The cold war was named so because between the USA and Russia, there was hardly any direct combat just a pile of tension, hostility, and potential violence. They were heading towards mutually assured destruction; using weapons of mass destruction which were the nuclear bombs and assuring inevitable destruction for both sides if there bombs were to go off and ultimate victory for none at the end. Each set of alliances, the Warsaw Pact and NATO competently created nuclear weapons to threaten the other one. Just in case either one of the countries decided to attack using their fatal nuclear weapon, then the other one wouldn’t just stand empty handed. Both USA and Russia found it their first priority to keep themselves as secure as possible by creation of nuclear arms. This resulted in a competition to be the most prepared and powerful, known as The Nuclear Arms Race.
“The Evil Empire” — that is what, at the height of the arms race, United States President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union (Rudolph 1). Unsurprisingly, the Soviet Union was similarly upset at the United States. This anger is what fueled the arms race. During the Cold War, due to fears of nuclear attack, the US and Soviet Union designed and deployed thousands of nuclear warheads, each hoping to deter the other from nuclear launch with threat of counter attack (O’Neal 1). This massive arms buildup, however, had many negative effects on the US. To recognize the impact that the arms race continues to have on today, it is crucial to understand not only its causes, but also its immediate impacts on the US economy, society, foreign policy, environment, and technological development, as well as its long-term impact on US international security, policy, power, and arms sales.
The Cold War historiography, specifically the issue of nuclear deterrence has provided historians the classic dialectic of an original thesis that is challenged by an antithesis. Both then emerge in the resolution of a new synthesis. Unfortunately, each evolution of a new synthesis is quickly demolished with each political crisis and technological advance during the Cold War narrative. The traditional/orthodox views were often challenged by the conventional wisdom with the creation of synthesis or post revisionism. There appears to be a multiple historiographical trends on nuclear deterrence over the Cold War; each were dependent and shaped upon international events and technological developments. I have identified four major trends: the orthodox, the revisionist, the post revisionist, st and the New Left. Each of these different historical approaches had its proponents and opponents, both in the military as well as the political and
The end of the Second World War led to an era of enmity and mistrust between the USSR and the United States of America. The influence of USSR in Eastern Europe created fear among Americans who believed it was a move to control the world. The buildup of arms in the two countries was a clear indication that the world was becoming a dangerous place to live. In the early 1970s, Détente policies were developed to manage the tension witnessed during the cold war. In this regard, Détente policies were made to control the competition between the USSR and the USA. The two countries signed several agreements for the purpose of lessening growing tension (Levack, Muir & Veldman, 2011).
The history of the Cold War was one of suspense and countermoves by the U.S. and the USSR to prevent the domination of spheres of influence. Although it was not a war in the scientific sense, the clash over ideologies (Marxism and Capitalistic Democracy), placed the balance of power in limbo, and the prospect of an unintentional third World War. Waging Peace by Robert Bowie and Richard Immerman, offers a superb account on the true events behind the development, and implementation of the strategy of containment of the USSR. They presented a most captivating list of facts that were well research, and only now can one fully grasp the extent and involvement of Eisenhower and Dulles, in the decision making.
During last 50 years of development, the nuclear bomb, as the ultimate weapon became the peacekeeping force on the earth. The nuclear bomb was developed in Manhattan project during the WW II and was successfully tested in the New Mexico on July 16 1945. At this point started the change of nuclear weapon from ultimate weapon to political weapon. USA decided to use the atomic bomb to defeat Japan in order to save around 500.000 lives of American soldiers that were needed to end the war and in the summer 1945 the USA dropped two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The nuclear weapon raised the confidence of USA but president Truman did not ordered its mass production because at that time he saw no explicit political function for the bomb. USA even tried to internationalize control of the bomb under the UNITED NATIONS but the Soviets were reluctant to support American plan for two reasons. To stop soviet nuclear program before developing the first soviet bomb would give Americans permanent lead in nuclear weapons technology. Soviets believed that instruments of force always have political capabilities. For the Kremlin weapons were political tools. This led Americans to the same conclusion. The beginning of Cold War created several political functions of nuclear weapons: nuclear deterrence, alliance building, and international prestige.
"Nuclear Weapons - The facts." New Internationalist All Posts RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2013.
Nuclear weapons are an often misunderstood part of warfare in today’s society. They often bring thought of big mushroom clouds and complete destruction of massive amounts of territory which are all correct, but the major facet with nuclear weapons is the after effects. Granted that there are good uses for nuclear weapons that can truly save our planet, but the cruel after effects of using them in warfare are devastating to a point of no return. The impact of nuclear weapons though they have some good uses they have caused major problems in that they harm the environment, have major negative effect on humans, and are using up too much money out of the United States budget.
In Yonosuke’s essay, he highlights the central policy of the U.S. in the containment of the USSR, and how the policy divided the world into spheres of influence. He argued that the problem for the Truman administration was how to draw a containment line across Asia, and how the North Korean attack forced a change in the “limited notion of containment” and thus opened the way for unlimited “globalization and militarization of the containment.(p16). He discusses the impact of George Kennan and his role in the creation of “The political general staff” and the National Security Cou...
Many historians have argued over the roles different governments and people have played in the fall of the Soviet Union. The Cold War brought fear and divisiveness to both the United States and the Soviet Union; arguably this fear helped keep the threat of immense nuclear destruction at bay. The question of who or what ended the standoff presents itself, and the answer lies within the changes both countries experienced. The Soviet Union especially, saw structural and economic changes within a short period of time. As the Soviet economy was in crisis, The leader, General Secretary, Mikhail Gorbachev implemented perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness) to transform communism into a thriving system