The decision to have nuclear weapons placed in Cuba was subject to the form of a decision-making model adopted by the leaders. The Soviets made a decision to have nuclear weapons placed in Cuba despite the overall outcry from the US and other nations. The decisions made by the Soviets took into consideration the rational decision-making model. In this case, the only consideration was that the government was the sole and final actor in decision-making. Therefore, the decision made was domestic and not subject to the will and opinion of the international community. The decision to have nuclear weapons manufactured and tested in Cuba was made only by the Soviet leaders, and they ignored the opinion of the rest of the world. The leaders felt that by having control of the government, they were the sole actors in the decision. Also, Soviet leaders believed that the government needed to consider the decision at hand, evaluate it, and choose the plan of action that promised the best payoff compared with the rest of the actions. The best payoff for the Soviets was to have the nuclear weapons in place and execute the mandate of an attack in the event that a threat materialized. However, this proved futile as the Soviets later bowed to pressure from the US, which demanded the removal of the nuclear weapon sites in Cuba. The decision made by the Soviet Union became useless even in the face of so much might.
Some better decision-making models need to be taken into consideration. The rational decision-making model is quite shallow and limits the possibility of attaining the target. By ignoring the opinion of the international community, the Soviets could not attain their objective of setting up a nuclear weapon base in Cuba. The organizational decision-making model does better in making up for the shortcomings of the rational model. The organizational decision-making model requires much more time and resources before settling on the best decision for an organization or a country. Therefore, it becomes hard to have the decision made by an individual or only the people in power. The organizational model requires that the problem be identified and broken down effectively. A problem cannot be approached as a whole while still attaining the set objectives. In addition, there is a need to accommodate governmental politics in international decision-making. The Soviets failed to attain their objective. Even though the people in power have the responsibility of making the ultimate decision, the governmental politics model requires them to seek consensus from the rest of the people. The Soviet Union, however, went ahead and made a decision without involving the rest of the stakeholders. Due to the mutually assured destruction threat by the US, the Soviets pulled out their nuclear weapons from Cuba. A decision made by the two parties, therefore, overtook the decision made by one individual party, the Soviet Union.
Research
Repercussions of the essence of the decision in modern international relations
The essence of decision-making has deep roots in modern society, just as it did a long time ago. The international community continues to have a bigger impact on decisions made by individual countries. Many leaders across the world realize and acknowledge that a decision made by one country may affect the rest of the world even though other countries are not directly related to it. Therefore, there has been a call for international dialogue in the making of major decisions.
Major examples of such decisions include the manufacture and deployment of nuclear weapons. Some countries in the world have had the audacity to go ahead and test their nuclear weapons as a show of might to the rest of the world (Busch, 2016). However, this has faced fierce criticism from other countries. For instance, the North Korean government has been in the spotlight for going against the need for international dialogue. North Korea has decided to manufacture and test nuclear weapons amid fierce objections from the US. This has led to various repercussions for the country. First, many trade sanctions were imposed on North Korea. In addition, some supporters of the move to have nuclear weapons in place have faced limits on where they can travel, especially to countries opposed to the move. In the recent past, many countries ganged up against the North Korean government. This has been a major issue for the country. The South Korean government, the US, and other countries made threats of attacks on North Korea if it failed to dismantle the nuclear weapons sites in the country (Holm, 2016). This has led to the realization of the need for international engagement before making major decisions. As North Korea continues to be stubborn, its international relationships continue to deteriorate.
After realizing the mistake, the government has seen the need to engage other stakeholders in decision-making. The essence of decision-making, therefore, has major repercussions. If the decision-making party involves the rest of the stakeholders, the decision is reached on a mutual basis. Therefore, the ultimate implementation becomes easier to attain because limited objection is experienced. On the other hand, failure to consult the international community on some major decisions becomes a nightmare at the implementation level. The international community has the power to influence the fate of a country. Therefore, there is a need to have decisions that encourage consensus and are aimed at a balanced outcome. It is suicidal to ignore international stakeholders in major and sensitive decision-making.
References
Busch, Andreas. “Graham T. Allison: Essence of decision. Explaining the Cuban missile crisis, Little, Brown and Company: Boston 1971, 338 S.” Klassiker der Sozialwissenschaften. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2016. 281-284.
Holm, Carl-Johan. “Svensk militär avskräckning, en tröskel eller déjà vu från kalla kriget?.” (2016).
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
