The Armageddon Letter

The Chinese toy with Japan over a few desert islands, Putin flies warplanes at the British. One always wonders at political leaders, their willingness to challenge the status quo, their enthusiasm for the success of their "vision." Certainly this is often confused with their own success, but, regardless, both paths of success require the belief in a mandate that might simply fill a void but, more likely, will displace or replace another equally sacred "vision." Historically such conflicts had limited homicidal intent. The Plantagenet kings claimed control of the Aquitaine and periodically saw fit to kill a number of Frenchmen to prove their point. Apaches killed Navajo and Comanche killed Apaches, presumably over some perceived right to buffalo grazing land.

But the modern world has become more inclusive in its potential damage. The inhabitants of Nagasaki might well have hated Americans with the proper nationalistic fervor but were quite removed from the fighting--until the fighting quite removed them. These new, horrific weapons have unfortunately been placed in the hands of the same old horrific warlords; the evolution of the weapons have not been counterbalanced by a new and improved leader.

So what can we expect of leaders in this new world? Would the Khmer Rouge have risen above this new and murderous technology? What does a man like Putin think when he dances along the edge of conflict--conflict with no inherent controls--over something as trivial as the eastern Ukraine?

At moments like this it is wise to consider the behavior of previous such esteemed and noble leaders. In 1962, John F. Kennedy decided to overthrow Fidel Castro, the despotic leader of a tiny poverty-stricken nation. His efforts failed. The international communists saw an opportunity to press an advantage and, as a result, the Russians placed nuclear missiles along the coast of Cuba. So, for a tiny island known for casinos and poverty, the two largest nuclear powers in the history of humanity faced off. Kennedy had to resist the advice of his inner circle, which recommended attacking Cuba and, if necessary, the Russians. A famous quote--this from an advisor of the President of the United States--diminished American losses at "30 million, tops." On the other side of the standoff sat Khrushchev, a man who, in a rage, had taken off his shoe and pounded it on the table at the U.N.. Beside him sat Fidel Castro, Dr. Castro to the New York Times. In October, 1962, Dr. Castro wrote Khrushchev a request which became known in the Politburo as "The Armageddon Letter" recommending a full, preemptive, first strike nuclear attack on the United States from Cuba and Russia. Somehow the hotblooded Kennedy and the usually inebriated Khrushchev stayed their respective hands and humanity was saved. But only over the vehement objections of the esteemed Dr. Castro, who was the presumed representative of the Cuban people; his advice would have unquestionably ended Cuba and its people as an entity.

But great vision demands great sacrifice. History and destiny must be fulfilled.