The Final Straw
Rahul Dit, reporting from the Joint Crisis Committee (JCC): North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), sheds light upon how the committee has almost fulfilled its purpose.
The platform was setup by an informal debate between the delegates. The floor was opened by keeping Abel Archer in the delegates’ mind. The debate was started by the Delegate of the Belgium, who claimed that the troops present in Western Germany were enough to deal with any imminent threat to West Germany. The delegate felt that it was necessary to go forth with the Abel Archer plan in order to have a proper command centre co-ordination with the various forces of the NATO, but the movement of any major troop would not be required. Next, the Delegate of Italy reminded the committee of the importance of involvement of the Navy and the Army, who would be handling the necessary nuclear warheads. The Delegate of Germany wanted the exercise to ensure that all the troops were battle-ready in case of a chemical attack carried out by the Soviet Union, He felt that the usage of hazmat suits and other defence mechanisms against the chemical weapons reduce mobility and therefore, it is necessary to train the troops to have experience, which could be beneficial in the face of war. The Delegate of France wanted to use as many troops as possible, because he feels that there is no point in conducting a military exercise if there are no troops employed. Additionally, the delegate felt that the uprising in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslovakia could be used to moderate the political situation by placing military troops in these nations.
The delegate of United States of America (USA) stated that all across Europe, there were multiple uprisings and anti-communist movements which could be used to the benefit of the Western Allies. According to the delegate, it was necessary to moderate this situation by giving them humanitarian and economic help which would enable them to spread the message of capitalism. The delegate felt that the Abel Archer should be used as a cover to deploy troops and also suggested that the use of military troops should be limited to retaliation in case of a direct attack. The Delegate of Norway fully supported the suggestion made by the Delegate of USA. The Delegate of Turkey suggested that the Abel Archer should be used as a defensive measure only in case of a breach of the Berlin wall, and intelligence troops must be used otherwise. The Delegate of the United Kingdom (UK) suggested the USA be vigilant of any two-pronged attack from the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, the Delegate of Turkey had given his consent for the Abel Archer to be conducted within Turkish Boundaries.
From the long debate, the committee concluded that it was necessary to perform an exercise in order to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. The committee proceeded to vote upon a plan of action, to be executed.
(Edited by Harsha Sista.)
The Day the Rhetoric Died
Reporting from the Joint Crisis Committee (JCC): North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Sankalpa Sarkar pries and probes into the delegates’ line of thought as the Soviet incursion into Cuba intensifies.
“The day the rhetoric in the NATO dies will be the clarion call for the signatories of the Warsaw Pact.” Dabbing in a plethora of “renegaded dictum”, the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) plunged into an abyss of technicalities as the emergency meeting of the JCC NATO was plunged into disarray as a news snippet from Miami News postmarked 6.30 PM on 31 October 1983 revealed that a K135 Soviet submarine had snagged a frigate-towed Sound Navigation and Ranging (SONAR) array cables off the coast of Bermuda. Local intelligence cited the towing off the Soviet submarine to a location called Cienfuegos, near the Republic of Cuba (Cuba). Reports claimed that the Soviet submarine was a Victor Class III attack submarine. The motive of the frigate and the perpetrator remained relatively shrouded in mystery and could not be verified by any confirmed sources.
Polarizing the committee into two factions, the members of the NATO were at their facetious best as the future of the Abel Archer military exercises was clouded in clandestine rhetoric. The Delegate of the French Republic (France) vociferously advocated a totalitarian blockade of Cuba and an utter disruption of trade, economic and financial ties of any member nations of NATO with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR). Calling upon the member nations to prepare in all readiness for an all-out military intervention against the USSR, the delegate of France requested the fellow delegates to mobilize their armed forces to increase the patrol of the Cuban region and counteract Soviet intervention in the region. Citing the 1962 Cuban missile crisis as a precedent, the delegate of France ascended upon the delegates the shimmering necessity of a concerted offensive against the USSR before the situation escalated, considering the strategic location of Cuba. The delegate of Repubblica Italiana (Italy) countered the analogy brought forth by the Delegate of France by noting the asymmetric nature of the erstwhile geopolitical dynamics as opposed to those prevailing during the Cuban missile crisis.
Strengthening his notion, the Delegate of Italy vehemently opposed the deployment of forces to Cuba, as proposed by the delegates of France and the Hellenic Republic of Greece (Greece). The Delegate of Italy anticipated the member nations of the NATO to concentrate on strengthening their allies and securing their porous borders. The delegate of France countered this proposal by laying the blueprint of an elaborate NATO plan to mobilize the Elite Air Forces and the French marine Corps to secure the Cuban region and relocate French forces located at Germany to Cuba. The Delegate of Italy was quick to point out that the Soviet submarines in Cuba could be a mere diversion technique deployed by the Soviet Union, further remarking that any blockade is unnecessary without comprehensive investigation, a view corroborated by the delegates of the Untied State of America (USA), Canada, the Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium) and West Germany. The Delegate of France countered this by vociferously asserting the Victor III class of the submarine, which is very sophisticated and one of the Soviet prize assets, further calling upon the member nations of the NATO to eliminate Abel Archer to second priority and establish a line of command to secure the NATO security.
(Edited by Harsha Sista.)
The Road to be Taken
Rahul Dit, reporting from the Joint Crisis Committee (JCC): North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), dwells on the haphazard formation of ideas in the committee regarding the plan of action.
“Choices are the Hinges of Destiny” -Edwin Markham
The committee was informed of a new development the previous day. The first part informed the committee about the enhanced trade agreements between the Republic of Cuba (Cuba) and several Warsaw pact nations regarding the trade of Havanese Cigars and Sugar in return for Automobile Chassis and other parts. The important thing to note here is that this deal came in the middle of extreme political tensions between the east and the west. The second part reported that a Soviet Hotel class Submarine was capsized by NATO forces stationed in the naval air station in Keflavik, Iceland. It was also reported that the submarine had violated territorial waters of Iceland and the Soviet Union openly condemned it as an act of provocation by the Western Bloc. The third part of the report talked about the increase in security and policing near the Berlin War on the side of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).
The platform was set by opening the discussion with the help of continuous speeches given by the delegates turn wise. The debate was started by the Delegate of Germany, who believed that the committee cannot just accept news reports as facts and the matter must be thoroughly researched and the report verified. The Delegate of Germany also felt like the enhanced trade relationships between the nations of Warsaw Pact and Cuba could be a new kind of Cuban Missile Situation. The Delegate of Greece felt that the enhanced trade relationships could be a cover to increase the Soviet presence on the sea. Hence, he felt that this could be a potential threat to the security of the NATO nations. In order to deal with these, the delegate suggested that the nations of NATO mobilise troops near strategic and important locations, especially around the Western Side of the Berlin Wall. The delegates of France and Spain supported each other in carrying out the Abel Archer Exercise. The Delegate of Belgium felt that an increase in the number of troops could be counter-productive and supported the idea of the committee proceeding with the Abel Archer Exercise. The Delegate of France wanted to disrupt the naval ways between Cuba and the nations of the Warsaw Pact in order to disrupt communications and hence degrade the communication lines. The idea was openly condemned by many other delegates as a naval blockade, which could be seen as an open declaration of war.
The Delegate of the United States of America (USA) and the Delegate of Spain raised a motion to suspend the formal debate and move to an informal debate in order to streamline the ideas. However, the motion was overruled and it can be easily inferred that the committee was in a complete disarray. Thoughts and ideas were just being thrown around without conclusive action being taken.
(Edited by Harsha Sista.)
2B or not 2B
Reporting from the Joint Crisis Committee (JCC): North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Sankalpa Sarkar ponders over the cloud of uncertainty mushrooming over the Abel Archer exercises.
“Reticence under the façade of hypocrisy is a heinous crime in its own essence.” As the Delegate of the Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium) expressed his scepticism over the aim of the Delegate of the French Republic (France), the committee was plunged into a crevice of vicious realism as the future of the Abel Archer military exercises was plunged into obscurity on the back of rapid military intervention by the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR) into the Republic of Cuba (Cuba). Scorning the “abrupt fluctuations in policy and stance” displayed by the Delegate of France, the Delegate of Belgium posed the rhetoric in which the Delegate of France was attempting to prevent war by escalating military intervention.
Calling upon the member nations of the NATO to deploy immediate countermeasures to reinforce the porous borders of their allies and to berate any Soviet incursion of any ground in Cuba, the Delegate of Kingdom of Norway (Norway) speculated a possible Soviet infiltration of the NATO strongholds near Cuba and reiterated his desire of anti-submarine controls in and around Cuba to be enforced by the NATO. The Delegate of France called upon committee to suspend the Abel Archer military exercises and concentrate on strengthening the porous borders of West Germany and reinforcing border control mechanisms to thwart a speculated Soviet offensive across the Berlin Wall. Corroborating with the Delegate of France, the Delegate of the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) echoed his strategy of heightened military pressure on the Soviet Politburo by securing the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, the straits of Turkey and augmented surveillance of the straits between the United States of America (USA) and The Commonwealth of Bahamas (Bahamas). The Delegate of USA urged the committee to pursue an enhanced version of the Abel Archer military exercises irrespective of the erstwhile geopolitical dynamics, speculative in nature as they are, in order to convince the citizens of the member states of the NATO that the NATO was armed and equipped for a possible military offensive by the USSR. The Delegate of France enlightened the committee on the range and conceivable threat posed by the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) if they were to be deployed by the Soviets and admonished the committee for diverting the focal point of the NATO from territorial integrity of their allies.
The Delegate of USA launched into a fierce narrative as he detailed a comprehensive stratagem to counter the Soviet military offensives, while safeguarding the interest of their military exercises. The delegate called upon the nations intensify policing and strategic surveillance of the Berlin Wall and heighten intelligence and counter-insurgency operations in strategic locations. Defying the stance set forth by the delegate of France, the delegate of Germany emphasized on the speculative violations of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) mandate, if they were to enforce a totalitarian blockade of Cuba. Further elaborating on his policy, the delegate of West Germany accentuated the NATO principle of not setting a precedent by coercing Cuba into a blockade without a United Nations (UN) mandate. The Delegate of USA vociferously advocated for a technically astute Abel Archer exercise, claiming that it can be used as a guise for sting operations in Cuba by adding proper signal measures and using command posts to intercept USSR’s strategies. The Delegate of Turkey highlighted on this stance by declaring that a postponement of the exercises would be redundant as the Soviets would acknowledge the military exercises as a covert operation and could be utilized by the NATO to retaliate in case of a Soviet violation of the détente and nuclear deterrence.
(Edited by Harsha Sista.)
Deterrence; a Possible Solution to Peace?
Reporting from the Joint Crisis Committee (JCC): North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Rahul Dit conducts an opinion poll to analyse the stances held by the Member Nations.
An opinion poll was conducted and the topic of the opinion poll was, “Is nuclear deterrence a possible solution for the future world peace?”. The basic meaning of deterrence is the action of discouraging an event by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.
Maximum delegates believe in deterrence as a possible solution to world. To them, instilling fear via possession of nuclear weapons would deter the other nations from using them. Fear is instilled via possible retaliation and Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The Delegates of Belgium, United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, Spain, Norway, United States and Canada voted for yes. The Delegates Italy, Turkey, France and Turkey voted for no, which shows that they do not believe in nuclear deterrence. Therefore, maximum members of the committee believe in Nuclear Deterrence, which could be possible due to the fact that most of these nations are nuclear powers and understand well the negative effects of using a nuclear warhead. The nuclear policies of the rest of the countries still remain under their discretion and foreign policies.
(Edited by Harsha Sista.)
Sophie’s Choice
“If I were a bird, I would but deign to deter choices.” Reporting from the Joint Crisis Committee (JCC): North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Sankalpa Sarkar attempts to construe the delegates’ blueprint on the possible plan of action of the signatories to the Warsaw Pact.
The sensuous serenades of the absquatulate vociferate delegates echoed across the annuls of the Joint Crisis Committee (JCC): North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as the rhetoric of blithe vacillation ailed the delegates. Confronted with the insurmountable task of weighing the scales of poise to counter the threat to détente and to nuclear deterrence posed by the parties to the Warsaw Pact, led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Sophie’s Choice presented itself as the dark misty cloud emanating from Pandora’s Box as the writhing fortunes coerced the delegates to weather many a storm to deliberate on the Politburo’s rejoinder to the nuclear threat posed by the Abel Archer exercises conducted by the NATO.
As the delegates struggled to survive in a vortex of rarefied air, the delegates of the United States of America (USA), the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), the French Republic (France), the Hellenic Republic of Greece (Greece), the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany), Canada, the Kingdom of Belgium (Belgium) and the United Kingdom (UK) begged to opine that the Politburo’s plan of action would presumably follow pre-emption of any nuclear offensives that the NATO could strategize targeting the USSR and its eastern European allies, following the principle of deterrence and hence, adhering to the implied principles of the Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Contradicting them, the delegates of the Kingdom of Norway (Norway), the Kingdom of Spain (Spain), the Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourg), the Kingdom of Netherlands (Netherlands) and the Portuguese Republic (Portugal) begged to differ, haranguing Soviet unscrupulousness in complete violation of MAD and hence, threatening the precipice of deterrence.
As the dust settled down on the road seldom traversed, the committee is set to buckle up for an intense session of debate on the roadmap to be pursued by the Soviet Union as the Abel Archer exercises draw closer and closer. The East Wind is coming; it is coming to get us all!
(Edited by Harsha Sista.)