The backward tyranny of North Korea has again conducted a nuclear test and fired a ballistic missile. This has garnered global attention, including much discussion of what should be done in response.
The backward tyranny of North Korea has again conducted a nuclear test and fired a ballistic missile. This has garnered global attention, including much discussion of what should be done in response.
In determining that response, three historical parallels merit mention. First, in 1957, only a few years after Stalin had died, America was united in its determination to win the Cold War. Then to everyone’s surprise, the Soviet Union launched into orbit the world’s first satellite, Sputnik. This provoked widespread public consternation and concern about a “missile gap.” Was Russia now the dominant technological power, trumpeting its missiles in order to bully the U. S.? In response, President Eisenhower met publicly with our nation’s preeminent scientists and instituted some modest changes. In his press conference of October 9, he stressed American nuclear superiority: “the ICBM (s) are still going ahead—those projects—on the top priority within the Government, incidentally a priority which was never accorded to the satellite program.” In essence, while he acknowledged the reality of the Russian achievement, Eisenhower stressed that we would overmatch it.
The second case is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis—the most dangerous confrontation of the Cold War. President Kennedy did deftly persuade Soviet leader Khrushchev to withdraw the Russian short-range missiles and tactical nuclear warheads from Cuba. In exchange, Kennedy withdrew our tactical nuclear Jupiter missiles from Turkey. Conversely, in dealing with North Korea, we absolutely do not want any such exchange.
