“Pearl Harbor in Reverse” Moral Analogies in the Cuban Missile Crisis

2007/07/01 by Dominic Tierney · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #International Relations and Foreign Policy #Nuclear Issues and Defense #Korean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies #Analogy #Surprise #Argument (complex analysis) #Pearl #Invocation #Missile #Political science #Law #Foreign policy #Law and economics #Political economy #Sociology #History #Philosophy #Epistemology #Politics #Theology

paper · doi:10.1162/jcws.2007.9.3.49

openalex publication_date 2007/07/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01

Abstract

During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the argument that U.S. air strikes against Soviet missile sites in Cuba would be morally analogous to the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 had a major impact on policymaking. The invocation of this analogy contributed to President John F. Kennedy's decision to forgo an immediate attack on the missiles and to start instead with a naval blockade of the island. The “Pearl Harbor in reverse” argument is an example of an important phenomenon that has received little attention in foreign policy analysis—the moral analogy. Fusing together elements of moral and analogical thinking, the moral analogy can be a powerful force in shaping policy preferences, as it was in October 1962.

Citations

• The Role of Analogical Reasoning in Novel Foreign-Policy Situations

Cited by

• Day of Infamy speech [wikipedia]

Related

• Domestic Politics and the Cuban Missile Crisis: The Traditional and Revisionist Interpretations Reevaluated
• The Role of Analogical Reasoning in Novel Foreign-Policy Situations
• Avoiding Catastrophe: The Interactional Production of Possibility during the Cuban Missile Crisis
• Shame and Humiliation in the Cuban Missile Crisis: A Psychoanalytic Perspective
• The Cuban Missile Crisis: A nuclear order of battle, October and November 1962