The art of fear is essential in nuclear deterrence. Using the film Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1964) I will argue that nuclear deterrence is hard to achieve when communication of nuclear capabilities is not well established amongst states. In this paper, I will use the film Dr. Strangelove (1964) to argue how theories such as deterrence theory, realist theory, security dilemma, preventative war, pre-emptive war as well as relative gains and zero sum game led to a failure to achieve nuclear deterrence between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To make my argument on how more nuclear weapons may hinder deterrence, this essay will proceed as follows; I will firstly discuss the how nuclear deterrence and mutually
In the early 1980s, the Soviet Union, already having threatened Western Europe with their superior military, created nuclear missiles that they plan to use to further terrorize western countries. The USSR’s imperialistic behavior towards weaker countries gives the U.S. and Europe reason to believe they want to use their growing military to expand their western border. Reagan supported the idea for the U.S. to install their own missiles, and even offered an alternative plan to the Soviets called the “Zero Option”. This plan required the USSR to remove all of their nuclear missiles from Europe, and in turn, the United States would not install any of their own (Fuller). On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Reagan gives the “Evil Empire” speech to
One option during the Cuban Missile Crisis was to go into an all out nuclear war. None of the countries wanted this option, but it was still possible. This is true because in Document C it says, “The most important thing for us is to get an agreement as soon as possible.” This proves that both the USSR and the US wanted to come to a quick
(Doc D) The United States worked even under the pressure of a potential nuclear threat to keep the communist Soviets from gaining power through weaponry in
Before his election to the presidency, Dwight Eisenhower sought to contain the atom’s destructive power (). Yet, in his first speech at the United Nations as President of the United States, Eisenhower argued for the normalization of the international proliferation of nuclear technology (Office of the President, 1953). The motivation behind his now famous “Atoms for Peace” speech illuminates an interesting contradiction between the obvious American nonproliferation objectives and the president’s political calculation. The key to understanding this contradiction is to separate Eisenhower’s contemporary political motivations from the consequences of the president’s choice to pursue international proliferation of peaceful nuclear technology.
Throughout the years of 1945 and 1991, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were involved in what is today is identified as the Cold War. During this dark time many lived in fear due to the newest weapon that would be used in war, nuclear weapons. These weapons caused fear throughout the whole world because of their capability to kill thousands with just one. Today many debate over the abolition of nuclear weapons in the United States. Some argue that the U.S. should abolish nuclear weapons, while others say nuclear weapons should not be abolished in the United States.
From a meeting of President Eisenhower’s National Security Council, a conclusion was reached, “…we could not permit ourselves to be panicked by the Soviet Achievement [Sputnik]” (Document 3). The launch of the Sputnik only encouraged Americans to accomplish more scientific breakthroughs—before the Soviets. Before the release of the Sputnik, President Truman had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Shortly after, the Soviets had detonated their first atomic bomb in the late 1940s. Since the U.S. and the Soviets had both achieved a level of destruction through the atomic bomb they became engaged in an “arms race.”
On the Beach by Nevil Shute is an apocalyptic novel written in the mid-1950s. The non-fictional account tells the story of multiple people in Australia, and their life after nuclear war. The characters all cope with their approaching demise from radiation, and the story successfully shows the differences in each person’s handling of the situation. The Northern Hemisphere of the Earth has been destroyed by nuclear war and the only surviving people are those living in southern Australia.
Overall, the work is worth reading and is recommendable for students and scholars with interest in the Truman administration, atomic warfare and weapons, the second world war, relations between the US and the Soviet, and those curious of knowing the reasons that led to Truman’s decision to use two atomic bombs on
“Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy….. the fear to attack” (55:09). This is the quote used by Dr. Strangelove himself to define deterrence. This lines up with Schelling’s definition which is, in simple words, prevention of actions by fear of consequences (Schelling, p. 71). Another common theme in this movie is Brinkmanship, which Schelling defines as “the creation and deployment of a problematic threat.
These groups had different opinions on two specific aspects of the nuclear struggle and Strategic Defense Initiative. The first was the debatable level of the threat of the Soviet Union. The second was whether or not arms control was necessary. For many historians, the policies and processes caused the Soviet Union and the Cold War to come to their conclusions. This network of processes rather than the leading figures were the factors in creating the certain stages of the Cold War.
In regards to the development of the nuclear bomb, Einstein said the following: “it is impossible to achieve peace as long as every single action is taken with a possible future conflict in view”. The phenomenon is true as wells so towards nuclear bombs because of it's original use and first public view. In spite of that, we still can use nuclear power as energy and as an appliance for treating
His case studies of Germany, France, and Russia, allows for one to clearly see the trend of the continental powers of Europe adopting offensive doctrines. Most importantly, his explanation of the social and bureaucratic roots of the “Cult of the Offensive” clearly demonstrates the drift of the case studies coming to believe that preemptive war was the only option left. Finally, Snyder’s correlation of the “Cult of the Offensive” that enveloped pre-WW1 Europe with Soviet military policy in 1984, shows the practical applications of his theory to be used as a tool in identifying worrying trends in international relations. In a modern context, one could take North Korea as a case study, and see if the roots of the “Cult of the Offensive” that Snyder identified as evidence for his thesis have taken hold of the state. Therefore, his explanation of the root causes of the “Cult of Offensive” and the unstable system it created, shows how it was a contributing cause to World War
General deterrence and Specific deterrence at first glance seems like it runs hand and hand. As you look closer and understand it better, you come to the realization that they are two different topics. General deterrence is focused on the legal punishment if you are caught committing a crime. Specific deterrence focuses on punishment of criminals that are apprehended. So many question still remain on how effective both deterrence really are.
For my research theory paper, I will be writing a research paper on two theories and will then apply them to a real world situation. However, for the purpose of this paper today, I will be talking about the rational deterrence theory. Throughout this paper, I will talk about the deterrence theory and talk about the different points of the theory. This is the first of my two theories I will be talking about. The purpose of this paper is to help set the foundation of the paper by defining what the deterrence theory is.
Other than that, as we know the original purpose of nuclear deterrence is for Soviet Union to win the Cold War without having to go through World War III. We can see that used of nuclear deterrence happen in big power state, United States is an example of it. In 2003, United State of America attack Iraq because President George W. Bush say that Iraq have a nuclear technology and trying to attack them. Unfortunately for them, there