The End Of The Cold War

When the world famous liberal thinker Francis Fukuyama in his masterpiece declared that we were witnessing the end of the history, he was greeting the new political structure and also the new international environment, which is peaceful[1]. However, developments that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union showed us that the dissolution of the Soviets was unexpected. The international society was not ready for peace and Fukuyama’s optimistic assumptions were far from becoming real. Moreover, the international society currently started to realise that the tension and the potential of mass destructive war during the Cold War era had provided a

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.

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

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader for Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects, these meaning have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear. Israel and Iran have been in arguments and disagreements about nuclear weaponry since 2012. Their different religious view and ideologies has flourished into more than a religious tension but that of a modern day cold way.

The various miore events of invasion and prevention of expansion had sharpen the Cold War to become what it was. The various events in question mostly involved the United States and Russia arguing over territory. Although these events influenced the outcome the Cold War, undoubtedly the formation of the Soviet sphere, the Truman Doctrine, and the attack on Afghanistan prolonged tensions during the Cold War. During the span of a few years, the demand and production of nuclear arms was increased significantly.

In 1945 after WWII the United States and the Soviet Union became divided as far as how they felt Europe should be divided. This began the period of conflict called the Cold War. The Cold War was “a state of political hostility between countries characterized by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare”(dictionary.com).The USSR believed in communism, where the US believed in democracy. The US was between two potentially hostile nations, the US designed a Buffer Zone to prevent any overt acts of aggression.At the end of WWI,I almost all of the eastern European countries were occupied by Russia these countries were known as Satellite States. The distrust between the two nations began at the Yalta Conference which included the three big powers: Churchill (Great Britain),Stalin (Soviet Union), and Roosevelt (United States of America). Stalin wanted more control as far how Europe progressed after WWII, where Roosevelt believed Europe should hold free election and determine their political system and rivalry between the two superpowers and began the Cold War. Some might blame the Americans for the causing for the Cold War because of the American’s wanted to occupy the countries, but the Soviet Union bares the responsibility for the Cold War because of their actions in Eastern Europe, by the military expansionism of Stalin and his successors, and the principles presented in the Iron Curtain Speech .

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.

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.

Throughout history, war has been the most common resort for nations to solve problems or show off their strength. However it wasn’t until recently where mankind had just live and experience a war that not only did it have the potential destroy nations, but also had the potential to destroy the whole world and humanity itself. This was known as the Cold War where after WWII, citizens of the world witnessed the potential of the atomic bomb and feared the possibility of nuclear fallout or total annihilation of the Earth. The only two superpowers remaining at the time were the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. These two nation competed against each other in a nuclear arms race. They fought to spread the ideals of either a free democratic, capitalistic society or a controlled socialist, communist society. After a 45 year struggle from 1945-1991, the Cold War came to an end due to the fall of the Soviet Union. It was inevitable due to the fact during the last few years of the war, the USSR face internal domestic problems such as their financial/economic situation, failed political reforms, and revolution throughout the Union itself. The causes to the collapse of the Union not only affected them but affected the world to present day.

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.

A multi-dimensional theoretical framework must be established in order to comprehend the full idea of nuclear weapons, deterrence, and when deciding whether the use can be justified. Researching various perspectives can assist the ethical decision making process by educating the readers on the position of the Catholic Bishops and International Relations Theory. Trying to determine the ethics of nuclear weapons requires different lenses of theoretical framework such as a realist and liberalist view that can be subcategorized into offensive and defense strategic structures. On the foundation of numerous statements such as the Catholic Bishops and various resources of International Relations, this essay will analyze the ethics of possessing

“Dr.Strangelove” is an 1964 film based on the argument of rational; deterrence theory by Kenneth Waltz. Many of the events that occurred during the film also complimented many of the critiques of rational deterrence theory later made by Scott Sagan. Nuclear weapons have been an important issue for debate for years. The spotlight of nuclear weapons was an important factor during the cold war nevertheless the question of nuclear weapons remains afterwards. The question of both the spread and contraction of nuclear weapons remains a strong issue because of the opposing theories that argue against the question of the spread, contraction furthermore the total dissolution of nuclear weapons.

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)