Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War - Essay Example

Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War There were two attributes of the cold war, which entailed a conflict along the border between the two Germanys, which led to expectation of a war breakout due to rivalry inspired by the disparities in their ideas. However, there is acceptance and recognition of the boundaries in Germany, which were established in 1945, and the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact. The appeal of the communism was lost externally, whereby there were few remaining polities willing to adhere to China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Cambodia. However, there was a likelihood of surviving the diffident reduction of tyrannical control in any if these countries. Nevertheless, the paper will focus on determining whether nuclear weapons kept peace during Cold War. There was chaos in the Soviet Union due to the struggles involved in the changes involved in the restructuring of dissolution in controversy and the effect of various forces. In fact, there were inventories of nuclear and other conventional weapons being developed, but the Soviet state was not willing to apply the military forces in external conflicts due to lack of political consistency (Sheehan, 2007, 25). However, there was a threat from external forces that seemed to a circumstance altering the condition that would arise. On the other hand, there was a reconstitution of an opponent, which was driven by ideas, power, and support from East European partners, which associated with Americans since 1945 (Holloway, 2010, 45). Cold War marked the initiation of the nuclear age, since the Second World War was attributed to development of atomic bombs by countries such as Britain, United States and Soviet Union. During the Cold War, Britain engaged in a project in Manhattan, whereby they were junior partners, while the support from the Soviet Union was insignificant prior to August 1945. However, this project undertaken by the Britain and U.S.A was inspired by their fear towards an atomic bomb, which was developed in Germany. In 1942, a decision was made by the Germans to focus on building the bomb, whereby they portrayed unprecedented scientific and industrial capability. During this period, there were two bombs in America, which were in use by 1945, and Germany had accepted defeat, though President Truman made a decision of attacking Japan with the bomb. The term ‘Cold’ was an indirect work meaning indirect conflict, competition and unpleasant relationship that existed between the Americans and the USSR. Therefore, second attack by the American atomic bomb on Japan led to a fall of the USSR in 1991. Deployment of the nuclear weapons was a fundamental development in the history, whereby these weapons served as a way of raising the destructive power. In this case, a thermonuclear weapon was developed without limits, and there were destructive yields with reduced periods for delivering the ballistic missiles; thus, escalation of the Cold War would have caused the end of civilization. The nuclear weapons emanated from international relations, which were experienced during the discrepancy in 1945, where there was a war between the capitalists in the west and the communist in the East (Morgenthau, 1964, 25). Moreover, nuclear altercation initiated establishment of peace through there were speculation on return of great political power. In fact, there degree of expectations concerning other systems of the world was realistic, thorough a counterfactual surveys related to the history. Focusing on the period after the cold war, there were attempts to alter the bipolar international system, which did not require mutually assured destruction (Booth & Wheeler, 2008, 43). However, bipolar system was not created by nuclear weapons; instead, it was a form of reinforcement. Furthermore, development of the nuclear weapons led to destruction of the continental Europe and dereliction of the Britain finance. Similarly, there were no chances for the USSR and USA to recover from the effects of the Second World War. The political dissections were not caused by the nuclear weapons during the Cold War; in fact, there were attempts for overthrowing the USSR when Bolsheviks was in power during 1917. USSR made a significant contribution to the process of planning war, and during the late 1930s, they choose their partners. In USSR, there was need for capitalist powers in Europe, which led to conflicts among the citizens, and there were efforts to agitate the revolution of workers in other states in Europe (Jervis, 1989, 20). However, there were interior tendencies on the international stages in 1920s and 1930s. A sever relationship of power and fear would have been intensified between the East and the West were it not for the development of the nuclear weapons. In situations, there would be no peaceful coexistence if there were no mutually assured destruction (MAD). The foreign policy of the Khrushchev was criticized by Molotov, whereby eliminating chances of a predicament through a reconciliation process with a focus on spreading the insurrection using the violence and inferences of MAD (Fursenko & Naftali, 2006, 25). Therefore, development of nuclear weapons offered a chance to Molotov for assuming power after Stalin (Zubok, 2009, 31). However, the experienced gathered by Molotov as a foreign minister and a friend to Stalin after the Second World War led to a feeling of comfort. In fact, there was fear in the West due to the association between Molotov and Stalin, whereby they were likely to take the same pursuit in the history of the West. The Cold war was attributed to dispute between the Americans and the USSR, which occurred during 1962, when Americans identified that USSR had the capability of developing the nuclear weapon in Communist Cuba (Craig & Logevall, 2009, 56). This led to a decision of sending a naval blockade to impend the ships belonging to USSR, which were used to transport these weapons to Cuba. This led to mobilization of all the military forces in Cuba and American military forces were alerted on October the same year. During the same month, the ships managed to reach the quarantine line, and they were given directive to maintain their position be supported by a submarine from USSR. However, the US president claimed that an invasion by American forces would result to a retaliation of firing the nuclear missiles at Americans. Consequently, both parties concluded that there was a substantial risk of declaring a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis; thus, the political objectives proofed to be very dangerous. Therefore, the Cold War presented a chance for both sides to take the risk, and after this incident of Cuban Missile, there was a form of competition, which was overlaid on the local disputes in other sections of the world. On the other hand, there are different notions seeking to explain the reasons behind the end of the Cold war. There are those who explain that the American military was under the directives of President Reagan who forced the USSR into bankruptcy through the effort of maintaining the race of arms (Gaddis, 2005, 29). Others contend that Soviet Union was suffering from an internal stagnation for a long period of time, which led to a weak system of governance and insignificant influence from external powers. Others assert that USSR was falling apart before the occurrence of the Cold World War; thus, the Americans established a foreign with unintentional role of bolstering the Soviet Union and the legitimacy of the citizens. Nevertheless, the debates of nuclear weapons seek to defend or attack the issue with the basis of different perceptions of the roles in history. In fact, there are proliferations, which were driven by nuclear weapons in the conflicts between Americans and the USSR. However, others argue that nuclear weapons facilitated the deterrence of effectiveness in nonproliferation instruments (Pilat, 2009, 1). Moreover, this cannot be compared to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) or the feat that initiated the Cold war as the reason that can illustrate the inclination of both parties. Furthermore, engagement to the bilateral was a way of sheltering from the problems associated with the Cold War. There was a substantial risk associated with proliferations, which were considered inferior to the planning and thoughts of politicians in both America and USSR. Americans had a perception of being considered a superpower due to their possession of nuclear weapons and their effort to deal with proliferation. However, this failed to prevent the occurrence of collaboration between China and Soviet Union, which entail assistance in the nascent program. In addition, the Americans were not able to place foreign and defense policies with an aim of nonproliferation during the tension and conflicts. Therefore, this argument is not supporting the impact of the nuclear weapons on proliferation and nonproliferation in the Cold War. In conclusion, the paper has explored arguments for and against the impact of the nuclear weapons to the Cold World War, and the paper began by elaborating on the situation that contributed to the outbreak of this war. The other section of the paper discussed different ideas supporting the motion of the influence of the nuclear weapons to the Cold World War. Finally, the paper explores some of the views that do not support the motion, whereby different arguments are identified from different scholars. Nevertheless, the paper has provided ample evidence to support the notion; thus, the stance of the paper is that indeed nuclear weapons kept peace during the Cold World War. References Booth, K. & Wheeler, N., (2008), The Security Dilemma, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Craig, C. & Logevall, F., (2009), America’s Cold War: The Politics of Insecurity. London: Harvard University Press, pp. 56-58 Fursenko, A. & Naftali, T., (2006), Khrushchev’s Cold War, London: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 25 Gaddis, J., (2005), Strategies of Containment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.28-29 Holloway, D., (2010), Nuclear weapons and the escalation of the Cold War, 1945–1962, Origins, Cambridge University Press  Jervis, R., (1989), The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution, New York: Cornell University Press Morgenthau, J., (1964), Four Paradoxes of Nuclear Strategy, The American Political Science Review, 58:1, pp. 25 Pilat, J., (2009), Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation during the Cold War: A Reassessment, Los Alamos National Laboratory. Retrieved on 12 December 2012 from Sheehan, M., (2007), The International Politics of Space, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 26-30 Zubok, V.M. (2009), A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 30-31 Read More