The Cold War

The cold war started in 1945 and ended in 1989. It was a war between the United States and the Soviet Union. This war took place right after WWII and it is called the cold war because there were no real battles such as with tanks and bombs.

The Cold War was the name given to the political economic, military and ideological contention that occurred between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and their allies after World War II. The two forces never directly engaged in military activity in light of the fact that both had atomic weapons that if utilized, might have had crushing outcomes for both sides. Instead, proxy wars were battled. A proxy war results when contradicting forces utilize outsiders as substitutes for battling each one other and is ordinarily launched by a power that does not itself partake. The Korean and Vietnam wars are two examples of proxy wars on the grounds that the U.S. and the Soviet Union did not directly engage one another however, Soviet endeavors to spread and bring together both Korea and Vietnam under communist rule provoked mediation either by the United States and/or by their allies. These two occasions were simply a few of the impacts of the Cold War in Asia. This paper will examine each war individually and in more detail and endeavor to persuade that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were the immediate aftereffects of Soviet endeavors to expand communist influence in Asia and the United States and their allies' approach of forestalling and holding such endeavors.

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.

For almost 15 years the U.S. has been in a constant state of war. Various terrorist organizations, from al-Quade, to the Taliban, and now Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have maintained our focus so much so that we have almost forgotten about prior threats. Ten years prior to the start of the conflict in the Middle East, the Cold War had officially concluded, ending almost 45 years of server political and military tensions between the U.S. and Russian following WWII. During this period of time, Russia was the central focus of the U.S., although China and North Korea also posed a significant threat. While terrorist threats and activates remain a significant threat, Russia recent annexation of Crimea proves that they are still a very

Although from an economic lens shows the positive impact of the atomic war and the technological advancements that came fourth due to further study of the atomic capabilities it fails to show how a political lens plays a role in this as well. If a historian were to read this article from a political perspective it would be known that “The US government had an obvious interest in perpetuating the bright atomic future narrative, and supplied the media with officially vetted images and information, but only to a certain point” The question here is that in actual the government wants to shield the media from the actual capabilities and the destructive power the atomic mechanics could withhold. In order to avoid conflicting perceptions a historian must analyze both primary and secondary sources to seek patterns, explanations, causes and effects to come to a

Whether events in the 1970s and 1980s have borne out President Eisenhower's warning to the American people. During the 1970s and 1980s, America spent more money on military security than the net income of all United States corporations. The government was building up armed forces to combat the Soviet Union until its collapse.

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

Despite its name, the Cold War did not actually involve military fighting between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, the Cold War is still an excellent example as to why war can be a result of bargaining failures and explains reasons as to why war occurs. A single person’s rationality can tip the scale between war and peace. The Cold War was essentially a deadlock between the two super powers of that time, the United States and the Soviet Union. Both states expressed desire to maintain and widen their respective spheres of influence around the world. Both states also wanted to prove that their political system is superior; whereas the United States was pro-democracy, the Soviet Union was pro-communism. Although the Cold War was a result of many factor, war can definitely occur due to information problems between two states. Nonetheless, I do believe there is always a range of agreements that is possible between states, as is evidenced by the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis.

Around seventy eight years ago, World War Two was inevitable and would last for six years, while becoming one of the world’s greatest conflicts. With the catastrophic effects of The Great War, the further advancement of current technology and the advent of newer warfare, World War Two was set to be the turning point of the twentieth century. The war caused the Berlin wall to separate Germany, it indirectly caused the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. World War Two’s legacy includes The Holocaust, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the first use of atomic bombs. The United States’ use of the first atomic bombs has great complications, however the act is justified because of Japan’s reluctance to surrender, the amount of

At the conclusion of World War II, the United States of America emerged as the savior of Europe and became one of the leading global political powers of the subsequent age. Behind the “iron curtain” of Easter Europe, however, another superpower, the Soviet Union, which was seemingly the exact opposite of the United States in every way imaginable, exerted its force to instill and defend communism in its surrounding satellite states. The ideologies of these two countries displayed myriad incompatibilities, and over a period spanning the next four decades, the Soviet Union and the United States of America attempted to gain military, political, and social advantages over each other in order to preserve their systems of life. Especially with

Once the Cold War was starting to unfold in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the world endured more change than in any other period of time throughout history. A global independence movement was reshaping the world into what we know it as today. Several nations from the regions of South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East were finally gaining the independence they have long demanded since the 1800’s. All of these nations were former areas that the western powers of Europe colonized for their own benefits. These benefits included the use of slave labor and the slave trade, use of the country’s natural resources, or just to fulfill the need to create a global empire. After hundreds of years of this unjust treatment, dating all the way

There are many problems in the world as many know, but the circumstances and severity are not always completely acknowledged. Not everyone in this generation is invested in the world surrounding them, and it is truly concerning. To some, conflicts are not considered entirely until they are present where they are. Specifically, this generation’s main concern revolves around terrorism, as its presence has been endured frequently throughout this generation. However, one of the more longstanding threats which were used over the course of history are nuclear bombs. The concern for nuclear bombs has not been at the front of people’s minds in this generation, and it is just one circumstance that people should be aware of. In the article “Iran deal

In 1945, the United States and Soviet Union joined up as allies in World War II, which resulted with total victory for United States and Soviet forces over Hitler’s Nazi domain in Europe. After just a few years, allies from war turned into complete enemies, becoming sealed in a military, political, global and economic struggle. But the question is, what led to the Cold War? Was it the Soviets, who revoked their agreements to allow the people of Eastern Europe to determine their own fates by imposing totalitarian rule on territories? Or was it the Americans, who ignored the Soviets security concerns, terrified the world with the atomic bomb, and pushed relentlessly to expand their own international influence and market supremacy?

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)

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,