International Relations During Cold War Era

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

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

The Cold War was the start of the major changes in human history. Two important events that occurred were the arms race and the space race. “An arms race denotes a rapid increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military power by rival states in peacetime. A close examination of the historical evidence reveals a different picture. Political purposes almost always drive and govern arms races. It is common for a major race to be initiated by a state interested in changing the political status quo” (Arms Race). The arms race was a major rearmament between the USSR and the United States. Each country was producing new weapons at an alarming rate to be better than the other. The newly created nuclear weapons were a major playing force for the arms race. Each country

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.

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers and subsequently a period of tension and hostility arose, known as the Cold War. During this time, a new possibility of complete nuclear destruction that would claim the lives of many emerged, therefore “the easing or relaxing of tensions” on both sides was needed, this period would be known as detente. Both countries had been guaranteed mutually assured destruction as they had both managed to stay ahead in the development of nuclear arsenals. By the late 1960s the Soviets had surpassed the United States in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) by 1,300 to 1,054. Although the U.S was still

Toronto, Canada---- Since the end of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union have experienced a number of political clashes. From the Marshall Plan to the Korean war, to testing nuclear weapons, and to the use of missiles, the United States and the Soviet Union have definitely established a divide between the two empires. The growing dependence of the United States in Europe and Great Britain has increased imperialist speculation from the USSR. However, the United States justifies their presence though the policy of Containment, in its attempt to defend democracy. Also since post World War Two, there has been a massive increase of arms in both the Soviet Union and the United States. From the booming economy of the war and the devastating atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States became a global superpower. The need for efficient nuclear weapons suddenly became an obsession. In 1952, the USSR managed to develop their own Atomic bomb, which threatened the position of the United States. And from there an arms race began. The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme that neither empire wishes to reach, however, the public is not certain.

The Cold War was the greatest example of Nuclear Deterrence in history. The U.S. and Russia, had threatened nuclear war as a deterrence for almost fifty years. Next, we will evaluate logical fallacies, inform what it means to be a Strategic Airmen as well as how this course maintains my strategic focus in the conclusion.

Throughout all of history, humans have been creating weapons for waging war against one and another or to protect something that is important to them. Over time, the weapons that humans use have gone from just a simple wooden club, to a forged sword, and to high power firearms. However, throughout history none of the weapons created led to a stalemate among any of the world’s super powers until the mid twentieth century with the development of the atomic bomb by the United States and the Soviet Union. The reason why the development of the atomic bomb led to a stalemate has to do with the idea of mutually assured destruction. The idea behind mutually assured destruction is that if one-country attacks with atomic weapons then the country being

Furthermore the concept of taboo and deterrence working together comes from theorist Henry Kissinger who was the Secretary of State under the Richard Nixon administration during the Vietnam War and played a huge roll in United States foreign policy. In his book ‘Diplomacy’, Kissinger writes, “Never have the military gap between the superpower and non-nuclear state been greater. Never was it best likely to be invoked.”[6] Tanenwald would suggest Taboo was working in the concept of Deterrence with Kissinger’s words, possibly signalling the importance of taboo as a reason for nuclear non-use since 1945.

Deterrence: Deterrence, as the name implies, is the idea to imply a strategic concept to bring a battle to a stalemate. This psychological power would prevent the enemies from striking each other due to the fear, or otherwise known as, MAD. This mind-game remains a major part of defence policies in Russia and the United States. Moreover, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States each constructed an accumulation of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union believed that in a nuclear war, that they could succeed and win.

Nuclear Triad There has been much controversy over whether the nuclear triad is beneficial or counterproductive. The Editors of of Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the nuclear triad as”A three-sided military-force structure consisting of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines, and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles. The triad was a central element of the U.S. military strategy during the Cold War”. Each component of the triad plays a particular role that complements the other two. Aircrafts provide flexibility, and by changing the tempo of their operations, the United States can signal intent to an adversary.

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

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

The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each,