How Did The Soviet Union Develop A Command Economy

An economy could be considered the blood of a nation’s body; as everything flows smoothly, the body performs its functions properly. Two major types of economy in the world today are capitalist market economies and socialist command economies. Under a market economy, the people are granted the rights to free enterprise and build the economy through private business; they can create and trade products and services as they wish. Within a command economy, the government controls the land and capital and makes all the decisions involving economic issues. Both of these economies share some goals, but are also quite different in how each functions and each possess their own share of advantages and disadvantages.

The disaster had more of an effect on eastern Europe’s nuclear experimentation and use but “While no-one in the West was under any illusion about the safety of early Soviet reactor designs, some lessons learned have also been applicable to Western plants” (World Nuclear Association). Since the Chernobyl disaster was majorly caused by human error and under qualified scientists, to work with nuclear reactors today you need to be insanely qualified. Since the accident, Soviet-designed reactors’ safety has improved greatly, even in smaller ways. Automatic shutdown mechanisms now work faster, and other safety mechanisms have been sped up. Even new equipment has been installed such as automated inspection equipment. Several scientist and reporters have even said an accident like Chernobyl is virtually impossible with today’s technology (World Nuclear Association).

The Soviet Economy has been termed a ‘command economy’. Do you feel this is an appropriate and adequate characterisation?

The morning of April 26, 1986 started just like all other mornings in Chernobyl, with just one exception, there was an emergency systems test underway at the near-by nuclear power station. This test was unauthorized, none the less, it was designed to ensure cooling water for the reactor could still be controlled with little or no power to the station. The cold war was in full swing, and Russia was still poised to go to war with the United States at any moment. It was due to this “distrust” that the test was being run that morning. The head nuclear scientist on shift, Anatoli Dyatlov, was from the “old school” and thought that he alone could control the whole reactor process, and he also thought he knew more

Command economies and market economies are two different economies and both effect a workers life and I will explain how they both effect a workers life. The first example I will start with is how command economy affects a worker's life and the my first example of how a worker is affectebyes he or she can not pick the job they want to work at and that has lots of effects on a workers life. One example would be that a worker does not get to pick there job so there for he does not get to pick the salery they get and when they get a low salery his or her family can become very poor. So the worker can suffer there whole life because the government picks what job you have. On the other hand market ecomony could affect a workers life too. One example

The Cold War was an era in which nuclear power was just beginning to be used to its full potential. It was still a fresh, new idea that mankind had not yet learned how to completely harness. Due to that, there were many mistakes made that were detrimental to the environment and humans themselves. One such situation in which that occurred was in Greifswald, East Germany. A nuclear power plant was built in Greifswald to power the surrounding area. It provided East Germany with ten percent of its power. That power plant had many problematic occurrences. Greifswald, East Germany was changed in the events that took place while the nuclear power plant was operational due to the chemicals used and what happened as a result of the disasters.

One example that should be examined is the Chernobyl accident of 1986. The Chernobyl accident, happened near the border of Ukraine and Russia, is one of the most easily recognized nuclear disasters ever to happen. With this said Russia has not given up its nuclear power due to the incident. In the article, “Nuclear Power in Russia”, published by the World Nuclear Association and updated March of 2018, “Russia is moving steadily forward with plans for an expanded role of nuclear energy, including development of new reactor technology.” Even though the Chernobyl accident happened, Russia keeps on building with the nuclear power. The reactor is a symbol of horrors that may happen due to nuclear power; but also serve as a persevering reminder of what NASA says, ‘failure is not an option’. From 1986 to the mid 1990s, only one nuclear power station was made; but production soon picked as exports to Iran, China, and India in the late 1990s increased. The Association goes on to state, “Over 20 nuclear power reactors are confirmed or planned for export construction...Russia is a world leader in fast neutron reactor technology and is consolidating this through its Proryv ('Breakthrough') project.” This unfortunate event has shed new light on what nuclear power can do, and yet Russia has rushed back into the ‘nuclear

I completely agree that during the rule of Joseph Stalin the Soviet Union underwent a period of strong economic growth. However, by the 1970’s this growth began to taper off and decline to less than four percent annually. The main reasons for this slow in growth was the lack of incentives to spur the labor force to produce. This caused workers to care little about the quality of the product or service that they were offering creating. Manufacturers produced low quality goods and Russian waiters were notoriously rude because they were not receiving tips. I would like to expand on the problems the lack of incentives caused for the Russian consumers that purchased these products. Consumers learned quickly that items produced

(MP1) What Chernobyl plant represented in 1980s and who is responsible for such a massive disaster

1921 to 1927 were the years of the NEP.VSNKh can be said to have just

It is within human nature to try to cover up or conceal mistakes. However, sometimes the scale of these mistakes can be excessive, and attempting to cover them up can even endanger millions. Such a cover up, was the scenario induced by the Soviet government, while trying to withhold information concerning a nuclear disaster. The catastrophic mishap, took place on April 26, 1986, when a nuclear reactor exploded in modern day Ukraine. A maintenance test error resulted in an explosion in Unit 4 Furthermore, futile attempts trying to subdue the damage actually caused radioactive materials to ascend more rapidly, and formed a radioactive cloud extending over a large portion of Northwestern Europe and Russia. Despite the magnitude of the event,

The main reason for the mishap is by now well recognized (Petryna 1). However, initially the Chernobyl catastrophe baffled the minds of people in the 20th century and definitely left the people of Ukraine disordered while living in anxiety. Now, without question, the public knows that the accident at Chernobyl was the result of a disastrous combination of ignorance from the Ukrainians and complacency from the Soviets in control of Ukraine at the time. As according to American physicist and Nobel laureate Hans Bethe, “…the Chernobyl disaster tells us about the deficiencies of the Soviet political and administrative system rather than about problems with nuclear power." The immediate basis of the Chernobyl accident was a mismanaged electrical-engineering experiment (Rhodes "Chernobyl", PBS). While, the indirect source of the calamity was an industrial malfunction of a Soviet made nuclear-based machine. Ironically, the Chernobyl accident occurred during a test run, which was conducted to improve plant safety. This accident proved once more what experienced control engineers have all learned: that a process must be understood before it can be controlled. (Liptak “Control Global”). Engineers with no familiarity of reactor physics were interested to see if they could draw electricity from the turbine generator of the Number 4 reactor unit to run water pumps during an emergency, when the turbine was no longer being driven by the reactor but was

Nuclear energy has been a topic of world debate since its invention, with both clear upsides and downsides the topic of universal nuclear energy use has been subject to controversy and public scrutiny, but also scientific and economic praise. The field of nuclear energy and its driving forces were originally studied in the time around 1895 and the technology was mostly researched as a weapon for the military, around the time of 1935-1945 nuclear energy research witnessed a major boom. As most know, in 1945 nearing the end of World War II the United States gave nuclear energy its first public showcase by dropping two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, after that point the U.S. wanted to change the way that the world look at nuclear energy, Mitchell Waldrop a leader in the study of nuclear energy stated, “Originally developed in the late 1940s as a compact power source for nuclear ships and submarines, the light-water design was adapted and scaled up during the 1950s, when the United States sought to put a peaceful face on atomic energy by creating a commercial nuclear-power industry.” (Waldrop, 2012, pg. 27) Nuclear energy since the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan has taken a severe impact in the form of public ridicule which would lead to decades of establishing the technology as safe and beneficial. After this point, around the 60’s and 70’s despite lower public option scientists continued to make an effort to make nuclear energy a feasible

The USSR was one of the largest global superpowers from 1922-1991 as they grew into a successful communist nation. Even before the takeover of surrounding nations in the Cold War, the USSR implemented a series of plans to advance the economy that, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica,

In Nuclear Energy and Security in the Former Soviet Union, David and Young stated that “nuclear power is inherently unsafe, hence that it cannot be made safe, so the technology should be abandoned and all existing facilities throughout the world dosed.” (Marples Young 45), suitably demonstrating the risk of using nuclear powers for any purposes and arguing the nuclear technology shouldn’t be allowed to use. In the short run, nuclear power could supply cheap energy for many people but in the long run, nuclear power only harms the earth and life.