Nuclear Weapons and the Dynamics of the Cold War - Essay Example

NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE DYNAMICS OF THE COLD WAR and NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE DYNAMICS OF THE COLD WAR Many different factors influence international political relations and interactions. Over the years, countries engage in social, economic, or political affairs that affect the underlying relationship in diverse and dynamic ways. In particular, war has always been a critical factor in the societal setting since time immemorial. For thousands of years, different states, nations, or regions have gone to war for reason or another. In this respect, history of war progressively shaped the development of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The period between 1947 and 1991 is fundamental to the contemporary political economy (Shimko, 2012). During this period, Cold War revolutionized global approaches to war. Military growth and development became the subject of the day, especially in both Eastern and Western blocs. High tension also became evident as United States and the Soviet Union embarked on a bid to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. A significant rise in the production of nuclear weapons was anticipated following the end of World War II. Both Eastern and Western blocs feared the emergence of yet another world war as time went by. This fear accelerated arming in both United States and the Soviet Union. These two countries had taken their respective positions as global superpowers, an aspect that fuelled the emergence of Cold War. Over the years, the two countries would accumulate weapons of mass destruction without necessarily engaging in physical war-like attacks. Cold War was a significant factor in shaping war trends across the globe. The Soviet Union consolidated the Eastern bloc while the United States of America did the same on the Western bloc. During this time, no fighting of significant scale was reported. In other words, the war was literally cold even though it lasted for decades. Based on these observations, the Cold War exhibited critical dynamics, most of which were subject to the influence of nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction undoubtedly come with consequences that do not only affect the attacked party, but also the attacker. Atomic energy that is out of control carries devastating and catastrophic implications. With two nuclear-armed nations in a standoff, it was evident that the victims would comprise of more than just the warring parties would. In fact, memories of World War II reveal just how destructive atomic bombs and nuclear weapons are. In the context of war, a repeat of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack was an experience that warring nations would rather avoid (Miller, 2001). Following the events of both World War I and II, the Cold War appeared as a massive deterrent strategy to a possible World War III. Even with some low scale fighting in Korea and Vietnam, United and Soviet Union never launched military activities against one another. The two nations, therefore, maintained heightened tensions with none between the two going for the other. Here, the dynamics of the war and the influence of nuclear weapons were at play. To start with, United States and the Soviet Union were the world’s leading superpowers. Economic and political influence of both countries was significant in their respective blocs. In light of the previous world wars, these countries had mastered the art and technology of war. During the Cold War, it was evident that technology was a fundamental factor to account for. In this respect, both countries invested heavily in military equipment and weaponry development. This process saw the advanced use of nuclear-related technologies in arming the two nations. Technological revolution redesigned approaches to war and subsequent methods of attack. With nuclear weapons, automated target settings and missile launching became even more prevalent (Heuser, 2000). In the process, physical involvement in actual attacks became a thing of the past. Jet bombers were developed to replace human involvement, thereby creating another game changer factor in war. On the same note, technology further allowed the two sides to become discrete in handling their war strategies. It was not clear whether either side would match the nuclear weapon threshold of the other side. This made war a seemingly low scale activity amid heightened risks, tension, and threat of attack. Over and above the technological factor, doctrines of war constituted another key factor that influenced both the United States and the Soviet Union. Their respective economic and political beliefs were divided over critical issues whose effects extended beyond the concerns of the Cold War. Doctrines of war shaped what each country would engage as a war strategy. To do that, all participating economies and political entities had to identify with some form of war doctrines. These doctrines would subsequently determine the organization of United States and Soviet Union socially, economically, and politically. With economic, political, and war-based doctrines in place, it was time to create a functional organization mechanism that reflected the essence of the Cold War. Such an organization was to ensure that the best weapons were produced, and that the fear of mass destruction kept the enemy at bay. This move was essential during the Cold War. It was fundamental to ensure that both United States and the Soviet Union deterred from the war. Even with a looming crisis or war, large scale fighting was avoidable for as long as the two sides could. Economic, political, and alliance-based supremacy saw both Western and Eastern regions unite into two key blocs of the Cold War. Fighting or military actions were not the primary source of tension between the two sides. United States and the Soviet Union had critical economic and political differences that saw each side strive for supremacy. The heightened bid for economic and political control propagated the long Cold War. In order to assert superiority and power over the rest of the world, United States and the Soviet Union had to develop offensive and defensive measures to correct social, economic, and political threats. In the process, weapons of mass destruction became a key factor in the equation. The essence of nuclear weapons was to create stability within a highly volatile environment. This environment defined the risk and threat of war that never was. In light of cold war and nuclear weapons, general and crisis stabilities emerged. The two types of stability were evident right from the start to the end of Cold War. The general stability encompassed nationwide activities over and above war or military activities. In other words, general stability covered social interactions, international relations, and domestic economic and political performance. On the other hand, crisis stability was directly linked to the war-based tension that lasted for decades in both the United States and the Soviet Union. There was a critical crisis between both nations. In that respect, the only two options were to go to war or avert the crisis. The latter was seemingly a better option. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction exhibited the mutually assured destruction doctrine (Rosenberg, 1983). As a result, crisis aversion and subsequent crisis stability influenced yet another direction that the Cold War took. At the height of Cold War, aggression was eminent between United States and the Soviet Union. The hostility and dire need for control saw the two sides develop aggression and counter aggression strategies against one another. The idea was to pile nuclear weapons just in case they had to be used. The aggression factor during the Cold War gave rise to the emergence of punishment and denial practices in light of weapons of mass destruction. Due to the risks and costs involved, both United States and the Soviet Union would try to strike a balance that would leave both parties at ease. However, these two sides had their domestic differences to account for. At some point during the war, the Soviet Union’s economy stagnated and subsequently became prone to collapse (Freedman, 2003). On the other side, United States was strategizing on making Soviet Union economic situation even worse. Trying to cripple the Soviet Union even further, United States exerted significant economic, military, and diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Union (DAnieri, 2013). The result was immense aggression that would have to be tamed at all costs. In response to heightened aggression between the Western and Eastern blocs, punishment and denial eventually became the new twist in the Cold War. Punishment, in the context of Cold War, was a strategic move to curtail nuclear operations of either side involved in the war. The idea of punishment is directed towards the aggressor in terms of war. In other words, it encompasses the capability of an opponent to punish the aggressor. This means that one side strives to deter the other from engaging in nuclear war. In the event that the risk of war is eminent, the aggressor stands to suffer offensive or defensive consequences from the opponent. The underlying complexities, however, deter either party from striking. Nuclear weapons served a similar role during the Cold War. The principle of denial is also attributed to the rise of weapons of mass destruction during the Cold War era. In essence, denial seeks to hinder the accomplishment of the aggressor’s goals or objectives (Foradori, 2013). To do this, however, the party that hinders the aggressor from realizing the set objectives would have to exhibit war-fighting capabilities of nuclear nature. In this respect, there are risk and cost factors to account for. With punishment and denial in mind, nuclear weapons plunged political economies into moral dilemmas of assured destruction and flexible responses to war and fighting (Gaddis, 997, p. 221-259). Under the moral dilemma of assured destruction, it is critical to determine whether nuclear weapons are suitable in any given war. In light of warring states, the suitability of nuclear weapons is difficult to ascertain. If United States and the Soviet Union were considered, for example, use of nuclear weapons would devastate all participating parties. This gives rise to the mutually assured destruction doctrine mentioned earlier in this paper. In this respect, the most appropriate move is deterrence, where punishment is relatively better than denial. Most importantly, any given war has both winners and losers. In light of nuclear war, are there winners and/or losers? This question constitutes a moral dilemma that hardly ascertains victory and/or loss. Nuclear weapons have undoubtedly revolutionized military development. However, the risks and costs of devastation have increased in equal measure. With devastation an eminent reality in nuclear warfare, deterrence becomes an easy practice as far military development is concerned. Contrary to assured destruction, flexible responses to nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare pose another critical aspect of war-related moral dilemma (Foradori, 2013). On this side of warfare, nuclear weapons become the essence of fighting nuclear war. What this means is that deterrence cannot be realized in the absence of nuclear war-fighting capabilities. Based on this notion of moral approach, it follows that nuclear warfare has the ability to determine winners and losers based on prevalence in the war. Even more contentious is the flexible view of nuclear weapons as just another form of sophisticated weaponry. This view fails to acknowledge technological breakthrough as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. On the same note, the divide between conventional and nuclear war is not clear. The relative and absolute capabilities in war, therefore, conflict in one way or another. This results in moral dilemma in relation to whether the society is aware of the risks and costs of nuclear warfare. Streamlining and aligning these issues with societal interests, concerns, and needs is extremely difficult. Varied approaches to nuclear warfare make nuclear weapons a for-or-against matter. In the meantime, deterrence continues as world’s superpowers strategize on averting possible nuclear crisis. In conclusion, the end of Cold War marked a new beginning for the global political economy. Today, nuclear weapons elicit mutual concerns among world’s top economies and political organizations. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Cuba missile crisis serve as reminders of what awaits the world in the event of nuclear warfare (Allison & Zelikow, 1999). Having dynamically deterred nations from large-scale fighting, nuclear weapons shaped the Cold War and subsequently redefined international relations in economically and politically volatile environments. References Allison, G. & Zelikow, P., 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed., Harlow: Longman. DAnieri, P., 2013. International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, New York: Cengage Learning. Foradori, P., 2013. Tactical Nuclear Weapons and Euro-Atlantic Security: The Future of NATO, London: Routledge. Freedman, L., 2003. The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, 3rd ed., Basingstoke: Palgrave. Gaddis, J. L., 1997. ‘Nuclear Weapons and the Escalation of the Cold War’, in We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heuser, B., 2000. The Bomb: Nuclear Weapons in Their Historical, Strategic and Ethical Context, Harlow: Longman. Miller, D., 2001. The Cold War: A Military History, London: Pimlico. Rosenberg, D. A., 1983. ‘The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960’, International Security, 7:4, pp. 3-71. Shimko, K., 2012. International Relations: Perspectives, Controversies and Readings, New York: Cengage Learning. Read More