The Classical Nuclear Deterrence Strategy During The Cold War

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

Starting in the 1949 with the explosion of an atomic bomb(RDS-1) in Russia and ending with the dissolvement of the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race was an extremely tense few decades that forever changed the United States in many ways. The Arms Race is exactly what it sounds like; a race to amass more advance weapons. During these four decades, the Nuclear Arms Race affected Americans socially through instilling a variety of emotions ranging from fear, to awe of the power of the nuclear weapons, economically through enlarging governmental role within the economy and mostly importantly, the political impacts were more involvement required by the U.S government in world affairs and as a force against Russia.

In an instant Grandpa’s face turned serious, and he proceeded to explain how, when he and Jay had gotten chosen and sent to Sandia, it had been for specific purposes and training. He told me how Sandia Base, named after the nearby Sandia Mountains, was the principal nuclear weapons installation of the United States, and how—for twenty-five years—this top-secret base and its secondary installation (Man-z-a-no Base) had conducted atomic weapons research, development, design, testing, and training which had gotten started under the Manhattan Project during World War II, and that production, assembly, and storage of nuclear weapons got done there as well. Jay also explained how Sandia played a key role in our country’s nuclear deterrence capabilities during the Cold War and that, although there was a lot of public speculation on what actually was going on at Sandia, the military had designated that the activities at Sandia Base were secret under the Atomic Energy Act.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union each constructed a supply of nuclear weapons. Soviet policy rested on the principle that a nuclear war could be fought and won. The United States embraced nuclear deterrence, the reliable threat of reprisal to prevent enemy attack. To make its threat substantial, the United States during the 1950s established and positioned several types of delivery structures for attacking the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. Each one of these systems came to be known as the Strategic Triad. One part of the triad was a long range manned bomber that would deliver the nuclear warhead. The second would be land based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s). The third part of this triad was nuclear

As defined by Liedka, Piehl & Useem (2006), deterrence refers to the action against crime through the introduction of legal sanctions.

After reading Chapter 26 there were some strong Cold War Strategies. Eisenhower disagreed with Communism at home and around the world. Eisenhower and his advisees talked about rolling back Soviet power in Europe and freeing captive people from communism. The secretary had made a threat with nuclear weapons in response to any aggression from the Soviet Union. In order for Eisenhower to support this threat he had to adopt a strategy that was called the “New Look” that did not emphasize armies, but increased the nuclear arsenal with long range bombers, missiles, and nuclear-powered submarines.

The third argument for the absence of nuclear weapons since 1945 is through the concept of deterrence. Deterrence is the measures taken by a state or an alliance of multiple states to prevent hostile action by another, in this case through nuclear weapons. Colin Gray is one theorist who believes

Scholars offer differing meanings and concepts but all agree on the common assumption that “deterrence is successful as long as aggression does not take place.” The essence of deterrence is that the threat of harm prevents an adversary from doing something. It is achieved when an adversary practices restraint

“The most terrifying moment in my life was October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis….” The Cuban Missile Crisis was started by the tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States, which shaped Communist Cuba; this was the brink of nuclear warfare between both sides that left its effects on both the world and the sides involved. The United States and Soviet Union were both involved in the Cold War, especially when tensions between the two reached a new high. As tensions were rising the island of Cuba decided to become a Communist nation that would trade nuclear weaponry. The trading would almost cause all out nuclear warfare, but it was solved leaving its own effects on the world. The Cold War would be a major contributing

Blackwell acknowledges the debate between the credibility of nuclear deterrence and argues the change in the logic of deterrence in current situations from the one in the Cold War. He provides data that explains the trend of the reduction of US nuclear weapons, which is , he argues, continually changing the circumstances in nuclear deterrence.

The development of nuclear weapons helped to end World War II, but in turn created their own war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The development of modified military missiles such as the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or ICBM, by Americans and the Soviets, had an impact on the struggle of power of the Cold War. The importance of military involvement in the creation of modified missiles and engines were critical events of the Cold War. Additionally, the steps taken to get to space were a byproduct of this Arms Race and the Cold War. Because the United States and the Soviet Union feared what the other country would or could do with weapons of mass destruction and the thought of the opposing country being able to control

Yet again, another great post from you. You bring up a very important detail when you mentioned the Cold War and nuclear deterrents. The Soviet Union, as vast as that area was, was not positive they could survive a full nuclear strike or counter strike from the US and our allies who have nuclear weapons. Therefore that uncertainty kept the decades of Cold War somewhat civil and conflict via proxy wars.

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 U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.