turn into significant disputes, leading to regional wars. These regional wars would then evolve into global wars. This time, the aftermath of a worldwide war would not merely be the "Third World War." After that war, no one would be alive to write the history – it would be an unprecedented nuclear war. The sides in the nuclear war would unleash arsenals capable of destroying the Earth hundreds of times over. Radiation would upset the ecological balance, dust covering large parts of the Earth, resulting in temperature drops and extinction of life. All the primary conditions necessary for human survival would gradually erode. After this, the bourgeoisie would be eliminated, and the proletariat, too, would be annihilated. Capitalist regimes would collapse, and Soviet regimes would crumble. While Marx envisioned "the proletariat" cherishing dreams of "chains lost, worlds gained," by the era of Nikita Khrushchev, the proletariat had fallen into the miserable state of "chains lost, worlds lost." At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the theories of "peaceful coexistence," "peaceful competition," and "peaceful transition" tenderly replaced the Bolsheviks' original militant "universal truth." Behind this shift was a recognition of the prevailing reality.
Was the conflict during the Cuban Missile Crisis between the U.S. and the USSR? If this were a historical question, the answer would be yes. However, after watching the movie, a simple yes only gets half the answer. There is another force at play, hidden but effective: destruction. While the U.S. and the USSR were ostensibly in conflict, they were fighting on the same front against a common enemy-destruction. The confusion brought about by ideology clouds our perception: aggressive military planners strategize on winning, militant theorists view it as an ideal moment for a "world revolution," yet a handful of politicians at the storm's epicenter comprehend the inevitable truth—victory is unattainable; only destruction looms ahead.
Hence, the resolution of the missile crisis was neither war nor negotiation but something beneath the surface, outside formal settings, through secret agreements involving relationships between old acquaintances. Therefore, President Kennedy said, "I guess Nikita Khrushchev must be under the same pressure as me now"-they both found themselves in the storm's centre and could understand each other. Therefore, President Jack Kennedy needed a unique way to communicate with Nikita Khrushchev: he took ultimate firing authority (even including the warning shots fired into the sky) away from the military, ordering that they could only maintain continuous contact with Soviet ships. Before receiving a direct order from the president, they were not allowed to fire-even if the Soviet Navy crossed the final blockade line, they could only follow, contact, and warn them. Consequently, the last Soviet ambassador exclaims to President Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, at the film's end, "You and your brother are good people."
In history, in the early morning of Saturday, October 27, 1962, the U.S. Navy dropped depth charges on a Soviet nuclear submarine. Believing war had erupted, the submarine's captain decided to launch the ship's nuclear missiles. However, due to the third officer's refusal (according to Soviet submarine regulations at the time, the three highest-ranking officers must unanimously agree to launch missiles), the submarine surfaced to seek Moscow's orders. A U.S. U-2 reconnaissance plane was hit and shot down by an SA-2 anti-air missile over Cuban airspace. Almost everyone expected the U.S. to retaliate within hours, making the Third World War seemingly unavoidable. Yet, Jack Kennedy chose not to retaliate and agreed to continue negotiations. He secretly signalled agreement with Khrushchev's suggestion to withdraw missiles deployed in Turkey, conveyed in Khrushchev's second, more official letter.
In hindsight, it's terrifying and eerie. In pre-modern societies, it made sense for rulers to dictate the fate of their subjects based on their elevated status. However, at this juncture in human history, the destiny of all humanity hinged on the decisions of merely three officers aboard a small ship! If that third officer had considered the issue solely based on rigid military regulations and had succumbed to pressure from superiors, if that third officer had been momentarily confused... Human history might have been rewritten—or, instead, terminated confusingly.
Can humanity overcome its trust crisis in a strategic framework where "mutual assured destruction" became mainstream during the nuclear age? The Cuban Missile Crisis revealed the fragility of trust, akin to a drowning person carrying a heavy load, barely kept alive by everyone's strenuous efforts. Humanity may need more grit, only realizing the importance of trust when standing on the brink of destruction. Fortunately, human reason prevailed. Since then, superpowers have established military hotlines, reducing the probability of nuclear war. Yet, what about atomic strikes by terrorism? Here, complexities involving modernity, cultural clashes, political systems, ideologies, and the new international order come into play. The Pandora's Box has been opened by humanity, and the path forward can only be taken one step at a time. While the discourse of democratic peace may paint a promising and beautiful future, the journey to achieve it is fraught with obstacles and challenges.
Share your thoughts!
Be the first to start the conversation.