Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there …show more content…
Sagan brings forth a great point across in which although the Cold War implied that nuclear weapons helped prevent war and bring stability to the world, the collapse of a bipolar system could become more damaging. In supporting his point, I believe that although there may seem to be no signs of a catastrophic accident thus far, the spread of nuclear weapons, may serve as a ‘calm before the storm’ in which sooner or later all those who obtain nuclear weapons may finally come to using them. This gives reason to cease further spread of nuclear weapons. However, I found it interesting how Kenneth Waltz used structural realism to argue that nuclear weapons represent a type of balancer in inter-state relations. In a sense, I understood that Mr. Waltz was saying that deterrence operates by frightening a state out of attacking and that peace is achieved by having the ability to punish others with nuclear weapons but never intending to use them. Although Waltz points out how the idea of how massive destruction caused by nuclear weapons makes it less likely for states to rise up, he fails to see how having possession of nuclear weapons still brings about the possibilities of accidental. I also disagree with waltz and believe arms races are reduced by arms control agreements and trust between states rather than the power of obtaining nuclear weapons as a possible last resort. The way I see it, Waltz opinion explains the short-term effect of having nuclear weapons and that is
In the document “Doomed to Perish”: George Catlin’s Depictions of the Mandan by Katheryn S. Hight, she analyzes the work of George Catlin while he traveled to the Mandan colony west of the Missouri River. Hight identifies that Catlin created a false and imaginative depiction of the Mandan Indians based on his social and political ideas which ended up creating an entertainment enterprise rather than reporting history. Catlin’s extravagant depictions of the Indians, which did have an impact on the Indian Policy in America, seemingly motivates Hight to write on this subject.
The Cold War was a period of dark and melancholic times when the entire world lived in fear that the boiling pot may spill. The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check to suspend the progression of USSR’s radical ambitions and programs. From the suspenseful delirium from the Cold War, the United States often engaged in a dangerous policy of brinksmanship through the mid-1950s. Fortunately, these actions did not lead to a global nuclear disaster as both the US and USSR fully understood what the weapons of mass destruction were capable of.
Seventy-one years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear power is rarely recognized as a solution to the energy crisis. Instead, it is associated with the most violent pits of Hell: warfare. The demands of warfare exhaust the scientific community and deplete its resources, as well as decimating the human population.
Nolan, Janne E. 1999. An Elusive Consensus: Nuclear Weapons and American Security After the Cold War. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Glynn, Patrick. Closing Pandora's Box "Arms Races, Arms Control, and the History of the Cold War". New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc. 1992.
...he international economic and political order. A study also suggest the liberal hegemon of US intention to use soft power to spread liberal ideas around the world would only give a negative impact on international stability rather than bringing peace it caused violence in certain states such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea (Jehangir, 2012). Other than that, the concept of nuclear peace had been criticised as it may causes the rise of terrorist organisation; thus, weaken the initial realist’s theory of conventional deterrence and nuclear peace. The introduction of nuclear weapons as promoting peace led to the emergence of terrorists groups and developed an unstable side in the post-cold war. This would result to aggressive state behaviour due to lack of trust and developed great suspicions between nuclear states and fear of high risk of accidental nuclear war.
According to Dwight D. Eisenhower‘s statement, nuclear warfare caused widespread panic throughout the globe about the possibilities of a nuclear holocaust. He stated, “If men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man's intelligence and his comprehension... would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution” (“Biography of Dwight Eisenhower” ). The Cold War was nothing more than a rivalry that developed between the United States and the Soviet Union, at the...
Nuclear Arms, as opposed to conventional arms, generate their destructive force from nuclear reactions. The issues that are related to the use of nuclear weapons is also far different than the issues generated by conventional bombs. The long term
The Cold War is famous not only for its long engagement between the two super powers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, but also because of the heightened physical tension that nuclear power brought to the global stage. Winning the war at the cost of human annihilation was not abnormal political conversation, and from the 1940s onward, fear of global destruction became a daily concern (Granieri, 2011). The circumstances of the Cold War made it different than previous international conflicts because it was the first conflict that could potentially lead to massive, worldwide destruction. Without the dangers of nuclear power, the Cold War wouldn't have differed much from previous historical conflicts between powerful states.
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
The main parties who is associated with the debate are governments, experts, and the country people. These people have given out their opinions regarding the effects of nuclear ene...
The arrival of nuclear weapons transformed the international playing field permanently and new threats such as non-state actors have immerged as a result. Initially, only superpowers with nuclear arsenals had a global role as was evident during the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union, but nuclear proliferation triggered a race to possess this power in the last 60 years.
As the cold war had brought upon a lot of conflict, it had also had the struggle of the economy from the remnants of the Second World War and the 70’s that had really brought the entire situation down. In the beginning of the nuclear arms race, it was commonly believed that nuclear weapons provided more benefits than the cost was so they justified their somewhat frivolous spending. While the greater explosive power of nuclear weapons may cause them to be cheaper per kiloton, as wholesale of a particular item does in today’s world, this statement proves to be untrue for the arms race and it even hides the actual economic costs of the nuclear weapons. Economic pressure had already been with the United States from the previous years that had left a negative impact before the beginning of the nuclear arms race, and all the millions, billions, and even trillions spent on acc...
The Cold War historiography, specifically the issue of nuclear deterrence has provided historians the classic dialectic of an original thesis that is challenged by an antithesis. Both then emerge in the resolution of a new synthesis. Unfortunately, each evolution of a new synthesis is quickly demolished with each political crisis and technological advance during the Cold War narrative. The traditional/orthodox views were often challenged by the conventional wisdom with the creation of synthesis or post revisionism. There appears to be a multiple historiographical trends on nuclear deterrence over the Cold War; each were dependent and shaped upon international events and technological developments. I have identified four major trends: the orthodox, the revisionist, the post revisionist, st and the New Left. Each of these different historical approaches had its proponents and opponents, both in the military as well as the political and
The Cold War was a time of great tension all over the world. From 1945 to 1989, the United States was the leader and nuclear power and was competing with the Soviet Union to create huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. However, even though the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons are still a threat. Countries around the world strive to create nuclear power, and they do not promise to use it for peaceful purposes. Some examples of the struggles caused by nuclear weapons include the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s recent nuclear weapon program. Surely, nuclear weapons have created conflict all over the world since the Cold War era.