Pakistan and India, the two rival states in the dense populated south Asian region engaged in sophisticated arm race just after in short time of their independence. Both of the nations in the shadow of two different ideologies have bitter relations and the outcome of bitter relation is always ended in the deadly arm conflicts. Pakistan and India the two infant states were born in the beginning of the cold war just after the end of World War II. Pakistan joined the western block against the Soviet State to ensure her existence in the survival race with its rival state India. India was economically well off state and had reliable resources and forces. Pakistan succeeded in acquiring the membership of SEATO and CENTO to meet its defense needs. …show more content…
This test shattered the existence of Pakistan once again and the Pakistani government also took decision to go nuclear for its survivability in the era of PM Zulfiqar Bhutto. The famous saying from the Pakistani PM Zulifaqar Ali Bhutto was “We will eat grass but we go on nuclear program. Under many sanctions and international pressure, Pakistan detonated six nuclear devices in may 1998 to gain the equilibrium in the south Asia. Then a new age of war with new type of weapons started which was totally different from conventional way of war. War shifted from near to far, battlefield to cities then after the development of tactical nuclear weapons war again reshaped from far to near then again with the development of submarine launched missiles the war got the shape of more devastated way of getting peace. Pakistan and India, both did many experiments to ensure the accuracy, precision, reliability and access to different targets in the enemy’s territory. On Pakistan end, Ghauri, Shaheen, Hataf and Nasr missiles are the part of medium, short and battlefield range missiles with range of 60km to upto 3000km. Pakistan has precise and accurate missiles which can engage the target not only in the Indian mainland but also Nicobar Island far in the Indian Ocean. The doctrine of Pakistan and India keep on transforming into different postures from …show more content…
The strike will be truly workable and credible deterrence that could be able to maintain the nuclear deterrence posture in the future realm. India is developing the system to carry out the disarming the strike against Pakistan. The statements were given by MIT scholar Vipin Narang and other Indian top officials. The Indian strategic thoughts aiming disarming and demolishing Pakistan’s first strike nuclear attack arsenal and then a destructive massive attack from India will be done to accomplish the task of completely destruction of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, sites, dams, power stations, population, public infrastructure and industrial zones. Zameer Akram added more the statement in a seminar was held Geneva organized by Strategic Vision Institute (SVI) that’s called Indian preemptive strike. To have the second-strike capability considers the sustainability of full spectrum deterrence from Pakistan. India’s declared “no first use policy” matters in the rejection of Pakistan’s first use policy. Pakistan needs the assured and precise second-strike capability due to India’s growing military expenditure and rapidly increasing military conventional and non-conventional hardware were acquired by India from USA and Russia. The main concern in a nuclear deterrence is the India’s acquisition of ballistic missile defense.
Malintzin had an important role in the ancient history and colonization of Latin America. She would rise from just a simple servant girl and slave, to become one of the key factors of the Spanish colonization of the indigenous natives in the New World. She helped translate for the Spanish conquistadors and even Hernando Cortés himself. Malintzin’s interpreting skills would prove crucial in the dealings between Hernando Cortés and the Aztec emperor Montezuma. Camilla Townsend uses the story of Malintzin to display the conquest of Mexico in a different aspect and first person point of view.
After World War II there was still a main conflict between the two major world superpowers; the US and allied countries that supported democracy and on the other hand the Soviet Union (USSR) who supported communism and wanted to spread it. The conflict was that the Soviet Union tried spreading communism in other countries, but the United States was not going to allow that. This conflict influenced the Cold War to be fought by the Eastern Bloc (Soviet Union) and Western Bloc (the United States and allies). When the Eastern Europe was taken over by the USSR and turned into communism the US helped the Western Europe to not be taken over by communism. As an adviser to the President of the United States the policy that he should follow is to rapidly build up the political,
Between 1945 and 1960, the United States was confronted with a colossal predicament. A Cold War had emerged between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. This war did not involve any direct attacks between the two, instead indirect confrontations. Subsequently, the war took a massive toll on the U.S. An era of high tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union posed a communist threat to America.
The current presidential election has wrought a quagmire of unthinkable actions by politicians in plain sight of the American public’s eye. With specific regard to the GOP, the former playbook of politics, consistent with unwavering party loyalty, has certainly been pushed out of print; especially by current speaker of the house, Paul Ryan. This essay will detail the estranged relationship between Paul Ryan and his party base, as rendered by New York Times correspondent Robert Draper, scrutinize the article’s inherent biases, and ultimately contextualize the situation in terms of Kelly’s leadership patterns.
Democratic localism was also enforced to keep the government at bay, allowing people to make their own economic decisions. Capitalism was renewed due to growth. Americans were enjoying various freedoms in politics, religion and travel. Nixon stated in one of his speeches that the United States had “come closest to the idea of prosperity for all in a classless society (166).”
Offner, Arnold, "Provincialism and Confrontation: Truman’s Responsibility" in Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Volume II.
Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states
Nuclear Weapons have persisted to be the decisive deterrent to any assailant, and the best means of establishing peace. There are many different views on nuclear weapons, even though they cost an extravagate amount of money; they come with positive aspects’. In fact nuclear weapons are one of the greatest reasons that nations do not want to go to war, but alternately, strive to inquire clarification through negotiations. First and foremost, it is very important to analyze just how nuclear weapons prevent war.
1. How NSC-68 influenced America’s response to Communist North Korea’s invasion of South Korea in June 1950 and to Communist expansion in Southeast Asia in the 1960s. The NSC-68 called for military assistance programs that would meet the requirements of our allies. Since South Korea was an ally, we assisted them in repelling the invasion of another communist nation. This help for South Korea meant that a communist nation would be weakened and therefore possibly cripple a potential ally for the Soviet Union. Also, South Korea would then respond to a call for aid if the Soviet Union ever attacked
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on December 1979, the goal was to help Afghan communist forces set up a communist government. The Soviet Union felt Afghanistan had key resources and a foothold in the Middle East to spread communist ideas. The result would be a war that the Soviet Union wishes it never got involved in and likened to their “Vietnam War”, meaning winning a number of battles but not the war like what happened to the U.S. in Vietnam. The background of the war, outcome of the war, and impact on the United States are key to understanding the Soviet-Afghan War.
Trace how music took shape in the United States in the second half of 20th Century, focusing on at least two composers, their styles and output During the period of World War II between 1939-1945, music also played his role for entertainment, recuperation and uplift, which pervaded in homes, concert halls, army camps, government buildings, hospitals and factories. American music in this period was considered to be “Popular Music” that focused more in romance and strength instead of propaganda, morale, and patriotism while classical music has limited scope. This period of music has its unique relationship to war.
The Cold War was a response to the perceived threat by the United States that Communism would interfere with national security and economic stakes in the world. It was a perceived threat by communist countries that the United States would take to the world. During the Cold War, the United States, Russia, and other countries made efforts to avoid another world war, while warring in proxy in other lands. The devastation caused by the hydrogen bombs exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the next technological advancements became only deterrents to the public. Governments had their own agenda which would result in worsening the strain between nations. The United States hid behind a curtain of nationalism resulting in increased
In 1947, the Cold War had started, named after how both of the disputing sides did not fight but only threatened each other with new technologies. The U.S and Soviet Union disagreements on political systems and also questioned war reparation, show how they cause the Cold War with their mistrust and technological issues.
In 1961 President John F Kennedy put together a doctrine, which altered from President Eisenhower’s one. It was to “Respond flexibly to communist expansion, especially guerrilla warfare.” (Roskin & Berry, 2010, p. 58) It was a time when the Cold War was at its height and nuclear weapons a mass threat and source of power. This doctrine was aimed at using alternative means before opening into combat. This, in light of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, it succeeded in doing.
In 1945, a great technological innovation was dropped over Japan, the atomic bomb. Ever since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has faced the threat of nuclear attack. In reaction to this, world governments have been forced to find a defense against nuclear attack. One solution to the danger of nuclear attack is the use of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence is the possession and launching of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of defense and retaliation against a nuclear attack from another country. Nuclear deterrence is the best answer to the danger of nuclear war, resulting in world security and the prevention of nuclear war. However, some people believe