Was the World Safer during the Cold War - Case Study Example

WAS THE WORLD SAFER DURING THE COLD WAR? The safety of the world is determined by the extent to which the people have peace and live in harmony. There are various instances in which war or rumors of war have threatened the world peace. Today, there are structures that have been developed to combat incidences of breach of peace. The First and the Second World Wars were precarious times for the world. Then came the cold war, which was less mild and did not have as many implications as the former. The cold war took place between 1947 and 1991. This was a period of heightened tension between the countries allied to United States (Western bloc) and those affiliated to USSR (Eastern bloc). Though the two factions had major differences in terms of ideology, there were no major physical confrontations. However, armed combat, espionage, propaganda, and competition to get to the space dominated the rivalry. Despite the alignments, the world was safer because both parties prepared themselves physically and psychologically for any form of foreign invasion. The world today seems to be more dangerous than the times of the cold war. Terrorism and the interference of running of the affairs of other states has caused rising tensions, which is likely to have negative safety implications. The period of Cold War was characterized by panic that facilitated the development of various security measures. When comparing the intensity of safety today with that of the Cold War era, we find that the times of cold war were better. The government strived to ensure people have supplies, intelligence was heightened to prevent any foreign attack, people were provided with shelters and training among other things. Today, despite the threat of terrorism and other breach of security, countries have become more independent, hence they can decide to make nuclear weapons or any other destructive weapons without rival countries realizing. There was a common consensus that the weapons of mass destruction that were developed at the time cold pose a great threat to the world. In his address to the council of ministers, the foreign affairs minister of USSR, Andrei Gromyko pointed that the country was in the to stop the testing of nuclear weapons in 1958. On the other hand, the United States was not convinced and read some ulterior motive from the Soviet Union. Calls to end the testing of the weapons from both sides ensured that no major incidences were experienced. Therefore, the safety levels were relatively better as compared with today. The cold war was a psychological battle that involved two sides, East and West. Their ideological differences made it possible to have a bi-polar world where only two factions were in conflict1. This means that a member of the faction could not engage before all the members are aware. This poses as a great strength to the attainment of world peace. The ultimate end of cold war was characterized by the disintegration of USSR, just because they could not agree on various issues. On the other hand, countries like UK kept the US on check because they were also major opinion makers among the Allies. Winston Churchill is noted to advocate for the reduction in the heightened arms race; he called for an end to the development of nuclear weapons2. The cold war was a time that was characterized by the need for dominance and expression of military might by two great opposing powers. Today, so much independence makes every country believe they have the right to do what is right to them. The incidences of reported nuclear weapons in Iran and South Korea are a major threat to world peace as compared to the cold war. This is because they can easily plan attacks without the knowledge and preparedness of other countries. Though surveillance and military power has been enhanced through various mechanisms, there is likelihood that the unprecedented and well executed attacks may be done. A good example is the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in the United States that left scores of people dead and massive destruction of property. There was no such incident that was reported during the period of cold war. Technology is changing fast and there are new methods of fighting, weaponry, and strategies that are being advanced every day. The cold war was purely an ideological difference that was coupled by an arms race. There was awareness that nuclear bombs were being developed. However, in today’s scenario there is so much experimentation that goes around as a result of the need to be independent in running of the affairs of a country. Atomic bombs, use of drones, biological and chemical weapons are not well known to what extent they have been developed by some countries of the world such as South Korea among others. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) made the two major rivals in the cold war to rethink about their engagement in war. In this strategy, both the attacker and the defender would suffer the consequences of the weapons. This made it possible for USSR and USA to heed to the calls of ending the nuclear tests. The agreement to put an end to the use of nuclear weapons was also contributed by the willingness of the parties to conduct an on-site inspection. Despite United States being suspicious of the Soviet Union, the acceptance of USSR to have the inspection helped relieve the tension and reduce the suspicion3. In contrast, today we are there is no substantive evidence that shows who is developing what in readiness to malicious attack or defense to their country. Terrorism threatens the world in today’s setup. Terrorists are malicious and are ready to die in order for them to execute their objectives. They have a high degree of secrecy coupled with a sophisticated execution strategy. Most of the terrorist attacks in the world today are planned years or months before the execution. In contrast to the cold war, it was possible to establish the likely points of weakness that could be used by the rival parties. The two forces attempted to cover as much as possible any form of intervention that could result to loss of lives. It was also feared that the nuclear bombs could cause great damages especially after the US bombing in Japan. This facilitated an afterthought during the course of the cold war4. However, terrorists seem to have no considerations when executing their attacks; they are malicious and motivated by ill intentions. The fact that there was a high possibility of global nuclear war during the cold war, prepared people and governments for any likely eventualities. This promoted advocacies for peace and consultative meetings that could help alleviate the likely outcomes of the arms race5. There was a widespread fear and panic that the rivalry could result to the destruction of the entire world. The world has become a multi-polar, there are divergent opinions and ideologies that are held by different individuals and states. For example, the Al Qaeda group has its ideology, which is different from that of Iranian government and the jihadists in Yemen. All these ideologies presents a pool of differences, which threatens safety in today’s world. The cold war ended in a manner that did not solve the problem that was being experienced. The collapse of USSR placed US at a position of dominance and there is a general assumption that the issue at hand was addressed but in real sense, it was not. The rise of such a competitive world is being experienced with the rise of military and economic powers. A country like China is coming up pretty fast hence it is likely that the authority of the United States may be challenged. This has a likely effect on world peace. The view that a solution was not found based on use of nuclear weapons presents issues of interference. The United States may have opted to destroy nuclear weapons6, but there are uncertainties that surround their destruction. The United States has been concerned about the state development of the weapons in Iran, Iraq, and South Korea. Intrusion into the affairs of these states presents rivalry that may end up threatening the safety of the world. During the time of cold war, the battle for arms race was between states and unity of states. The western and the eastern bloc worked hard to outshine one another in terms of nuclear weaponry7. The technology and to develop the weapons and their storage was purely in the hands of the governments. The scenario is very different today, the weapons are getting to the hands of individuals and organizations. This poses a great threat to world safety. Terrorist groups and fundamentalist organizations have gained access to the nuclear weapons. Since some of these groups are malicious, their motives cannot be identified; they pose a great risk to the world. The countries in the world that have nuclear potential have tremendously increased, the nuclear technology is widespread and it may not be long before the other countries follow suit. It is also quite uncertain that in whose hand are these weapons since the technology has been widespread and the mechanisms of manufacture are identifiable. Despite the rising tensions and suspicions between the western bloc and the eastern bloc, there were continued talks on ending the arms race. Countries from both sides of divide were engaged in finding a lasting solution despite the psychological and physical confrontations between the blocs8. In addition, the economic stagnation of USSR prompted the Gorbachev reforms, which allowed USSR to focus more on economic development at the expense of arms race. On the other hand, under the leadership of president Eisenhower of United States continued with its cold war but cut down on its military expenses9. During the reign of President Ronald Reagan, there were constant talks on scaling down the arms. A summit held in Moscow in 1989 facilitated the signing of the START I arms control treaty between George H. W. Bush and Gorbachev. This incidence indicates that there were peaceful interventions that were being worked out to ensure a consensus was reached on the arms situation10. Contrary to this set up, the approach has been different in the modern world hence creating a loophole for retaliations. United States has intervened on Iraq and Iran nuclear programs hence creating a scenario where there is a likelihood for revenge or development of groups that breach peace. In conclusion, it is quite apparent that the safety of the world during the cold war was much more that which exists today. The MAD strategy was a great threat to the entire world, both the attackers and the defenders. This prompted a second thought. In addition, constant negotiations to end the suspicion and panic were in place. Also the member states of the two blocs acted facilitated a reduction in the possibility of the use of the nuclear weapons. Today, the case is different, there are possibilities of retaliatory attacks, as well as the nuclear weapons have gained a widespread use in the world even by terrorist groups. Bibliography "Ending Nuclear Tests." New York Times (1923-Current File), Jan 23, 1963. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/116568175?accountid=12598. A P and The Times of India,News Service. "New U.S. Plan Provides Far Ending Atom Tests." The Times of India (1861-Current),Jun 03, 1957. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/740007571?accountid=12598. Analysis: Sixty Years of Trying to Control the Bomb. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio, 2005. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/190823229?accountid=12598. Benjamin, Welles. "CHURCHILL URGES TOP-LEVEL PARLEY TO END BOMB RACE." New York Times (1923-Current File), Feb 15, 1950. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/111529049?accountid=12598. Chace, James. "Sharing the Atom Bomb." Foreign Affairs 75, no. 1 (Jan, 1996): 129. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/214283879?accountid=12598. Jameson, Robert P. "Armageddons Shortening Fuse: How Advances in Nuclear Weapons Technology Pushed Strategists to Mutually Assured Destruction, 1945-1962." Air Power History 60, no. 1 (Spring, 2013): 41-53. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1319809283?accountid=12598 Parrington, Alan J. "Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited: Strategic Doctrine in Question." Airpower Journal 11, no. 4 (Winter, 1997): 4-19. http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/217776575?accountid=12598. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. The cold war. http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Cold-War.aspx?p=2 May, Ernest R. 1998. Americas berlin: Heart of the cold war. Foreign Affairs 77, (4) (Jul): 148-160, http://search.proquest.com/docview/214294344?accountid=45049 (accessed April 18, 2014). Hilton, Kramer. 1999. The second cold war: This one is internal; culture is the battleground. Wall Street Journal, Apr 02, 1999. http://search.proquest.com/docview/398746777?accountid=45049 (accessed April 18, 2014). Read More