how severely it harmed national security was revealed in 1962 when khrushchev sent missiles to cuba. partial hi, that was a foolhardy -- partially, that was a foolhardy attempt to right the balance, partially the because of the very clear threat of u.s. invasion in the course of a major terrorist campaign that kennedy was waging against cuba. kind of erased from our history, but very much alive in real history. [laughter] khrushchev's effort to set off what arthur schlesinger called the most dangerous moment in history. what happened then merits clear careful consideration. no time to go through the details, but it's worth remembering that at the peak moment of crisis -- october 26th and 27th of 1962 -- kennedy received a letter from khrushchev offering to end the crisis peacefully by simultaneous public withdrawal of cuban -- of russian missiles from cuba and u.s. missiles from turkey. these were jupiter missiles liquid propelled meaning slow to set in motion which means that they were first strike weapons, not intended for a deterrent. they were also obsolete weapons. the u.s. had

it was revealed in 1962 when khrushchev sent missiles to cuba.that was partially an attempt to write add-ons and partially because of the clear threat it was kind of released from our history but very much alive in real history. it was what are their slush and are called the most dangerous moment in history.. and they had careful consideration with no time to go through the details but it's worth remembering that at the key point of the crisis in 1962 kennedy received a letter from khrushchev offering to end the crisis peacefully with the withdraw of russian missiles from cuba and u.s. missiles from turkey. and these were missiles propelled to set in motion which means that they were at first strike weapons and not intended for attended for a deterrent and they were also obsolete weapons and the u.s. had already issued this in order to act on them because they were being replaced by even more lethal weapons. and so that was kennedy's choice. shall we publicly withdraw obsolete missiles from first missiles from turkey on the border of russia which

khrushchev told the ship to turn around a day before before the blockade started.and the one which was full of nuclear weapons full of nuclear weapons, he said going to get into port so they won't steal my nuclear weapons secrets. so whatever. >> i want to go one layer below. are there any advisors to really stand out over all these years, like from you know dollars to kissinger? was as somebody who seem to have a good worldview, did it better than anybody else? >> i am a fan of brent scowcroft. i know when. i like them. he's been very helpful to me on my projects. this and your had an extraordinary grasp that he was very many but it had a lot of agenda. i enjoyed talking to him. very knowledgeable guy but you know you ask me a question i have only thought of before. i'm inclined to go with scowcroft because he was practical and wasn't driven by ideology. that's the best answer i can give you right now the next time we get together i will have to think of another one. >> i think we've come to the end, so i want to express my gratitude to michael bohn for this littl

it is clear that khrushchev thought this.the americans will back down and we will get what we want. what if they don't? we will try something else. talking about explicit nuclear threats, what khrushchev did it's terrifying. there's completely different arguments here. how you answer that -- it depends on the state question. if you are a state like france you have nuclear weapons, you want them for your own deterrent purposes. sweden wanted them. that's why australia one of them when they wanted them. there's other countries like north korea where it's not clear that they want these for deterrent purposes. the debate centers around iran. if you think iran just wants them for the dry purposes -- detroit purposes, it's not the end of the world. if you think iran will behave more like khrushchev or north korea, that makes it far more dangerous and far more worrying. i'm of the belief that they would be more likely to have them for deterrent purposes but one cannot know. it all turns upon -- these things are used even when they a

khrushchev and the soviets were engaged in a cold war with the west.heir goal was to show that communism could build the largest hydroelectric project in the world. at the academy of sciences geographer andrei treivish counters that dam construction was crucial for the russian economy. ( speaking russian ) translator: this happened after the second world war in the days of khrushchev, so to some extent, they used the cheap labor of prisoners. ( continues speaking russian ) translator: but workers were mainly recruited in the center of the country-- the urals-- regions with a labor surplus. salaries were increased by 20%, 30%, and people went, many of them with great enthusiasm, for these were the days of huge building projects. narrator: the dam was finished in ten years. by then, bratsk had a railway link to the trans-siberian line. critics argue that the massive hydroelectric project was an end in itself and only afterwards did central planners figure out what to do with all that power. narrator: one answer was manufacturing and aluminum refining. th

khrushchev had told the ships to turn around the day before, before the blockade started. world war i, which was full of nuclear weapons, he said go ahead and get into port so they won't board you and steal my nuclear weapons secrets. so whatever. yes, sir. >> i wanted to go one rayier below -- layer below. are there any advisers that really stand out over all these years from, you know, from dulles to restingier? was -- kissinger? was there somebody who seemed to have a good world view and get it better than anybody else? >> i'm a fan of brent scowcroft. i know him i like him. he's been very helpful to me on my projects. kissinger had an extraordinary grasp, but he was very manipulative and had a lot of agenda items. and i enjoyed talking to him. very knowledgeable guy. but, you know, you asked me a question that i hadn't really thought of before. but i'm inclined to go with scowcroft because he was practical and wasn't driven by ideology. that's the best answer i can give you right now. of next time we get together, i'll think of another one. [laughter] >> i think we hav

and when he did, khrushchev pulled his missiles out and went home. i don't think we're at that place yet, by any stretch of the imagination. you spend a lot of your careers looking into the future saying what if. i think a lot of what senator johnson was saying, what if things get worse. we need to be prepared to have the same type of response to match the threat with the force necessary to thwart the threat. am i right or wrong on that? >> senator, in the department of defense we're always worrying about the threats right in front of us but also the threats in the future. we do a lot of planning to look out ahead. and the reason that military modernization of russia and the activities in central europe have no doubt got the mind focused on looking ahead at various permeatations of what russia might do. it is an area of concern that we're giving a lot of thought and attention to in the department. >> i know you have to be careful in your answer and i respect that and understand that. but i think it's a fair enough comparison to underscore the need th

more interestingly was the fact that castro decided he was going to take khrushchev for all he could do and guilt trip him anyway good and at the same time -- trip him anyway he could and at the same time, the cia said there was a breach in soviet-cuban relations which could be exploited. it particularly resonated with resident to explore -- with the president to explore a different approach. it began escalating at the moment when kennedy was killed in terms of having a discussion with a real agenda to change u.s.-cuba relations. both sides were discussion of what the agenda would be at the time kennedy was killed. >> thank you. >> their has been talk about the political debates within the u.s. that have broken down along fairly predictable lines. this is also, i imagine, this opening is a point of contention within the cuban government as well and i was wondering in the course of researching the book for your travels more recently, have you gotten a sense of the debate in the cuban government, different power centers the army and party, as to who may be open to this, who is tracking

the quarantine allow khrushchev to back away and eyeball to eyeball never happened. that was part of the movie and part of the myth. in and we one which was full of nuclear weapons. . . >> you know, you had asked me a question that i had not really thought of before. but he was practical and he had a lot of ideology. that is the best answer that i can give you right now. the next time that we get together, i will try to think of another one. >> i think that we have come to the end. so i would like to express my gratitude. buy the book, "presidents in crisis", it's really worth it. thank you for coming in a round of applause for our guests please. [applause] >> thank you, thank you so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> booktv is on twitter and facebook and we would like to hear from you. send us a tweet at twitter.com/booktv or post a comment on our facebook page. facebook.com/booktv. you are watching booktv on c-span2. forty-eight hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. in this next event best-selling author and mit p

so he lied and covered up the whole thing and then khrushchev just pulled the string and mud in deep enough into the trap and they played out through the moscow -- showed pieces of the plane and ike was stuck because he had been lying about it. he said it was a terrible mistake. that is one way not to handle a crisis and it gives rise to the crisis management, which applies to ordinary scandal in washington d.c. tell the truth and tell it early. that's the lesson everybody can take from ike's handling of the shootdown. they were showing the imagery. then the cuban missile crisis everyone is familiar with that. remember, the mythology that came out of the crisis had kennedy forcing the soviets to back away and he really made a deal through his brother and the soviet ambassador that we would remove our jupiter missiles from turkey if they removed their missiles from cuba and we promised not to invade cuba. both men back each other into a corner and then they both realized they didn't want war. i think it was the best handled serious crisis of the 65 years i looked at. this is from the

khrushchev said, we'll bury you. remember that? >> yes. i read it in the books. >> okay. >> and i heard putin. that's the difference. >> so when some idiot says -- >> putin? >> no it wasn't he who said about ash. do you know who said that? >> he keeps talking about russian nuclear arsenal as the argument. >> and it was on television and the guy who said it was was dmetry. and we heard him say that. so it's not putin. if you want to talk about reality, you listen to a rush limbaugh on american television or something like that and you say, look what the americans are saying. this is a jerk you'll excuse me, saying what he's saying. that doesn't mean -- >> american television. and only one caller in russia. >> and it's not an american policy. it's separate people. and let's make that very clear. >> let's give -- >> on the payroll of kremlin. that's the difference. >> steven, let's give you the final say on this important point of how the threat of nuclear weapons throws into the discussion of isolation versus engagement. >> nuclear weapons.

soviet premier khrushchev taking off his shoe and pounding his desk at the u.n.lack and white, i'm told it was not pink. number four one for the money two for the show no famous shoe. no list without elvis' blue suede shoes. his hit single was a cover, and number five i left mine at home but take a look at these. james sonny crockets. his famous white shoes that he sported in miami vice. the whole outfit though look at that white shoe kind of pastel suit. very cool. i have that exact same suit and those shoes, but for the disco. do we call them discos anymore? they are called clubs now, right, victor? by the way before i wrap it up i want to go now live to st. louis. been following that story about suspicious packages and what appear to be three cylinders that were found this morning in three different entrances of city hall in st. louis. officials have evacuated city hall. they say they are really working towards exactly finding out what happened. we will, of course keep you updated on this breaking news here on msnbc. that wraps up "the rundown." thank you for