What if - Nixon had won the 1960 election?

Here is a Quora that has some ideas.
Brent Cooper
Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Thu

How might the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis have turned out if Nixon had
been elected?

There probably would not have been a Cuban Missile Crises if Nixon was
elected. No Bay of Pigs. No Vienna Conference. No Berlin Wall. All were
the result of mistakes JFK made.

Nixon and Khrushchev had already tested each other at the Kitchen
Debate. Nixon and Khrushchev continued their argument in the kitchen of
a model home built in the exhibition. With their voices rising and
fingers pointing, the two men went at each other. Nixon suggested that
Khrushchev’s constant threats of using nuclear missiles could lead to
war, and he chided the Soviet for constantly interrupting him while he
was speaking. Taking these words as a threat, Khrushchev warned of “very
bad consequences.” Perhaps feeling that the exchange had gone too far,
the Soviet leader then noted that he simply wanted “peace with all other
nations, especially America.” Nixon rather sheepishly stated that he had
not “been a very good host.” Both tested the other and a mutual respect
was built.

If somehow the Crises would have still resulted, no doubt he would have
used China. Khrushchev was close to losing his Premiership because of
the break with China. Nixon would have been aware of the pressure on
Khrushchev and offered Khrushchev something he wanted and needed.

7.8K viewsView 194 upvotesView 1 shareAnswer requested by
Gary Kirkbride
10 comments from
Shrinivas S
and more

also
Shrinivas S
· 1h ago
Nixon was the most astute grand strategist on the american throne post
Eisenhower, none have ever come close after that.

He knew what an empire needed and ran it accordingly, it's a pity of
american politics that you need an empire without an emperor to run it,
resulting in loss of emperor and empire in the long run.

Robert Holmén
· 40m ago
Berlin Wall Kennedy’s mistake?

No matter who got elected the Russians and E Germans still had the
serious flight problem and were not going to let it continue through Berlin.

Michael McNeil
· Fri
One of the main reasons the Crisis occurred in the first place was that
Khrushchev was convinced that Kennedy was a sort of cocktail-party
socialite who could be pushed around, and who would simply back down
over the missiles in Cuba rather than risk a war. He certainly had
gotten no such impression of Nixon.

Michael Bryant
· Fri
Plus JFK had not clearly stated that the USSR placing nuclear missiles
in Cuba would have been regarded as an overtly hostile act and an
immediate threat to the United States, and met with a forceful reaction.
Nixon would have made that position abundantly clear to Khrushchev.

Michael McNeil
· Fri
Also correct. And all this is without even mentioning those missiles the
US had placed in Turkey, which caused Khrushchev to conclude that
putting Soviet missiles in Cuba would not be pushing the envelope too
much. Assassination or no, it's amazing to me the way people were eager
to mythologize Kennedy after his death, considering that he almost blew
up the world.

Michael Bryant
· Fri
Michael Beschloss in his book “The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev,
1960-1963” clearly shows that Kennedy was not the foreign policy genius
everyone thought and still thinks he was. The Cuban Missile Crisis was
the worst of many mistakes Kennedy made during those years.

Michael McNeil
· Fri
He had three major accomplishments to his name when he died. 1: the Bay
of Pigs (maybe not entirely his fault, but a disaster), 2: increased
involvement in Vietnam (eventual major disaster), and 3: the Cuban
Missile Crisis (at least 50% his fault; potentially apocalyptic
disaster, barely averted). But, he was young, handsome, well-spoken, and
he died in a shocking, public murder. Nothing creates an aura of tragic,
unfulfilled potential like a horrific death at just the right time.
Kennedy’s legacy is a triumph of style over substance.

Michael Bryant
· Fri
Plus JFK had a disastrous meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna were he came
across as weak, indecisive, and out of his depth, and he failed to
confront Khrushchev over the Berlin Wall.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 09:19:06 -0800, a425couple wrote:

> If somehow the Crises would have still resulted,

In his book, Nixon stated he would, in this situation, be tougher than
Kennedy.

Unknown to the US intelligence then, the USSR had live nuclear
missiles in Cuba in operational control of their local commanders.

On 12/1/21 9:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
> What if - Nixon had won the 1960 election?
>
> Here is a Quora that has some ideas.
> Brent Cooper
> Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Thu
>
> How might the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis have turned out if Nixon had
> been elected?
>
> There probably would not have been a Cuban Missile Crises if Nixon was
> elected. No Bay of Pigs. No Vienna Conference. No Berlin Wall. All were
> the result of mistakes JFK made.
>
> Nixon and Khrushchev had already tested each other at the Kitchen
> Debate. Nixon and Khrushchev continued their argument in the kitchen of
> a model home built in the exhibition. With their voices rising and
> fingers pointing, the two men went at each other. Nixon suggested that
> Khrushchev’s constant threats of using nuclear missiles could lead to
> war, and he chided the Soviet for constantly interrupting him while he
> was speaking. Taking these words as a threat, Khrushchev warned of “very
> bad consequences.” Perhaps feeling that the exchange had gone too far,
> the Soviet leader then noted that he simply wanted “peace with all other
> nations, especially America.” Nixon rather sheepishly stated that he had
> not “been a very good host.” Both tested the other and a mutual respect
> was built.
>
> If somehow the Crises would have still resulted, no doubt he would have
> used China. Khrushchev was close to losing his Premiership because of
> the break with China. Nixon would have been aware of the pressure on
> Khrushchev and offered Khrushchev something he wanted and needed.
>
> 7.8K viewsView 194 upvotesView 1 shareAnswer requested by
> Gary Kirkbride
> 10 comments from
> Shrinivas S
> and more
>
> also
> Shrinivas S
> · 1h ago
> Nixon was the most astute grand strategist on the american throne post
> Eisenhower, none have ever come close after that.
>
> He knew what an empire needed and ran it accordingly, it's a pity of
> american politics that you need an empire without an emperor to run it,
> resulting in loss of emperor and empire in the long run.
>
> Robert Holmén
> · 40m ago
> Berlin Wall Kennedy’s mistake?
>
> No matter who got elected the Russians and E Germans still had the
> serious flight problem and were not going to let it continue through
> Berlin.
>
> Michael McNeil
> · Fri
> One of the main reasons the Crisis occurred in the first place was that
> Khrushchev was convinced that Kennedy was a sort of cocktail-party
> socialite who could be pushed around, and who would simply back down
> over the missiles in Cuba rather than risk a war. He certainly had
> gotten no such impression of Nixon.
>
> Michael Bryant
> · Fri
> Plus JFK had not clearly stated that the USSR placing nuclear missiles
> in Cuba would have been regarded as an overtly hostile act and an
> immediate threat to the United States, and met with a forceful reaction.
> Nixon would have made that position abundantly clear to Khrushchev.
>
> Michael McNeil
> · Fri
> Also correct. And all this is without even mentioning those missiles the
> US had placed in Turkey, which caused Khrushchev to conclude that
> putting Soviet missiles in Cuba would not be pushing the envelope too
> much. Assassination or no, it's amazing to me the way people were eager
> to mythologize Kennedy after his death, considering that he almost blew
> up the world.
>
> Michael Bryant
> · Fri
> Michael Beschloss in his book “The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev,
> 1960-1963” clearly shows that Kennedy was not the foreign policy genius
> everyone thought and still thinks he was. The Cuban Missile Crisis was
> the worst of many mistakes Kennedy made during those years.
>
> Michael McNeil
> · Fri
> He had three major accomplishments to his name when he died. 1: the Bay
> of Pigs (maybe not entirely his fault, but a disaster), 2: increased
> involvement in Vietnam (eventual major disaster), and 3: the Cuban
> Missile Crisis (at least 50% his fault; potentially apocalyptic
> disaster, barely averted). But, he was young, handsome, well-spoken, and
> he died in a shocking, public murder. Nothing creates an aura of tragic,
> unfulfilled potential like a horrific death at just the right time.
> Kennedy’s legacy is a triumph of style over substance.
>
> Michael Bryant
> · Fri
> Plus JFK had a disastrous meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna were he came
> across as weak, indecisive, and out of his depth, and he failed to
> confront Khrushchev over the Berlin Wall.

OBWI

Well, you know, quoting from the current Wikipedia article on

'Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons'.

'Preparations, 2000–2006'

'Proposals for a nuclear-weapon-ban treaty first emerged following a
review conference of the NPT in 2000, at which the five officially
recognized nuclear-armed state parties – the United States, Russia,
Britain, France and China – rejected calls for the start of negotiations
on a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention. Disarmament advocates
first considered starting this process without the opposed states as a
"path forward". Subsequently, a less technical treaty concentrated on
the ban of nuclear weapons appeared to be a more realistic goal.'

So, say this had happened five years earlier than our time line.

How many of the world's nuclear weapons states would have signed by
now or would have backed out by now?

Well you know, like that slogan supposedly goes - 'nuclear weapons were
designed to murder civilians'.

Would there have been much change to our time line if that had happened
five years earlier, or five years later?

Some people think there is a ban on 'current events'. Since this
happened over ten years ago however there is probably supposed to
be an expiration date on that.

As for Nixon and Kennedy I am going to be a 'troll' and suggest that
Nixon and Kennedy were interchangeable. If they had reversed and Nixon
had been the early 1960s and Kennedy were the late 1960s and early 1970s
- would they have both done exactly the same thing? Would there have
been effectively no major changes from our time line? Nixon claims he
might have been more bellicose - then again, maybe not - they both would
have done the same as each other anyway.

On 12/2/2021 1:37 PM, Trolidan7 wrote:
> On 12/1/21 9:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
> > What if - Nixon had won the 1960 election?
> >
> > Here is a Quora that has some ideas.
> > Brent Cooper
> > Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Thu
> >
> > How might the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis have turned out if Nixon had
> > been elected?
> >
> > There probably would not have been a Cuban Missile Crises if Nixon was
> > elected. No Bay of Pigs. No Vienna Conference. No Berlin Wall. All were
> > the result of mistakes JFK made.
> >
> > Nixon and Khrushchev had already tested each other at the Kitchen
> > Debate. Nixon and Khrushchev continued their argument in the kitchen of
> > a model home built in the exhibition. With their voices rising and
> > fingers pointing, the two men went at each other. Nixon suggested that
> > Khrushchev’s constant threats of using nuclear missiles could lead to
> > war, and he chided the Soviet for constantly interrupting him while he
> > was speaking. Taking these words as a threat, Khrushchev warned of “very
> > bad consequences.” Perhaps feeling that the exchange had gone too far,
> > the Soviet leader then noted that he simply wanted “peace with all other
> > nations, especially America.” Nixon rather sheepishly stated that he had
> > not “been a very good host.” Both tested the other and a mutual respect
> > was built.
> >
> > If somehow the Crises would have still resulted, no doubt he would have
> > used China. Khrushchev was close to losing his Premiership because of
> > the break with China. Nixon would have been aware of the pressure on
> > Khrushchev and offered Khrushchev something he wanted and needed.
> >
> > 7.8K viewsView 194 upvotesView 1 shareAnswer requested by
> > Gary Kirkbride
> > 10 comments from
> > Shrinivas S
> >   and more
> >
> > also
> > Shrinivas S
> >   · 1h ago
> > Nixon was the most astute grand strategist on the american throne post
> > Eisenhower, none have ever come close after that.
> >
> > He knew what an empire needed and ran it accordingly, it's a pity of
> > american politics that you need an empire without an emperor to run it,
> > resulting in loss of emperor and empire in the long run.
> >
> > Robert Holmén
> >   · 40m ago
> > Berlin Wall Kennedy’s mistake?
> >
> > No matter who got elected the Russians and E Germans still had the
> > serious flight problem and were not going to let it continue through
> > Berlin.
> >
> > Michael McNeil
> >   · Fri
> > One of the main reasons the Crisis occurred in the first place was that
> > Khrushchev was convinced that Kennedy was a sort of cocktail-party
> > socialite who could be pushed around, and who would simply back down
> > over the missiles in Cuba rather than risk a war. He certainly had
> > gotten no such impression of Nixon.
> >
> > Michael Bryant
> >   · Fri
> > Plus JFK had not clearly stated that the USSR placing nuclear missiles
> > in Cuba would have been regarded as an overtly hostile act and an
> > immediate threat to the United States, and met with a forceful reaction.
> > Nixon would have made that position abundantly clear to Khrushchev.
> >
> > Michael McNeil
> >   · Fri
> > Also correct. And all this is without even mentioning those missiles the
> > US had placed in Turkey, which caused Khrushchev to conclude that
> > putting Soviet missiles in Cuba would not be pushing the envelope too
> > much. Assassination or no, it's amazing to me the way people were eager
> > to mythologize Kennedy after his death, considering that he almost blew
> > up the world.
> >
> > Michael Bryant
> >   · Fri
> > Michael Beschloss in his book “The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev,
> > 1960-1963” clearly shows that Kennedy was not the foreign policy genius
> > everyone thought and still thinks he was. The Cuban Missile Crisis was
> > the worst of many mistakes Kennedy made during those years.
> >
> > Michael McNeil
> >   · Fri
> > He had three major accomplishments to his name when he died. 1: the Bay
> > of Pigs (maybe not entirely his fault, but a disaster), 2: increased
> > involvement in Vietnam (eventual major disaster), and 3: the Cuban
> > Missile Crisis (at least 50% his fault; potentially apocalyptic
> > disaster, barely averted). But, he was young, handsome, well-spoken, and
> > he died in a shocking, public murder. Nothing creates an aura of tragic,
> > unfulfilled potential like a horrific death at just the right time.
> > Kennedy’s legacy is a triumph of style over substance.
> >
> > Michael Bryant
> >   · Fri
> > Plus JFK had a disastrous meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna were he came
> > across as weak, indecisive, and out of his depth, and he failed to
> > confront Khrushchev over the Berlin Wall.
>
> OBWI
>
> Well, you know, quoting from the current Wikipedia article on
>
> 'Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons'.
>
> 'Preparations, 2000–2006'
>
> 'Proposals for a nuclear-weapon-ban treaty first emerged following a
> review conference of the NPT in 2000, at which the five officially
> recognized nuclear-armed state parties – the United States, Russia,
> Britain, France and China – rejected calls for the start of negotiations
> on a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention. Disarmament advocates
> first considered starting this process without the opposed states as a
> "path forward". Subsequently, a less technical treaty concentrated on
> the ban of nuclear weapons appeared to be a more realistic goal.'
>
> So, say this had happened five years earlier than our time line.
>
> How many of the world's nuclear weapons states would have signed by
> now or would have backed out by now?
>
> Well you know, like that slogan supposedly goes - 'nuclear weapons were
> designed to murder civilians'.
>
> Would there have been much change to our time line if that had happened
> five years earlier, or five years later?
>
> Some people think there is a ban on 'current events'.  Since this
> happened over ten years ago however there is probably supposed to
> be an expiration date on that.
>
> As for Nixon and Kennedy I am going to be a 'troll' and suggest that
> Nixon and Kennedy were interchangeable.  If they had reversed and Nixon
> had been the early 1960s and Kennedy were the late 1960s and early 1970s
> - would they have both done exactly the same thing?  Would there have
> been effectively no major changes from our time line?  Nixon claims he
> might have been more bellicose - then again, maybe not - they both would
> have done the same as each other anyway.
>
>
>

I think you quite literally have to make Kennedy not be Kennedy for that
to be a viable option.

How long do Addison's Disease patients remain healthy enough to serve as
President?

But you're welcome to your opinion too.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 3:37:09 PM UTC-5, Trolidan7 wrote:
> On 12/1/21 9:19 AM, a425couple wrote:
> > What if - Nixon had won the 1960 election?
> >
> > Here is a Quora that has some ideas.
> > Brent Cooper
> > Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Thu
> >
> > How might the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis have turned out if Nixon had
> > been elected?
> >
> > There probably would not have been a Cuban Missile Crises if Nixon was
> > elected. No Bay of Pigs. No Vienna Conference. No Berlin Wall. All were
> > the result of mistakes JFK made.
> >
> > Nixon and Khrushchev had already tested each other at the Kitchen
> > Debate. Nixon and Khrushchev continued their argument in the kitchen of
> > a model home built in the exhibition. With their voices rising and
> > fingers pointing, the two men went at each other. Nixon suggested that
> > Khrushchev’s constant threats of using nuclear missiles could lead to
> > war, and he chided the Soviet for constantly interrupting him while he
> > was speaking. Taking these words as a threat, Khrushchev warned of “very
> > bad consequences.” Perhaps feeling that the exchange had gone too far,
> > the Soviet leader then noted that he simply wanted “peace with all other
> > nations, especially America.” Nixon rather sheepishly stated that he had
> > not “been a very good host.” Both tested the other and a mutual respect
> > was built.
> >
> > If somehow the Crises would have still resulted, no doubt he would have
> > used China. Khrushchev was close to losing his Premiership because of
> > the break with China. Nixon would have been aware of the pressure on
> > Khrushchev and offered Khrushchev something he wanted and needed.
> >
> > 7.8K viewsView 194 upvotesView 1 shareAnswer requested by
> > Gary Kirkbride
> > 10 comments from
> > Shrinivas S
> > and more
> >
> > also
> > Shrinivas S
> > · 1h ago
> > Nixon was the most astute grand strategist on the american throne post
> > Eisenhower, none have ever come close after that.
> >
> > He knew what an empire needed and ran it accordingly, it's a pity of
> > american politics that you need an empire without an emperor to run it,
> > resulting in loss of emperor and empire in the long run.
> >
> > Robert Holmén
> > · 40m ago
> > Berlin Wall Kennedy’s mistake?
> >
> > No matter who got elected the Russians and E Germans still had the
> > serious flight problem and were not going to let it continue through
> > Berlin.
> >
> > Michael McNeil
> > · Fri
> > One of the main reasons the Crisis occurred in the first place was that
> > Khrushchev was convinced that Kennedy was a sort of cocktail-party
> > socialite who could be pushed around, and who would simply back down
> > over the missiles in Cuba rather than risk a war. He certainly had
> > gotten no such impression of Nixon.
> >
> > Michael Bryant
> > · Fri
> > Plus JFK had not clearly stated that the USSR placing nuclear missiles
> > in Cuba would have been regarded as an overtly hostile act and an
> > immediate threat to the United States, and met with a forceful reaction..
> > Nixon would have made that position abundantly clear to Khrushchev.
> >
> > Michael McNeil
> > · Fri
> > Also correct. And all this is without even mentioning those missiles the
> > US had placed in Turkey, which caused Khrushchev to conclude that
> > putting Soviet missiles in Cuba would not be pushing the envelope too
> > much. Assassination or no, it's amazing to me the way people were eager
> > to mythologize Kennedy after his death, considering that he almost blew
> > up the world.
> >
> > Michael Bryant
> > · Fri
> > Michael Beschloss in his book “The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev,
> > 1960-1963” clearly shows that Kennedy was not the foreign policy genius
> > everyone thought and still thinks he was. The Cuban Missile Crisis was
> > the worst of many mistakes Kennedy made during those years.
> >
> > Michael McNeil
> > · Fri
> > He had three major accomplishments to his name when he died. 1: the Bay
> > of Pigs (maybe not entirely his fault, but a disaster), 2: increased
> > involvement in Vietnam (eventual major disaster), and 3: the Cuban
> > Missile Crisis (at least 50% his fault; potentially apocalyptic
> > disaster, barely averted). But, he was young, handsome, well-spoken, and
> > he died in a shocking, public murder. Nothing creates an aura of tragic,
> > unfulfilled potential like a horrific death at just the right time.
> > Kennedy’s legacy is a triumph of style over substance.
> >
> > Michael Bryant
> > · Fri
> > Plus JFK had a disastrous meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna were he came
> > across as weak, indecisive, and out of his depth, and he failed to
> > confront Khrushchev over the Berlin Wall.
> OBWI
>
> Well, you know, quoting from the current Wikipedia article on
>
> 'Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons'.
>
> 'Preparations, 2000–2006'
>
> 'Proposals for a nuclear-weapon-ban treaty first emerged following a
> review conference of the NPT in 2000, at which the five officially
> recognized nuclear-armed state parties – the United States, Russia,
> Britain, France and China – rejected calls for the start of negotiations
> on a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention. Disarmament advocates
> first considered starting this process without the opposed states as a
> "path forward". Subsequently, a less technical treaty concentrated on
> the ban of nuclear weapons appeared to be a more realistic goal.'
>
> So, say this had happened five years earlier than our time line.
>
> How many of the world's nuclear weapons states would have signed by
> now or would have backed out by now?
>
> Well you know, like that slogan supposedly goes - 'nuclear weapons were
> designed to murder civilians'.
>
> Would there have been much change to our time line if that had happened
> five years earlier, or five years later?
>
> Some people think there is a ban on 'current events'. Since this
> happened over ten years ago however there is probably supposed to
> be an expiration date on that.
>
> As for Nixon and Kennedy I am going to be a 'troll' and suggest that
> Nixon and Kennedy were interchangeable. If they had reversed and Nixon
> had been the early 1960s and Kennedy were the late 1960s and early 1970s
> - would they have both done exactly the same thing? Would there have
> been effectively no major changes from our time line? Nixon claims he
> might have been more bellicose - then again, maybe not - they both would
> have done the same as each other anyway.

I disagree and say that Kennedy and Nixon were definitely NOT interchangeable. If each could be boiled down to a bare description: Kennedy was very charismatic but not very good at diplomacy. Nixon was not very charismatic but excelled at diplomacy. If Nixon had been president in 1962, we may very well have seen WWIII but that would have ended with a shattered USSR (and probably China too) and the US with a few damaged cities/bases, mostly in the South. Now, not to minimize the latter but in that case, the US would have been a clear victor.

Now if Kennedy was president in 1968-1974 (assuming the above scenario did not happen), the Soviets would have been in a much stronger position. One could see the 1973 Yom Kippur War spiraling out of control with Kennedy acting like he did during the Cuban crisis. In this scenario, WWIII erupts and well, it's the end of everything.

Dean