Could Cuban Missile Crisis be turned into global war, if not reasonable decisions of the leaders? (will mark brainliest)​​

The Cuban Missile Crisis stands as a seminal event.2

History offers no parallel to those thirteen

days of October 1962, when the USA and the Soviet Union paused at the nuclear precipice.

Never before had there been such a high probability that so many lives would end suddenly.

Had war come, it could have meant the death of 100 million Americans and more than

100 million Russians, and millions of Europeans as well. Other catastrophes and inhumanities

of history would have faded into insignifi cance. Given the odds of disaster—which President

Kennedy estimated as ‘between one out of three and even’—our escape is staggering (Steel

1969: 22).

In retrospect, this crisis proved a major watershed in the Cold War. For thirteen days, the

USA and the Soviet Union stood ‘eyeball to eyeball’, each with the power of mutualdestruction in hand. Having peered over the edge of the nuclear precipice, both nations

edged backwards towards détente. Never again was the risk of war between them as great as

it was during the last two weeks of October 1962. Thus an understanding of this crisis is es-

sential for every serious student of foreign affairs.Operation Anadyr

American sources and newly available material from the Soviet Union now permit us to re-

construct the Soviet arms build-up that culminated in the conversion of Cuba into a major

strategic missile base.3

The Soviet government first gave arms to Cuba in the autumn of 1959. The Soviets and

Cubans negotiated the next phase of military assistance in early 1962. The Soviet Presid-

ium approved Cuban requests for additional weapons in April 1962, and the Soviets re-

sumed arms shipments at a markedly increased pace in late July. By 1 September, Soviet

arms in Cuba included surface-to-air missiles, coastal defence Sopka cruise missiles, patrol

boats armed with anti-ship missiles, and more than 5000 Soviet technicians and military

personnel.

l

.

1.the population change is near or at replacement level.

4. the birth and death rates are balanced.

6. sweden is most likely a developed country.

the name of the theory is landmass theory.