The U.S. Proposal That Caught the Russians Off Guard 50 Years Ago

In 1963, a plea from JFK for a joint mission to the moon surprised the Soviets.

President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev in June 1961.
National Journal
Marina Koren
Sept. 20, 2013, 12:58 p.m.

There is one thing Pres­id­ent Obama, Re­pub­lic­ans, and the gen­er­al pub­lic all seem to agree on, and that’s skep­ti­cism about Rus­sia’s agree­ment to work with the U.S. to work to­geth­er to dis­mantle Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons pro­gram.

Fifty years ago, however, it was the Rus­si­ans who were sus­pi­cious of the Amer­ic­ans. On Sept. 20, 1963, Pres­id­ent Kennedy sug­ges­ted that the So­viet Uni­on and the United States part­ner on a mis­sion to send a man to the moon. The “space race” was in full swing then. Sev­er­al years earli­er, the So­vi­ets had sent Sput­nik, the world’s first satel­lite, to or­bit the Earth. NASA was just three years old. Amer­ic­ans, eager to best their Cold War rival, were scram­bling to outdo the So­vi­ets in space.

Kennedy an­nounced his pro­pos­al in a speech be­fore the United Na­tions Gen­er­al As­sembly in New York City. “In a field where the United States and the So­viet Uni­on have a spe­cial ca­pa­city — space — there is room for new co­oper­a­tion, for fur­ther joint ef­forts,” he said. Amer­ica’s na­tion­al se­cur­ity was also im­port­ant, as were in­ter­na­tion­al bans on nuc­le­ar weapons, so Kennedy ad­ded, “The So­viet Uni­on and the United States, to­geth­er with their al­lies, can achieve fur­ther agree­ments — agree­ments which spring from our mu­tu­al in­terest in avoid­ing mu­tu­al de­struc­tion.”

The pres­id­ent’s pro­pos­al for a joint mis­sion sur­prised many on both sides. The So­viet Uni­on’s for­eign min­is­ter, An­drei Gromyko, called Kennedy’s re­marks “a good sign,” but wouldn’t com­ment on the pro­pos­al. Many Amer­ic­ans were out­raged at the idea of work­ing with the en­emy. Oth­ers saw the move not as smart polit­ics, but as an at­tempt to off­set the as­tro­nom­ic­al cost of the U.S.’s fledgling lun­ar pro­gram.

Ac­cord­ing to a 1997 in­ter­view with So­viet Premi­er Nikita Khrushchev’s son, the So­viet lead­er de­cided in Novem­ber of 1963 to ac­cept Kennedy’s pro­pos­al. Khrushchev ini­tially re­jec­ted the sug­ges­tion, but began hav­ing second thoughts when he real­ized a joint lun­ar pro­gram could help the So­vi­ets learn more from the Amer­ic­ans’ tech­no­logy.

A week later, Kennedy was shot and killed in Dal­las. His suc­cessor as pres­id­ent, Lyn­don John­son, would push ahead with a U.S. lun­ar pro­gram, but nev­er seek co­oper­a­tion with the So­vi­ets. Six years later, the United States sent Neil Arm­strong to the moon.

Chem­ic­al weapons and space mis­sions have little in com­mon; neither do Rus­si­an and Amer­ic­an pres­id­ents, past and present. But when Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin re­cently wrote in The New York Times, his words seemed to echo those Kennedy spoke 50 years ago: “If we can avoid force against Syr­ia, this will im­prove the at­mo­sphere in in­ter­na­tion­al af­fairs and strengthen mu­tu­al trust. It will be our shared suc­cess and open the door to co­oper­a­tion on oth­er crit­ic­al is­sues.”

What We're Following See More »
VERY FEW DEMS NOW REPRESENT MINING COMMUNITIES
How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
51 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
27TH AMENDMENT
Congress Can’t Seem Not to Pay Itself
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Far Away from Cleveland is the California GOP Staying?
7 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."

×