Rhetorical Analysis: The Cold War

928 Words2 Pages

The Cold War, a pivotal chapter in modern history, emerged from the ideological chasm between the United States and Soviet Union following World War II. Rooted in conflicting political, economic, and social ideologies, it became a global standoff by a number of maneuvering, espionage, and proxy conflicts. The United States championed democratic capitalism and individual freedoms, while the Soviet Union upheld communism, centralized by control and collective ownership. This ideological clash led to tensions, marked noticeably by the arms race and development of nuclear arsenals. However, it was the strategic maneuvers and diplomatic procedures during Ronald Reagan’s presidency that played a decisive role in thawing the icy relations between …show more content…

Shortly after, he surprised many by proposing a long-term plan to develop defense against strategic missile attacks, aiming to make nuclear weapons ineffective and outdated. This tactic was known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or “Star Wars,” and it challenged the traditional thinking on arms control, suggesting a departure from previous negotiation approaches. Some critics, however, view this as an oversimplification. While Reagan’s rhetoric branded the Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” this characterization ignored the complexity of geopolitics and instead contributed to a dangerous binary narrative of good versus evil. While Reagan’s actions certainly had an impact, they didn’t solely change the Soviet narrative, and efforts to move beyond containment were confused, counteracted, and ultimately unsuccessful. Nuclear weapons were crucial in prompting both sides to seek common ground, and Reagan’s personal stance against them drove more of the changes than his administration’s tough approach (Deudney/Ikenberry). Some within his administration even supported this stance, but Reagan’s actual policies were actually more nuanced. He understood the limitations of ideological foreign policy and balanced his tough stance with practicality and timing. By investing in missile defense, Reagan signaled to the Soviets that the United States wasn’t content with mere deterrence and sought to gain a …show more content…

He engaged in direct negotiations with Mikhali Gorbachev, one of the leaders of the Soviet Union, to pursue arms control agreements and reduce the risk of nuclear war at the Reykjavik summit in October 1986. Leading up to this meeting, there hadn’t been much progress in arms control talks, and there was tension between intelligence agencies after an incident involving the KGB and the FBI. During negotiations to resolve the tension, Gorbachev suggested a quick summit to address stalled talks over nuclear weapons in Europe. Reagan agreed, but then Gorbachev proposed significant concessions beyond expectations, including large cuts in nuclear weapons and accepting Reagan’s “zero option” for intermediate-range nuclear forces (Gaddis). As an unexpected alignment between Reagan and Gorbachev, this surprised the American side who offered a compromise to eliminate ballistic missiles within a decade in exchange for the right to deploy defenses against remaining threats. Gorbachev then proposed eliminating all nuclear weapons within ten years. Initially, Reagan seemed to agree, but disagreements arose over Gorbachev’s demand to ban testing of strategic defense systems (Gaddis). This led to the summit ending abruptly and without agreement, with all of the proposed agreements seen as hastily made and lacking careful consideration (Deudney/Ikenberry). But while the summit ultimately ended

Open Document