[Marxism] Cuba, the JFK assassination, and the "Real Missile Gap"

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Musing and Internet search prompted by Louis's "Sink the Maine Again or
Something"

I am not an assassination buff, but I have long felt that the reports
of Robert Kennedy's feelings of guilt and Lyndon Johnson's repeated
statements that perhaps the Cubans were involved, along with the
strange "set-up" of Oswald as an agent of Cuba only made sense if there
was a plan directed against Cuba.

Vietnam was still a minor conflict in 1963, although many in the
government knew the real situation there.

And, of course, the strike would be against Cuba, not the Soviet Union.
_______________________

Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?
James K. Galbraith
Volume 5, Issue 19.   September 21, 1994.
. . .

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a
preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing
lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders
presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in
July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders
apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile
superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be
open in late 1963.

The Burris Memorandum

The memorandum reproduced here was written for Vice President Lyndon
Johnson, who did not attend the meeting, by Colonel Howard Burris, his
military aide. Declassified only in June of 1993, it has not previously
received any public attention so far as we have been able to determine.

The first paragraph introduces General Hickey and his group, the Net
Evaluation Subcommittee. Although the subcommittee report is described
as "annual," this would be the first one given to President Kennedy and
his advisors, and it is not clear whether President Eisenhower received
such reports in person. General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, stepped in to explain the "assumption" of the 1961 report: "a
surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened
tensions." The question arises: A surprise attack by whom on whom?

The following paragraphs answer the question. The second paragraph
reports that after hearing the presentations, President Kennedy asked
the presenters "if there had ever been made an assessment of damage
results to the U.S.S.R. which would be incurred by a preemptive
attack." Kennedy also asked for an effectiveness trend since "these
studies have been made since 1957." Lemnitzer responded that he would
later answer both of the President's questions in private.

Paragraph three records Kennedy asking a hypothetical question:

what would happen if we launched a strike in the winter of 1962? Allen
Dulles of the CIA responded that "the attack would be much less
effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved."
Lemnitzer then cautioned against putting too much faith in the findings
since the assumptions might be faulty. The discussion thus provides a
time-frame. December of 1962 was too early for an attack because the
U.S. would have too few missiles; by December of 1963 there would
likely be sufficient numbers.

Paragraph four reports one more Kennedy question: how much time would
"citizens" need to remain in shelters following an attack? The
President receives a qualified estimate of two weeks from a member of
the subcommittee. The group was clearly talking about U.S. citizens
protecting themselves from the globe-encircling fallout following a
U.S. nuclear attack on the U.S.S.R.

Paragraph five adds to the intensity of the document with Kennedy's
directive "that no member in attendance disclose even the subject of
the meeting."
. . .

As former Assistant Secretary of State Roger Hilsman wrote in 1967:

As the intelligence community looked at their estimates in 1958, 1959,
and 1960, and even through the first half of 1961, they saw a missile
gap developing that would come to a peak about 1963.6

FULL at
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V5/19/galbraith-j.html


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism