Two Men Who Saved the World

Just over sixty years ago we came within a hair of global nuclear holocaust. I was a young high schooler and remember it like yesterday.

Radios played non-stop news and we’d listen late into the night as the mighty militaries of Russia and America stared one another down, ready to fight humankind’s final battle.

The Soviet leader, Khrushchev, was seasoned and wily, but he lived in a world where any one of his Politburo comrades or generals would use a tiny moment of weakness to have him shot. President Kennedy was not yet two years into his term and for many good reasons was perceived by the Russians to be inexperienced and weak. Kennedy knew what the Russians thought of him.

The Soviets, angry that the US had placed missiles on their doorstep in Turkey, decided that they would surreptitiously install missiles and bombers in Cuba, America’s doorstep. Thus the antagonists had put themselves in a box.

Surveillance aircraft picked up the activity and within minutes the world went from business as usual to facing annihilation. For reasons of pride and national security, neither side was able to climb down.

The Americans placed their navy in the middle of the Atlantic, warning the Russians to turn their ships around and go home. The Russians sailed on. Kennedy ordered DEFCON 2, the final step before pressing the nuclear button. With the nuclear antagonists staring each other down, the rest of us looked on in helpless cold horror.

Two men held the world in their hands, and neither dared be perceived as weak. Each had been assured by their militaries that a war could be “won”, that is, they could kill everyone on the other side more times over than could the other side. Combined, they would wipe out humanity again and again.

While neither man wanted to end history, neither could be seen to flinch. The danger escalated by the hour.

It was Khrushchev who moved first. On October 26th 1962 he wrote extensively to Kennedy “…but if indeed war should break out, then it would not be in our power to stop it, for such is the logic of war. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction”.

He continued “If there is no intention to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this.”

Notably, the American missiles in Turkey had not been mentioned. Kennedy recognised the opportunity and began to respond.

But even as he was preparing his reply, the Cubans shot down two American surveillance planes, using Soviet missiles. Simultaneously, under pressure from his Politburo, Khrushchev wrote again, this time demanding that US missiles be removed from Turkey.

Kennedy’s few seconds of hope had been dashed and he was now cornered politically. He could not accept these latter terms, as he would appear weak to his own electorate. Khrushchev also had his back to the wall as the dour men in the Politburo stood ready to oust their leader should he lose face.

Nobody dared blink.

But somebody on the American side had an intriguing question: “What if we ignore Khrushchev’s second letter, and respond favourably to the first?”

And that’s exactly what they did.

While Kennedy wrote to Khrushchev as if there had been no second letter, his Attorney General met quietly with Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin, telling him that the US had all along been planning to remove the missiles from Turkey, and would do so soon, but could not be seen to make it part of the package.

Each side had what they needed. Both had saved face, both could now climb down, and the crisis subsided. The next April, when journalists had moved on to other things, the American missiles were quietly removed from Turkey.

More than once, as a practising lawyer, I saw the value of the same strategy. A client, in white hot outrage, would storm into my office waving around an incendiary Statement of Claim, Affidavit, or demand letter in which opposing counsel had gone straight to DEFCON 2. Especially in matrimonial, estate, and construction litigation. No quarter would be given, no prisoners would be taken. In the client’s mind, this was Good vs. Evil.

The truth is that there is no victory in mutual annihilation. As much as your natural instincts might be to crush the perfidy of the other side, the victory, even if achievable, will cost all of your financial, emotional, and reputational capital. No conscientious lawyer will allow a client to follow that path.

But we all face this situation, don’t we? You can’t go through life without encountering those who take it straight to DEFCON 2, seemingly leaving you with no choice but Armageddon.

More often than not such opponents are childish brats, so somebody must remain the adult in the room. Nothing is to be gained, and much is to be lost, if you get down on the floor and participate in their tantrum.

Like Kennedy, you can often take all the words thrown at you, pick out the one or two things that are correct (there always will be one or two), and say, “You are right about these two things, and we agree. The rest we will work out.”

Almost invariably the opponent will shut up, amazed that you said “Yes” to anything. But far more importantly, you will have created momentum. Not much, but nevertheless momentum which can be turned into a solution.

Sure, occasionally you do need to call the cops. But mostly you can find a tiny bit of common ground and create a glimmer of hope, and that glimmer can be parlayed, inch by grudging inch, into a resolution. Probably a resolution nobody really loves, but a resolution a whole lot better than scorched earth, drained bank accounts, perpetual warfare, and ruined lives. A new reality from which everyone can move forward. Staying alive is better than the alternative.

There’s always a way. This is what I did for nearly four decades. Happy to chat.