What happened during the Cuban missile crisis – and why is it being compared to Russia’s war in Ukraine?

Published

3 years ago

October 8, 2022

admin

US President Joe Biden has been overheard saying that Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine carries the greatest risk of nuclear weapons being used since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Speaking at a Democratic Party fundraiser in New York on Thursday, Mr Biden said: “For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of nuclear weapons if, in fact, things continue down the path they are going.

Effigy of Putin burned outside Moscow; follow Ukraine updates live

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis.”

Mr Putin himself has also threatened the use of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal.

Last month he said: “I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction… and when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal.”

Why is Biden talking about nuclear Armageddon?

In the face of unexpected, successful counter-offensives by the Ukrainians in recent weeks, some Western intelligence officials and defence analysts believe the Kremlin could resort to drastic measures to save face.

According to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, it could launch a first-strike nuclear attack if the country’s existence was deemed to be at risk.

Given Mr Putin’s claims about why he started the war, any involvement of NATO troops in the Ukraine conflict could put this plan into action.

And after Moscow staged ‘referenda’ on annexing four areas of Eastern Ukraine, its leader could also use a Ukrainian attack on any of those territories to justify a nuclear strike.

If that did happen, NATO would have to respond, but currently officials have suggested they would only use conventional weapons in retaliation.

Several analysts believe that although Mr Putin says he is “not bluffing” any nuclear activity by Russia would be just as damaging for him – as it would for the West – and is therefore unlikely.

What was the Cuban missile crisis?

The Cuban missile crisis is considered the closest the world has ever come to nuclear annihilation.

The 13-day showdown in 1962 came during the Cold War and after the US discovered the Soviet Union had secretly deployed nuclear weapons to Cuba.

Responding to the presence of American ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, as well as the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba in 1961, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev agreed to place missiles on the island – just a few hundred miles from the US coastline.

In response, then-US president John F Kennedy ordered a naval quarantine of the island to prevent further missiles from being delivered.

After several days of tension, Mr Kennedy and Mr Khrushchev reached an agreement for the Soviet Union to dismantle their weapons in Cuba in exchange for Mr Kennedy promising the US would not invade the island.

The US also secretly agreed to dismantle all of its medium-range ballistic missiles in Turkey.

It saw the warring geopolitical powers establish the Moscow-Washington hotline to facilitate quick and direct communication between them in the event of tensions escalating again.

Although the two leaders came to an agreement not to deploy the weapons, bitter tensions between the US and Soviet Union until the end of the Cold War in 1991 left the rest of the world fearing a nuclear attack for decades after.

‘Protect and survive’ adverts warned Britons of nuclear attacks

Those who lived through the 1970s and 1980s in Britain will remember the government’s ‘Protect and Survive’ campaign.

Designed to prepare people for a nuclear attack and supposedly give them the best chance of surviving, it came in the form of pamphlets, TV and radio adverts.

One example recorded for use on BBC Radio 4 said: “This is the Wartime Broadcasting Service. This country has been attacked with nuclear weapons.

“Communications have been severely disrupted, and the number of casualties and the extent of the damage are not yet known.

“We shall bring you further information as soon as possible. Meanwhile, stay tuned to this wavelength, stay calm and stay in your own house.”

Drills were also carried out in schools, workplaces and public buildings.

Air sirens used in the Second World War were repurposed and would be used to deliver attack warnings and ‘fallout warnings’ in the event of a nuclear incident.

The word ‘fallout’ refers to harmful radioactive material released by nuclear explosions.

Adverts advised people to move to the safest area of the house – known as the ‘fallout’ room – the furthest away from exterior wars and preferably on the ground floor or in the basement.

Families were instructed to close their windows and doors, draw their curtains, and even build an ‘inner refuge’ within the fallout room.

Fashioned by propping a door or wooden plank against the wall, people were advised to cover it with sand-filled bags or suitcases.

Families also had instructions to ration food, water and other essentials in the event of a nuclear strike, as they would be advised to stay in their fallout room for at least two days afterwards.

Their fatalistic tone had a lasting psychological and cultural impact on the population, in a similar way to the 1980s ‘Don’t Die of Ignorance’ HIV/AIDS awareness campaign.

World

Inside a NATO base in Poland – as residents bordering Russia say ‘scare tactic’ is needed

Published

4 hours ago

April 10, 2025

admin

Inside a NATO base in Poland - as residents bordering Russia say 'scare tactic' is needed

Along the thin strip of beach and woodland known as the Vistula Spit which marks the northernmost demarcation between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.

Just some torn wire fencing and a few rotten posts which seem to stagger drunkenly into the shallows of the Baltic Sea.

Beneath a sign barring entry, we find a couple of empty bottles of Russian cognac and vodka.

It doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory.

“I don’t see much protection. It’s not good,” says Krzysztof from Katowice, who has come to inspect the border himself.

“We have to have some kind of scare tactic, something to show that we are trying to strengthen our army,” says Grzegorz, who lives nearby.

“At the same time I think I would not base the defence of our country solely on our army. I am convinced that Europe or America, if anything were to happen, will help us 100%.”

Poland is investing massively in its defence, with military spending set to hit 4.7% of GDP in 2025, more than any other NATO country.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he will introduce voluntary military training for men of any age, and women too should they wish, so the army has a competent reserve force in the event of war.

He is investing $2.5bn in stronger border fortifications between Russia and Belarus, a project called East Shield which will include anti-tank obstacles, bunkers and potentially minefields too.

Along with its Baltic neighbours, Poland is withdrawing from the Ottawa convention against the use of land mines. It hasn’t committed to using them, but it wants to have that option.

We’ve been granted access to one of the cornerstones of Polish, and European defence, which is a couple of hours drive from the Vistula spit at the Redowicze military base.

Aegis Ashore Poland, together with its sister site in Romania, are the land-based arms of NATO’s missile defence shield over Europe, which is run by the US navy.

They are symbols of the US commitment to NATO and to the protection of Europe.

And despite changes at the top of the Pentagon it is “business as usual”, says Captain Michael Dwan who oversees air and missile defence within the US Sixth Fleet.

“Our mission to work with NATO forces has been unchanged. And so our commitment from the United States perspective and what capability we bring to ballistic missile defence and the defence of NATO is championed here in Poland.”

As far as Russia is concerned, NATO’s two missile defence bases in Romania and Poland represent a NATO threat on their doorstep and are therefore a “priority target for potential neutralisation”, per Russia’s foreign ministry.

NATO says the installations are purely defensive and their SM-3 interceptor missiles are not armed and are not intended to carry warheads. Russia counters they could easily be adapted to threaten Russia.

Not the case, Captain Dwan says.

“It’s not a matter of moving offensive weapons here into the facility, the hardware and the infrastructure is simply not installed.

“It would take months or years to change the mission of this site and a significant amount of money and capability and design.”

With so much marked “secret” on the site, it seems amazing to be granted the access.

But for NATO, transparency is part of deterrence. They want potential adversaries to know how sophisticated their radar and interception systems are.

They know that if they carried warheads on site, that would make them a target so they don’t.

Deterrence also depends on whether potential adversaries believe in the US’s commitment to NATO and to Europe’s defence.

On an operational level, as far as the troops are concerned, that commitment may still be iron-clad.

But as far as its commander-in-chief goes, there is still – as with so much around Donald Trump’s presidency – a great deal of uncertainty.

In the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon President Trump suggested he might bundle a potential US troop drawdown in Europe together with the issue of EU trade and tariffs.

“Nice to wrap it up in one package,” he said, “it’s nice and clean”.

Probably not the way Europe sees it, not with a resurgent Russia on their doorstep, economic tailwinds breeding animosity and the notion of Pax Americana crumbling at their feet.

World

Asianmarkets bounce back after Trump pauses higher tariffs for most countries – despite increasing those on China to 125%

Published

10 hours ago

April 10, 2025

admin

Asianmarkets bounce back after Trump pauses higher tariffs for most countries - despite increasing those on China to 125%

Asian markets have reacted positively after Donald Trump paused his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on most of America’s trading partners for 90 days, despite the US president increasing those on China to 125%.

There have been fears of a global recession and stock markets around the world had plummeted after Mr Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on Wednesday 2 April.

However, Japan’s Nikkei share average was up 8.2% by 3.50am BST, while the broader Topix had risen 7.5%.

Similarly, the S&P 500 stock index had jumped 9.5% and global markets bounced back following Mr Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that the increased tariffs on nearly all trading partners would now be paused.

Tariffs latest: Trump gives reasons for pausing some tariffs

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said the “90-day pause” was for the “more than 75 countries” who had not retaliated against his tariffs “in any way”.

He added that during this period they would still have to pay a “substantially lowered” 10% tariff, which is “effective immediately”.

It is lower than the 20% tariff that Mr Trump had set for goods from the European Union, 24% on imports from Japan and 25% on products from South Korea.

The UK was already going to face a blanket 10% tariff under the new system.

Mr Trump said the increased 125% tariff on imported goods from China was “effective immediately”.

He added: “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realise that the days of ripping off the USA, and other countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable.”

What’s in Trump’s tariff pause?

Here’s what Donald Trump’s tariff pause entails:

‘Reciprocal’ tariffs on hold

• Higher tariffs that took effect today on 57 trading partners will be paused for 90 days

• These include the EU, Japan and South Korea, all of which will face a baseline 10% duty instead

• Countries that already had a 10% levy imposed since last week – such as the UK – aren’t affected by the pause

China tariffs increased

• Trump imposed a higher 125% tariff on China

• That’s in addition to levies he imposed during his first term

• China had hit the US with 84% tariff earlier today, following tit-for-tat escalations

No change for Canada or Mexico

• Canadian and Mexican goods will remain subject to 25% fentanyl-related tariffs if they don’t comply with the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement’s rules of origin

• Compliant goods are exempt

Car and metal tariffs remain

• Trump’s pause doesn’t apply to the 25% tariffs he levied on steel and aluminium in March and on cars (autos) on 3 April

• This 25% tariff on car parts does not come into effect until 3 May

Sectors at risk

• Copper, lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals are expected to be subject to separate tariffs, in the same way autos are

Hours after Mr Trump announced the pause on tariffs for most countries, a White House official clarified that this did not apply to the 25% duties imposed on some US imports from Mexico and Canada.

The tariffs were first announced in February and Mexico and Canada were not included in the “Liberation Day” announcements.

Hours before the 125% tariff on China was revealed, Beijing said it was increasing tariffs on US goods by 50%.

It meant tariffs of 84% would be enforced on US goods – up from the 34% China had previously planned.

China ‘want to make a deal’

Asked why he posted “BE COOL” on Truth Social hours before announcing his tariff pause, Mr Trump told reporters at the White House: “I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line.”

“They were getting yippy, you know, were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid,” he added.

Mr Trump continued: “China wants to make a deal, they just don’t know how to go about it.

“[They’re] quite the proud people, and President Xi is a proud man. I know him very well, and they don’t know quite how to go about it, but they’ll figure it out.

“They’re in the process of figuring out, but they want to make a deal.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the walk back was part of a grand negotiating strategy by Mr Trump.

“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” she said, adding that the news media “clearly failed to see what President Trump is doing here”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also insisted Mr Trump had strengthened his hand through his tariffs.

“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” he said.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Mr Bessent said Mr Trump decided to raise tariffs on China because Beijing hadn’t reached out to the US and instead increased its own levies on US goods.

Downing Street said that the UK will “coolly and calmly” continue its negotiations with the US.

A Number 10 spokeswoman said: “A trade war is in nobody’s interests. We don’t want any tariffs at all, so for jobs and livelihoods across the UK, we will coolly and calmly continue to negotiate in Britain’s interests.”