1. Downing, Taylor. “Under the Mushroom Cloud” History Today 58, no. 8 (2008): 22-23.
a. Multiple times during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union came close to engaging in a nuclear war, but they did not due to the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD). However, now that the Cold War has ended and several more countries have become nuclear powers, game theory states that international politics will become less stable and predictable. This negates the effects of the principle of MAD and makes nuclear war a larger possibility. The article supports its argument with historical facts about the Cold War and game theory.
b. Taylor Downing is a writer and a historian who has published several books about the Cold War. He
…show more content…
The article suggests that the current doctrine of MAD followed by nuclear powers is not needed nor is it relevant. MAD requires a country to have many nuclear weapons ready to fire rapidly and that a country has many nuclear to devastate your opponent in case of attack. However, now that the Cold War and nuclear arms race are over as well, it makes no sense financially for the United States and Russia to keep such massive nuclear arsenals that are expensive to maintain. The author seeks for countries to replace the MAD doctrine with a Cooperative Threat Reduction doctrine, which is a form of nuclear non-proliferation for nuclear powers where countries could reduce the amount and build alliances with each other. The author backs up their claims with facts and statistics
b. Michael Krepon is a co-founder and author for the American thinktank called The Stimson Center, he has taught at the University of Virginia and he worked on nuclear arms control for U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The Stimson Center focuses on a wide range of global issues from nuclear non-proliferation, wildlife protection, water security and other issues. He has been working in the field of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation since 1989 and is an expert in the field. The cited article has 18 other citations and was published in a peer-reviewed
…show more content…
Holdstock, Douglas and Waterston, Lis. “Nuclear Weapons, a Continuing Threat to Health.” The Lancet 355, no. 9214 (2000): 1544-1547.
a. Nuclear weapons, even when not involved in nuclear war, are still bad for the public. Misunderstandings or terrorism could result in the detonation of a nuclear bomb. Miners of uranium and plutonium for nuclear bombs have higher rates of lung cancers than non-miners. Areas close to nuclear test zones still have higher levels of radiation than normal even after more than 50 years and the surrounding areas and the residents have higher chances of certain cancers. The author supports their claims with statistics and facts.
b. Douglas Holdstock was a noted doctor and gastroenterologist at Ashford Hospital in Middlesex in the United Kingdom who focused on the effects of radioactivity and nuclear weapons on health. He is an expert in the field publishing several books and articles on the effects of radiation on health. Lis Waterston is a doctor who has only published this article. The cited article has been cited in 15 other articles and was published in a peer reviewed
This book talks about when the United States almost started a full nuclear war because of a few soviet missiles flew into the states allegedly. They flew B-47s and B-52s as air fleets for 40 years of this international problem between the Soviet Union and the United States. In the year 1945 America ended World War 2, as the head nuclear power in the world. Even though the U.S. was the nuclear power, they did not have any nuclear bombs. The whole point of this “cold war” was to maintain a peace among uneasy times, which did not work.
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
It was an effective tactic because neither side of a conflict could contemplate mutually assured destruction in a nuclear war, acting as a nuclear deterrence for both the side to pose damage, and the country on the 'receiving end'. This again depicts how brinkmanship prevented the cold war from becoming a hot war as each superpower took action in such a way their opposition would not react and remain at
We know from history that when planning a re-division of the world, the imperialist powers have always lined up military blocks.”. Furthermore, they also used alliances to block each other off and defend themselves. These alliances are listed as NATO and Warsaw Pact in Document 5. One last weapon in the arms race, this was a time of building up nuclear weapons and the threat to use them if necessary. But for some, it was a reason to avoid war.
In Danger and Survival, McGeorge Bundy suggests that the policy proposed in the speech allowed citizens to believe Eisenhower was presenting a reasonable policy alternative to the harsh eventuality of total nuclear war. In October of 1953, Eisenhower approved a shift away from the policy of containment advocated in NSC-68, initiated by significant cuts in the American conventional military budget and emphasis on larger nuclear stockpiles (Lavoy, 2003). The combination of possible avenues of cooperation and the harsh realities of a nuclear world, both effectively communicated in Eisenhower’s address, allowed the administration to propose more extreme policies such as massive retaliation to the domestic politic (Osgood, 2000). The unique dual-messaging justified the buildup of the American nuclear stockpile as well as deep budget and personnel cuts in conventional warfare
At the same time, Reagan was deeply worried about the accepted national policy that had come out since the Soviets acquired atomic weapons of "mutual assured destruction. " This said that the Soviet Union and United Sates would not attack each other out of fear. This, said Reagan, was "a truly mad policy." He believed that it was wrong to destroy the civilian population of another country in an attack.
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.
Brinkmanship is a strategy that involves countries almost going to war without actually going to war (Ayers R92). The Cold War affected many presidents for an example president Truman's Presidential policy. According
Also, the author looks at a portion of the compelling people who helped to resolve the war that had developed into stable long peace. Case in point, Gaddis concentrates on the 1962 Cuban miscalculations of Nikita Khrushchev that President Kennedy got confused and nearly went to war. Gaddis says, "Khrushchev slipped missiles into Cuba, predominantly as a push to spread revolution all through Latin America." In another dialog, Gaddis concentrates on the mid 1980s when Reagan 's rearmament extended and emphasized talk to the 'Evil Empire ' made Moscow trust that America had propelled plans for a preemptive atomic strike along these lines the need to get ready in like manner. Likewise, the author concentrates on Dwight Eisenhower 's endeavors to maintain a strategic distance from an atomic clash.
From the 1940’s through 1991, America and the Soviet Union were in the middle of a constant stalemate pitted against the ideologies of the Untied States idea of capitalism and the Soviet Union’s idea of Communism. Although most of the conflict was based around political viewpoints rather than military action, in between the 1945 to 1948, by 1950 the Soviet Union lead the communist takeover of China. According to the Teaching Elenaor Roosevelt Glossary study on the Cold War, by 1960, both sides had invested in a large amounts of money and effort towards nuclear weapons. From the perspective of both sides, this was seen as an attempt to maintain parity with each other's stockpiles, but also the idea of deterring conflict through "mutually assured destruction". This had come to be regarded as vital and dire to the national interest of both governing bodies.
As weaponry advances, the accessability to make and use nuclear weapons will become easier, and more deadly. The biggest fear in the 1960’s was the ongoing war between the US and the USSR, also known as the Soviet Union. In Europe during the 1960’s, the dividing line between the eastern and western forces remained frozen or at a stand still for decades (“The Cold War…” 1). This lead to nonstop conflict and fighting between all of the European countries and their people. During the many years of the Cold War, the biggest fear was nuclear warfare between the US and Russia, then known as the USSR (“The Cold War…” 2).
Especially since Eisenhower believed in massive retaliation, which was funding the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and less funding to the army. Eisenhower’s policy had backlash from both conservatives and liberals. As stated in Document E, “...whether a policy accepting the first blow may be the best one.” People believed that massive retaliation was not the best way to avoid nuclear war. Document E serves the purpose of showing the faults of massive retaliations and how in the grand scheme it isn’t a sufficient way to keep away from a nuclear war.
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
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.
It sounds a little far-fetched but this was during The Cold War; nuclear tension was at an all-time high between the world’s most powerful