Respect the office

Having just started googling, it cant have been that she was worried about that I remember, because at the time of the missile crisis I was only an infant.

There are many sites to fill you in on the history of this critical period in the Cold War. The general consensus was that the world came as close as it could have tomthe possibility of Nuclear War. Kennedy may have had many personal faults but I believe he can be credited with holding his nerve and avoiding disaster.
(And yes, it would have affected the U.K.as NATO Allies and all of Europe.)

"The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was a direct and dangerous confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and was the moment when the two superpowers came closest to nuclear conflict. The crisis was unique in a number of ways, featuring calculations and miscalculations as well as direct and secret communications and miscommunications between the two sides. The dramatic crisis was also characterized by the fact that it was primarily played out at the White House and the Kremlin level with relatively little input from the respective bureaucracies typically involved in the foreign policy process."

re Cuban missile crisis.
Had the outcome been different I suggest we might very well have been affected (by nuclear war)!!!!!!

Ankers The Cuban missile crisis certainly would have affected the UK if missiles had ever been launched.

This is a blog written from a British perspective:

defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/raf-and-the-cuban-missile-crisis/

If you don't want to read the whole thing, this is an extract:

"The RAF’s V-Bomber force operated alongside their USAF counterparts who were based in the continental United States and Europe to attack the Soviets should they trundle across the Iron Curtain. The V-Bombers were part of an intricate Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) that attempted to deliver one brutal crushing nuclear blow against the Soviets. Key to this was Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) in which the bomber crews maintained the ability to scramble their aircraft in a style reminiscent of the Battle of Britain. The aim was to get the bombers off the ground as quickly as possible to prevent their destruction from incoming missiles. Ground crews for these aircraft worked in the knowledge that if the call came to scramble, their lives no longer mattered as they would be over within the next few minutes. All that did matter was to get those aircraft in the air to retaliate."

There was a genuine fear that the UK would have been obliterated in a proxy war. The same could happen in Ukraine or the Baltic states, where Putin is undoubtedly pulling strings. It's why Sweden has just reintroduced conscription.

World peace at that time depended on a fragile balance of armaments and the knowledge by both the USA and the USSR that the actual USE of their nuclear weapons would result in "MAD" - Mutually Assured Destruction.

As a power move, the USSR persuaded to allow Soviet missile-carrying craft to be based in Cuba, so near to the US that US cities were within easy reach of a warhead. This would have changed the balance of armaments well over toward the USSR, had JFK not taken the initiative and insisted on their withdrawal, and faced it off. It was a scary time, as it could have become an armed fight, had it not succeeded - but if he had not done so, the USSR would have been in a position to dominate the rest of the world.

Should have read "persuaded Fidel Castro"

There is a saying that the nation which forgets its history is condemned to repeat it.

Isn't it odd how sometimes a thread just gets a bang on the head?
I usually find I am responsible, but I would have thought the Cuban Missile Crisis which is within living memory for most of us, was extremely pertinent to whether or not we in the U.K. or in Europe are "excused" taking an active interest in any POTUS , especially the current one.

It is the cold water of reality, Maw, dousing the illusion that we can comfortably ignore what goes on across the pond and just cultivate our own garden. Or perhaps it is taking a while to read and digest the information about the events of 1962. For those who were babes-in-arms at the time, it is ancient history.

It was a while ago - a year before I married, but I remember the tension well, and how people were stocking up on tinned food and bottled water and reading up on how to avoid (and treat!) radiation burns.

For me it came on the heels of my German grandparents' "unplanned " move from Berlin to West Germany. Although their flat was in West Berlin, once the wall went up they were virtually packing their bags. Having survived the war years (how?) they were terrified of the Soviets.
What terrifying times they and we lived in!

I know a German lady of 90 or more, who was a young girl when Russian soldiers marched into Germany. She cannot stand the Soviets - she saw and heard about so much. A friend of a friend was a young child in Singapore when the Japs invaded, and spent some time in Changi prison camp. Her hatred of the Japanese has not altered over the years.

It was a terribly anxious time for families with serving fighter and bomber pilots (and crew)

QRA is still a vital part of our defence with jets frequently scrambled to check out planes from Eastern Europe who stray too far this way.

Are there any leading political figures in any countries today who have first-hand memories of that era? Or do they all think that it is just dead history and has no relevance to comtemporary international relations?

IMO no one person or organisation is worthy of "automatic" respect because of their/its social status.
Everyone should get basic courtesy.

To earn respect they need to be able to show that their actions, decisions etc are for the general good of the population they serve.

Even presidents can screw up in a very big way.

I'm with you Nellie Respect is earned by the holder of any leader role and is not automatic.

On a far smaller political scale I am struggling to respect the new president of the WI I belong to! She was a nice woman before she became the president! It feels that it is 'all about her' and not what the membership want. She is ignoring ideas and suggestions from members and is ploughing on regardless with her own agenda. Attendance at meetings is falling! People are not happy and I fear a revolution That is what happens when leaders do not listen!

That puts trump in his place, Penstemmon.

dj I just hope she does not resort to Twitter!

Sounds as if she is enjoying the role a little too much Penstemmon all the WI presidents I have known have been pushed unwillingly into the job and are glad to give it up/ pass it on.

I think that I disagree with the opinion that there is no automatic respect for the Post /Title although I do agree that the person in that Post has to earn respect.
President, Prime Minister, MP, councillor, etc all do have a certain cachet, for want of a better word, especially President of a powerful country like the US.

What nellie and penstemmon say for me entirely underlines the concept of "respect for the office"
Even (or perhaps especially) the incumbent has to respect the position to which he or she has been elected. There is a duty implicit in that "respect" not to demean betray, disparage, exploit or otherwise bring the "office/position" into disrepute.
A person of cours may have no automatic entitlement to respect and has to earn it.

Elegran wrote:
" Are there any leading political figures in any countries today who have first-hand memories of that era?"
There must be many of that era in the house of Lords. Michael Heseltine for one. And Glenda Jackson. But perhaps they aren't leading figures.

Will everyone , who hold the current Queen in high regard, automatically feel the same when it is Queen Camilla?

No, they wouldn't ( because of Diana) but they would for the next Queen I think.

To me that is the person not the office. The fact that the queen has established a considerable personal popularity is down to what sort of Queen she has turned out as , not just being queen. I wonder if the monarchy would have survived with a less charismatic and dedicated person.

That was my point really.. it is not the office monarch per se that is respected because the level of respect alters depending on the person holding the title.