Art, you have a few years on me, but not that many.
I don't go searching for historical reading, but do remember what happened, and read about the media-celebrated anniversaries of those happenings.
JFK was an untested president with regard to world politics, and Khrushchev thought he could outmaneuver him.
From everything I've read, heard and remember about the Cuban Missile Crisis, it all came down to who would blink first. And, at the last moment, I think that both JFK and Khrushchev realized the implications were not exactly what they were hoping for.
The Kennedy administration quietly removed the short-range missles and listening posts that our country had placed in Turkey, all part of the negotiations to end the crisis. I don't remember what Khrushchev gave up publicly, but both sides got to back away saving face.
I just read today an op-ed piece written by the man who almost single-handedly delivered our defeat in VietNam, Walter Cronkite. He cited various converatives from the 1940's who opposed Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those quotes are beyond dispute, just as are the quotes of many of those same people opposing our entry into a war with Germany or Japan in the first place.
Here's the problem I have with the anti-nukes crowd, and the Hiroshima apologists: yes, we killed more Japanese civilians with two bombs than we killed during several conventional night-time raids.
The US and Britain burned Dresden to the ground, killing more civilians and leveling more buildings than probably any war had ever witnessed. And the Germans did much the same to London.
So, it took a few nights, versus one night. Isn't that very much like the argument against "assault weapons?" That someone using an Evil Black Rifle with thirty rounds can fire thirty rounds without reloading? Well, what if he can fire ten rounds, reload, fire ten, reload, fire ten, reload, ad nauseum? What's the difference?
The difference, at least with regard to nukes, is the now-famous "shock and awe" phrase. Japan was ready to withstand a traditional assault. They weren't ready for the new firepower the US had created.
Cronkite, and others, have long suggested that the US should have shown the Emporer and his military leaders a demonstration prior to the actual bombings. As if that would have persuaded them to surrender, when just as many lives and just as many buildings were burned during previous conventional carpet-bombings.
My guess is that the Japanese military didn't know if we had just two of these bombs, or two thousand.
But that's beside the point.
Cronkite and his ilk have suggested that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were especially noteful because they targetted not just military installations, but indiscriminately targetted civilians as well.
Cronkite has obviously not read his history. The Germans used imprecise air bombing in WWI, resulting in civilian casualties. The US, Britain, and other countries were quick to follow the German tactics.
But what of our own Revolutionary War, where not only were civilian targets indiscriminate, but also often deliberate? Or Sherman's march to the sea, when his soldiers torched the homes of everyone in their path?
Let's set aside the "US is always wrong" arguments, though. What about the Boer wars, the British war in India, and any number of other wars in the last hundred or so years? Were civilians not killed then?
Sadly, I've forgotten the better part of my World History classes. But I cannot remember a war in which civilians were at best collateral damage or, at worst, direct targets. Refresh my memory, please.
On a more comical note (black comedy, really), there was a letter to the editor many months back complaining about our use of "precision-guided weapons" in Iraq. The letter writer thought that it was inhumane to be able to prescisely target and kill enemy combatants with these new weapons.
Honestly, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that letter. All I thought about was how many Americans and Brits and Aussies and Canadians might still be alive had we possessed such weapons in 1944.
But I'd sure like to put that woman in the same room with Walter Cronkite and let them iron out a new war policy.