Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Essay

As tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of détente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itself to be an act of change for the conflicting nations, however, in the long term it proved to be a blatant continuity, ultimately acting as a ‘mechanism for domestic fortification’ which prompted a more divisive tone. It became apparent that by the prime 1970’s Cold War countries were now seeking a state of relaxation in political and international tension, détente, through measures of diplomacy and negotiation. Actions, influences and treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the establishment of SALT 1, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Shanghai Communique of 1972 evidently help reinforce that the concept of détente brought a period focused on lessening the tensions of international relations and ultimately achieve political relation for the future of the Cold War, although the success and impact of this era is abhorred by many historians who have concluded that détente didn’t activate any positive changes to the cold war, and was conclusively a failure.

To start, Carter says outright what his vision for America was: “...but America does want to be the world's peacemaker.” Furthermore, Carter continues with his vision for America’s peace-seeking foreign policy. He does this by talking about SALT, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks: “The purpose of SALT, then as now, is not to gain a unilateral advantage for either nation, but to protect the security of both nations, to reverse the costly and dangerous momentum of the nuclear arms race, to preserve a stable balance of nuclear forces, and to demonstrate to a concerned world that we are determined to help preserve the peace.” By speaking about the importance of the SALT, Carter effectively laid out what his plan was to secure peace amongst nuclear-armed nations. However, at the same time, President Carter made sure to lay out what America wanted to achieve in the immediate short-term regarding foreign policy: “Our firm commitment to Israel's survival and security is rooted in our deepest convictions and in our knowledge of the strategic importance to our own Nation of a stable Middle East.” As written before, it was strategically important to the United States that they maintain the sovereignty of Israel. Specifically, after failing to intervene in China during the uprising of the KMT, it

Washington D.C. in the summertime is constantly perspiring, a rather miserable place to be. And, although the summer of 1949 was equally as dredged, Paul Nitze, an expert economist who lacked status in the United States government, was about to receive the opportunity of a lifetime. George Kennan, longtime diplomat and Russian studies expert, was looking to retire to his quiet farm in Pennsylvania, but he needed to leave a successor for the Policy Planning Staff. He decided on Paul Nitze. However, just months later after Russia succeeded in building and testing an atomic bomb and Nitze’s appeal for an assessment of U.S. Foreign Policy, Kennan on September 30 wrote, “I face the work of these remaining months with neither enthusiasm nor hope for achievement.” Obviously, the Cold War would be a large undertaking for any Russian expert in the State Department, however, it is more than likely that he was referring to working closely with colleague whose foreign policy tactics evidently began to differ greatly from his own as time would show.

This treaty was signed in Washington on December 8, 1987, and entered into force on June 1, 1988. The agreement was guided by the objective of strengthening strategic ability, reducing the risk of the outbreak of war, and securing peace. Both the United States and Soviet Union were conscious that nuclear war would have devastating consequences for all mankind. This conclusion caused them to come to a compromise concerning military weapons. They decided that both countries will eliminate their intermediate-range and short-range missiles. The treaty states (source B), “all activity related to production, flight-testing, training, repair, storage, or deployment of such missiles and launchers has ceased there.” This statement goes further into detail about the Protocol on Elimination. The treaty also called for the termination of missile operating bases and military support facilities. Both countries would need to eradicate all the listed items within six months of the treaty. Overall, the USSR and US wanted to ensure that no nuclear war outbreak would

The United States has been unable to fully break from Cold War mentality which began after World War II, and any attempts to try and adjust this policy have been done in miniscule steps resulting in little change. Deterrence has been a strategy utilized by several presidents and administrations since the onset of the Cold War, and in many ways it still remains the central strategy for current foreign policy. The objective of deterrence is to prevent foreign powers from committing unwanted actions against the U.S. or

In the fall of 1971, as President Nixon was attempting to convince The Soviet Union to include submarines and ballistic missiles in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), the US Navy was planning on introducing a new class of submarines called the Trident. The Trident submarines were to succeed the Polaris submarines, which was developed in the 1950s. The Trident submarines were not only physically larger than the Polaris submarines, they also possessed revolutionary propulsion components and weaponry. If the US could successfully launch the Trident program, Nixon felt it would generate progress in SALT by demonstrating the United States’ commitment to strategic submarines and missiles. However, if the Trident program was unable to

“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

This agreement demonstrated that both leaders were open to the limitation of nuclear weapons to create the period known as detente. SALT I would be implemented in 1972.

In 1972, President Nixon engaged in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with Soviet Secretary General Brezhnev in his attempt to ease tension with USSR through diplomatic détente.

Reagan and Jimmy Carter had a debate in the 1980’s, his last debate and Reagan’s whole campaign was dedicated to how the outside world viewed America and he was asking if we were even respected and is their relationship as strong with the world as it was four years ago. Ronald wanted to reevaluate national policy toward the Soviet Union. Like all the presidents before he could sense there was hostility and wanted to reconcile with the Soviets. The SALT II nuclear treaty founded by Jimmy Carter was Reagan’s idea to come together. The SALT II nuclear treaty is basically the beginning of creating nuclear weapons. The point in making these nuclear weapons was so it is for the mutual sharing for the Soviets and United States. Their mutual settlement

In 1972, the Strategic Arms Limitation talks occurred where both Nixon and Russian, General Brezhnev made appearances. This talk was an effort to reduce tensions in the Cold War and extend further arm control. Later, Alexei Kosygin, a Soviet Premier, met at Glassaboro State College in New Jersey with Johnson in order to gain “control of the ABM race” (U.S. Department of State) The United States eventually learned that the Soviet Union began an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile buildup, allowing this powerhouse to strike and prevent incoming missiles from the other side. As a result, on November 17, 1969, SALT talks commenced in Helsinki, Finland where they argued rather the nation should continue plans of ABMs. Richard Nixon and Soviet General, Leonid Brezhnev signed the ABM treaty, thus leading to the SALT agreement on May 26, 1972. This treaty established that both sides would limit nuclear missiles in their arsenals, which was an important achievement for Nixon’s plan of détente. Nixon’s success continued as he reestablished relations with the Middle East, therefore obliterated Soviet power in the area during the Cold War. These treaties helped Nixon form better relations around the World, specifically communist countries like present day

After World War II, a new enemy was in the horizon: technology. In the 1940’s, the United States was the leader of the “Free World” paving a path and setting an example for the rest of the world to follow (Maland 191). Americans believed the misconception that “American society was sound, and that communism was a clear danger to the survival of the United States and its allies” (Maland 191). The U.S. maintained a policy of containment by fighting communism wherever it may be, and in a show of might in 1952, they detonated the first hydrogen bomb (Maland 192). Only a short year later, the mighty Soviet Union announced that they too had the Atom bomb (Maland 192). And, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States became alarmed that they were falling behind in science and technology. Because the Soviets had the same capability to annihilate the world with the bomb as the United States, tensions between the two countries increase daily. But, this new war tactic brought into question man’s ability to make decisions of nuclear proportions with

This source is a memorandum written to National Security advisor Henry Kissinger, from NSC staff memeber Helmut Sonnenfel about the Soviets position on ABM’s. This source also contains the memorandum Kissinger then sent to the President Nixon on the information he received from his staff. This topic deals with the Soviets concerns dealing with the arms race, most specifically Safeguard, and the ABM systems in SALT, and the negations that took place in Helsinki, Finland.

The Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination (SOAE) Program Manger Commander Charles Taylor requested the J3 IMT examine the proliferation risk of stage one SS-24 intercontinental ballistic Solid Rocket Motors (SRM) at the Pavlograd Chemical Plant in Ukraine to determine if DTRA should extend funding of the project past the current deadline of the 2018.

Is it possible to prevent countries from obtaining nuclear weapons? Is it possible to restrict the research and intelligence behind this idea of procurement? How could the international community go about mandating these restrictions and ideas? Whose responsibility would it be to aid in this prevention? If one country is prevented from obtaining or developing nuclear weapons, should every country deal with similar preventative methods and actions? How can a country reasonably be stopped in regards to procurement? Is further nuclear action against the possibility of more nuclear action the only way, or could more traditional wartime methods or even conceptually simple political actions be the answer? These, and so many more, questions are what makes the possible, yet ultimately improbable reality of preventing countries from attaining nuclear weapons so complicated and ostensibly difficult to realize.