I just a read a two paragraph total rewrite of how I understood the Kennedy era.
I am happy to rethink my mental
models but it would be nice to have more info
Edit: Ok so not as complete as I thought
>>> problem the Biden administration has so far dealt with clearly in the mold of Kennedy, more focused on their fear of what the other side will do than on making them afraid of what we will do. This is best shown by their repeated statements of what they won’t do, providing clear space for Putin to maneuver in, and things like cancelling previously-scheduled military exercises for fear that they would be seen as “escalatory”. A better policy would be ambiguous but also assertive, making Putin wonder how far he can push us.
Yeah. Umm. Yeah.
Judging the state of mind of an opponent (let alone state of mind if all elites in a decision chain like Russia) is really hard. And in the end "vague but assertive" is great, but politics is about probing. Finding what are the real limits. Making vague statements has to be backed up with specific actions - and then the opponent can judge.
The issue Kennedy faced was (as I understand) that neither side wanted nuclear war, but actual talking was much more useful (the back channels) than any geopolitical manoeuvre
So in the acoup essay actually referenced by NavalGazing
>>>That thinking actually took a while to take hold in actual American policy and instead during the 1940s and 1950s, the United States focused resources on bomber fleets with the assumption that they would match Soviet superiority in conventional arms in Europe with American nuclear superiority
So in my simplified view, while RAND corporation had "nuclear stalemate / MAD" as a concept in 48, this did not take root in American foreign policy till the 60s and Kennedy - so the oft cited battles between Kennedy and Curtis Le May where (probably personal as well) but a chnage in policy based on a new understanding of nuclear realities - that they could not use nukes to wipe out the Russian Tank invasion because that just immediately starts a nuclear war.
And this links to development of missile technology - as long and medium range unstoppable ballistic missiles came into being the idea of limiting a nuclear war to Europe or having "acceptable losses" stopped becoming doctrine and was finally overturned by Kennedy and subsequent presidents - so it is possible for eisenhower and kennedy to have the sensible response in the respective periods
(NB there is footage of Kennedy and eisenthower on a phone call discussing actions during Cuba - and it's just ... normal confused uncertain human beings. It's the best explanation of why we should not have one person making these sort of decisions - no human is up to it.
So from a point of view, Kennedy did have a weaker hand because he had a weaker conventional force (in Europe).
I am happy to rethink my mental models but it would be nice to have more info
Edit: Ok so not as complete as I thought
>>> problem the Biden administration has so far dealt with clearly in the mold of Kennedy, more focused on their fear of what the other side will do than on making them afraid of what we will do. This is best shown by their repeated statements of what they won’t do, providing clear space for Putin to maneuver in, and things like cancelling previously-scheduled military exercises for fear that they would be seen as “escalatory”. A better policy would be ambiguous but also assertive, making Putin wonder how far he can push us.
Yeah. Umm. Yeah.
Judging the state of mind of an opponent (let alone state of mind if all elites in a decision chain like Russia) is really hard. And in the end "vague but assertive" is great, but politics is about probing. Finding what are the real limits. Making vague statements has to be backed up with specific actions - and then the opponent can judge.
The issue Kennedy faced was (as I understand) that neither side wanted nuclear war, but actual talking was much more useful (the back channels) than any geopolitical manoeuvre