Nuclear Arms Race during the Cold War - Research Paper Example

NUCLEAR ARMS RACE DURING THE COLD WAR Contents Contents 2 INTRODUCTION 3 DISCUSSION 4 The Arms race 1900 to1980 4 The Arms Race 1980 to present day 7 Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) 8 Criticism of mutual deterrence 9 Analysis 10 CONCLUSIONS 11 Bibliography 12 INTRODUCTION Nuclear weapons form an integral part in the history of the Cold War. It is quite unavoidable to talk about nuclear weapons in a discussion about the Cold War. The Cold War was a period of suspicion and rivalry after the Second World War. This rivalry was between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR). The intensive ideological differences between the United States and the USSR were problematic. In the year, 1945, the first atomic bomb was created in the United States. The objective of creating this weapon of mass destruction by the United States was to; end the World War II and to allow the country to have a control of foreign policy (Bharat p. 6). An increasing distrust of communism developed among most Americans by the end of the war. Their aim was to ‘hide’ nuclear secrets from Soviet hands. America had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, which ensured that Russia was more manageable from a political point of view. Tension brewed between these two states, and sparked a nuclear arms race. The nuclear arms race was a period where several countries developed and examined the power of a myriad of nuclear technology. They kept buffer stocks of thousands of nuclear weapons with an aim of being ahead of one another. Power was tested by the country with the best technology. This was a dangerous era, since the possibility of an all-out nuclear war between countries always loomed. The 20th century had a fair share of near catastrophes and uneasy international policies (Swift p. 14). The Cold War did not make it into the 21st century. Its history explains a period where nations increased their quality and quantity of ‘tools’ of military power; “An arms race.” This period was first encountered in the 19th century where Russia and France confronted Britain’s naval superiority. Germany had attempted to outdo Britain’s fleet, and the effects spilled over into World War I. After the war between Britain, Japan, and the United States, an arms-limitation treaty took place at the Washington Conference. DISCUSSION The Arms race regime resulted from the ambitions of political leverage and economic power. The degree of tension among nations was high. Nations were incited to develop and test weapons that would wipe out an entire generation. This regime lasted up to November, 1990, when the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty was signed. The entire generation lived under the shadow of looming catastrophe; the survival of humanity was questionable. Any provocation or misunderstanding could have initiated the extinction of humanity. Stockpiles of weapons were developed to levels far beyond any conceivable purpose (Bharat p. 27). The Arms race 1900 to 1980 In the 20th century, the arms race had a prominent place in discussions about a country’s military affairs. International rivalry was aimed at searching for a balance of power or the escalation of a country’s power. No consensus would have been reached with all countries trying to outdo each other. The first use of the arms race was experienced late in the 19th century. Russia and France challenged Britain’s naval powers in the context of heightened tensions over colonial expansion. The British did not take the challenge lightly as they tried to protect their control of the sea. This challenge did not result to war. In 1904, an Anglo-French political agreement was made while an Anglo-Russian rapprochement was made in 1907. These settlements turned against a rising German threat. Early in the 20th century, the German to Britain challenge turned out to be the most prominent naval arms race of the Cold War. The political leadership, past the Bismarck era, aimed at making Germany a super power. This saw the establishment of a sizeable German battle fleet by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz. The British were forced to respond in an action-reaction model. The encounter from these two states was not experienced by any other arms race. The Germans could not hold on for long. Their efforts were inhibited by inherent national difficulties in raising taxes and spending money on the army. It was the German army that triggered war in 1914, rather than the German navy. The army commanded huge amounts of finance. The country was unable to place a high priority to spend on the army. Their great fall was attributed to the lack of sufficient funds to finance the army. A third naval arms race was encountered by the war between Britain, Japan, and the United States. This war erupted at the end of World War I. This war was triggered by ‘selfish’ acts from both Japan and the United States. Japan focused on expanding its political power in East Asia, while the United States tried to achieve higher political influence over Britain. The three states had no intentions of prolonging this race due to financial reasons. The race ended in 1921-1922, at the Washington Conference. An arms-limitations treaty was agreed upon and a new political settlement for East Asia was established. The arms-limitations treaty contradicted the 1925 verdict by Sir Edward Grey, a former British foreign secretary. He believed that, “great armaments lead inevitably to war.” This was evident from the European armies, where an arms race contributed to the outbreak of World War I. German chancellor, Theobald von BethmannHollweg, decided to take greater risks in brinkmanship. This was in the July crisis of 1914, when he presumed that Germany stood a greater chance of winning a war in that year. His presumption was based on the fact that Russia was stepping up efforts to progress sophisticated machinery to improve its military capability. In 1930, Adolf Hitler developed an arms race, which prompted him to attack France and the Soviet Union in 1940 and 1941 respectively. Britain and France lagged behind due to inherent financial constraints within the military. This did not stop them, and Germany’s other adversaries, from advancing their rearmament in the late 1930. Hitler was forced to move his program of conquest forward to avoid being overtaken. Japan faced intense pressure to improve its arms race, in 1941. During this year, the Japanese navy had gained a lead over the United States Pacific Fleet. This did not call for celebration among the Japanese naval leaders. An American naval program had started in1940, and would overtake the Japanese navy in 1943. Coupled by political ambitions and the American oil embargo against them, Japan’s arms race attacked the United States in 1941. The arms race leads and lags were based on a background of an intense struggle accompanied by the Cold War. The superpowers of the nuclear era were not tempted by the ‘now or never’ calculations made by countries that tried to supersede their political leverage. The competition of arms between the Soviet Union and the United States did not qualify for an action-reaction model. The United States were aware of the ambitions on the part of the Soviets, but were rather slow to rearm in the mid-late 1940s due to economic and domestic political reasons. The Soviets made only a partial response after the United States increased its conventional and nuclear arms during the Korean War. It is evident that both the United States and the Soviet Union were inhibited by economic and domestic political conditions prevailing at the time. From mid-1960s the Soviets held a massive peacetime military buildup while the United States chose to exit from the race. In 1980, the United States reassessed its position. Qualitative improvements in the last American arms during the Cold War made the Soviet military leaders nervous. In the mid-1980s, they ended up accepting new ideas from Mikhail Gorbachev to raise the technological degree of the Soviet society. The arms race that had yielded the greatest pressure among contemporaries ended in an astonishing political agreement of the 20th century. The Arms Race 1980 to present day Military spending became the priority for the United States; after the election of Ronald Reagan as the president, in 1981. The president then proposed a new and expensive anti-ballistic missile system. This was to become a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) for the United States in 1983. The aim of this proposal was to design a technology based anti-ballistic missile system to defend the country from nuclear attacks. This missile system was to be placed on the ground and satellites in space. This proposal was abandoned on claims that it was too expensive and complicated. This did not affect the Americans as they were still far much ahead of the Soviets; in terms of funds and technology. At the time, Mikhail Gorbachev was advocating for peace and restructuring. The Soviet economy was on the verge of collapsing as Soviet and American relations improved late in the 1980s. On November 9th, 1989, the Berlin wall fell, uniting West and East Germany. The wall symbolized the inherent tension between the United States and the Soviet Union (Burns, Richard Dean, and Joseph p. 23). Tension had reduced as the 1990 decade began. There was a sense of ease and the threat of a possible attack had weakened. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) was introduced and signed by presidents Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush. The signatures were written by pens from melted-down nuclear missiles. Each country was required to reduce its nuclear arsenal by 50%. Improvements towards disarmament after the Cold War were inhibited by complication that emerged in the 21st century. Some countries, such as India and China, continued to test their weapons. Such acts have caused international uncertainty and political tensions among countries (Swift p. 56). Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) Some form of settlement over missile numbers was established. The greater stock of weapons that a country held, the more terrifying the potential consequences of increasing confrontations became. The agreement established was that, the two Cold War protagonists were to reduce the number of weapons they held. The two countries would be free to fly over each other’s military base, as an indication that they were adhering to a future arms control agreement. This proposal was marred with criticism from the Soviets. They saw it as an attempt by the Americans to spy over their military bases. The Soviets did not have any aircraft to fly over the United States military bases. Resolving this issue did not result in any significant agreement, since both countries were convinced of their own moral superiority. No one could trust the other. There was an astonishing outrage when each country’s best intentions were questioned (Burns, Richard Dean, and Joseph p. 40). Deterrence would only be effective if it was mutual between the two sides. They decided to open negotiations. The United States held that the two sides should abandon the anti-ballistic missile system. The two sides would only achieve mutual deterrence if they remained defenseless. The Soviets did not accept to support the American position. They held the position that it was their duty to protect their citizens. In their defense, for holding stockpiles, they argued that offensive weapons were immoral, while defensive weapons were moral. Failure to have a mutual agreement on deterrence, it took five years to establish the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I). The two sides settled on having two anti-ballistic missile sites. This decision was later reversed and they were to hold only one anti-ballistic missile system each. The agreement further allowed them to hold the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile systems (ICBMs) that were under construction. The two sides reached a consensus about the terms set by the agreement; but indicated that they would only adhere to the terms if only the other party did. Criticism of mutual deterrence The strategy of the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was to provide a level of assurance that both sides would suffer from an atomic exchange. Both sides were not supposed to have any protection against a nuclear attack. They were to suffer equally in the case of such an occurrence. This was the idea behind mutual deterrence. Nobody would benefit from a surprise attack. Trying to maintain a degree of parity by building more missiles was deemed unnecessary (Keegan p. 27). Some aspects of the Mutual Assured Destruction were questionable. Ronald Reagan argued that the United States should be defended. Advocates of MAD argued that deterrence would only work if it was mutual between both sides, and that each side remained equally vulnerable. In that case, peace campaigners argued that the probability of war occurring was uncertain. A mere accident was sufficient to erupt into war, pushing the world over the edge. Some nations argued that deterrence promoted war; instead of advocating for peace (Bird, Kai, and Martin p. 43). Deterrence worked on the perception of ability and resolve; that is, the possession of weapons and the willingness to launch the missiles respectively. Both sides were required to show resolve. It was argued that this perception triggered nations to believe that, death and destruction could be launched on a small scale. This was evident in many of the wars of the Cold War. It was believed that the war between Afghanistan and Vietnam was caused by the deterrence strategy. The degree of deterrence required was also questioned. This was evident in the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Kennedy opted to launch air-strikes to destroy the missiles. He later rejected the option when he learnt that only a handful of them had a chance of surviving. Instance indicates that a little deterrence can go a long way. Analysis The general improvement of weapons of military power by rival states during peacetime constitutes an arms race. This can be termed as a ‘game’ with its own logic. The political and economic calculations that mold the ‘game’ remain unclear. An analysis of the Cold War indicates that, the activities of the other side/state determine the behavior of another state. The ‘game’ is rather set by the reaction from other states and not the motives, plans, and resources of one country. It is not an analysis that denotes the ‘finish line’ of the ‘game,’ it is the province of assertion. Most analysts argue that the accumulation of arms is triggered by the likelihood of war. This argument has been countered by cynics who argue that an arms race is established from domestic interests. An examination of the historical evidence obtained from the ‘Cold War era’ reveals a different picture. Arms races are driven by political purposes. An interest to change the political status quo can warrant the establishment of an arms race. Other states that are content with the quo are swift to react, but the reaction may be inhibited by economic and domestic political considerations. The results of an arms race have frequently determined the timing of a war and intensified a sense of rivalry between different states. Most often, arms races end up with a political agreement between adversaries or a settlement to moderate the buildup of weapons. CONCLUSIONS The nuclear arms race during the Cold War has generated a great deal of interest in the evaluation of states’ security. It is evident that arms races increase the chances of war by straining political relations and undermining a state’s military stability; by analyzing the integration and utilization of the arms race during the Cold War. An arms race can also serve as a prevention measure by a state that faces an aggressive adversary. There are many schools of thought about the causes that trigger the establishment of an arms race. Some argue that arms races develop from rational responses to opportunities and external threat, while others argue that they develop from domestic interests among scientists involved in research and development. These views tend to be equally contradictory. Cynics view arms control as a means of reducing the probability of war. Advocates argue that the competition of military power protects a state’s international interest, therefore preserving peace. Arms races are delicate areas in international relations (IR) theory. Developing, and testing, arms is critical for a state to acquire the required military capabilities to achieve its international objectives. Every state should aim at establishing positive international relations by cooperating with its adversaries to minimize threats. Beyond the arms races evaluation, more work on International relations theory should address when a nation is supposed to practice competitive and cooperative policies. The security dilemma, neoclassical realism, structural realism, and defensive realism are among the general works that International Relations theory needs to address (Fearon p. 3). Bibliography Bharat, Karnad. "Security Wise." No nuclear war, but an arms race? 33 (2011): 1-15. Print. Bird, Kai, and Martin J. Sherwin. American Prometheus: the triumph and tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. New York: A.A. Knopf, 2005. Print. Burns, Richard Dean, and Joseph M. Siracusa. A global history of the nuclear arms race: weapons, strategy and politics. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, 2013. Print. Fearon, James D.. "Political Science." Arming and Arms Races 1 (2011): 1-43. Print. Glaser, Charles L.. "Political Science." The Causes and Consequences of Arms Races 1 (2000): 1-27. Print. History of strategic air and ballistic missile defense. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 2009. Print. Keegan, John. The American Civil War: a military history. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Print. "Nuclear Files: Timeline of the Nuclear Age." Nuclear Files: Timeline of the Nuclear Age. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. . Ojserkis, Raymond P.. Beginnings of the Cold War arms race the Truman administration and the U.S. arms build-up. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003. Print. Swift, John. "History Today." The Soviet-American arms race 1 (2009): 1-10. Print. Read More