• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why did the superpowers find it possible to reduce their nuclear arsenals in the late 1980s, but only to limit them before that time?

Extracts from this document...


Why did the superpowers find it possible to reduce their nuclear arsenals in the late 1980s, but only to limit them before that time? Since the early 1960s, both United States and the Soviet Union have acknowledged that the nuclear arms race would be an end to itself. They have came to realize that the mutual antagonism, though profound, is also 'incomplete'; that the unfettered evolution of unilateral decisions on armaments is likely to produce a grossly excessive general level of armaments; and that there must be scope for agreements which, while falling well short of complete disarmament or complete nuclear disarmament, would benefit everyone1. There were two major treaties in the period before the 1980s that brought about limitations in anti-ballistic missile systems to two by each side (SALT 1) and more comprehensive quantitative limits on strategic launcher systems, with sub-limits on MIRV-ed launchers (SALT 2). Even these, however, were not genuine limits, and left room for further increases. It was not until the INF treaty of 1987, followed by START in 1991 that reductions were made to their nuclear forces, of a 4% decrease in nuclear missiles and land-based ICBMs respectively. The reason for the rapid progress to reductions in armaments in the later years is that there was a dramatic shift in the entire context in which strategic arms control occurred, and the political and diplomatic climate made it possible. ...read more.


The strategic balance of both nations also did not allow for reductions in terms of nuclear weapons. Before the Vietnam War, US had a clear superiority in terms of nuclear weapons, with 144 Polaris SLBMs and 294 ICBMs when the Soviet Union only possessed 10 ICBMs. Thus US wanted to maintain their clear superiority, as it gave them a strong strategy to deter Soviet aggression by threatening massive retaliation, and an edge in political matters and conflicts. USSR was positioned in a state of inferiority, and wanted to reach equality, in order to gain recognition as an equal superpower, and thus it was impossible to negotiate for reductions at this point. As Mason rightly pointed out, "Previous attempts at arms control had failed because they had always tended to freeze Soviet forces into a position of permanent inferiority. However by 1969, Soviet Union had overtaken US in ICBMS, and in 1971 had plainly surpassed US in this area, and reached a certain state of essential equivalence, even if US maintained their superiority in long range missiles, SLBMs and MIRVs. At this point, talks on limitations could begin, with the production of the SALT 1 accord of June 1972, when the United States limited missile launchers and anti-ballistic missile systems to two on each side. Even so, the SALT accords were not so much 'limitations' on both countries as the levels were still higher than their current levels and still gave them room for further increases. ...read more.


Economic considerations were also a major boost for arms reduction in the late 1980s. The arms race budget was spiraling, and reached a peak in 1985 in US at $401 billion, and pressure to reduce discretionary spending, intensified by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction act, led to steady reductions in the defense budget through the remainder of the Reagan administration, which further encouraged them to accept Gorbachev's proposal for reductions. US was still recovering from a budget deficit after the Vietnam War, and growing inflation made it difficult for the US to sustain its economy, and reductions would allow US to shift more funds to its struggling domestic sector. On Soviet Union's side, it was suffering serious budgetary problems, and its domestic sector was backward and suffering from rampant unemployment, and structurally the Soviet model had made for large amounts of wastage and a lack of motivation amongst workers that had accounted for a large part of its economic problems. Gorbachev knew that he could not sustain the arms race, that Soviet Union was not able to meet the further challenge of SDI and the inflow of funds, and even if they managed it the domestic sector had to be revived and he regarded that a more important priority. All these aided the push for arms reductions in the late 1980s with the increasing pressure on both governments to cut down on their military budget and move funds to the domestic sector. 1 Pg. 102 2 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the blockade

    If this were refused, the United States would be justified in taking action against Cuba.xxxvii President Kennedy realized that with this solution, there must be room made for compromise, as it was dependent on all three countries negotiating a settlement that would satisfy them all.xxxviii One compromise proposed was a

  2. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    Union, it was perhaps understandable that some Russian leaders viewed America's delay on the second front question with suspicion, sarcasm, and anger. When D-Day arrived, Stalin acknowledged the operation to be one of the greatest military ventures of human history.

  1. The Prelude to the 1975 War and the Cairo Agreement.

    engaged by fire, entered an open gate, passed around one sewer pipe barrier and between two others, flattened the Sergeant of the Guard's sandbagged booth at the building's entrance, penetrated the lobby of the building and detonated while the majority of the occupants slept.

  2. The Cuban Missile Crisis

    It is clear from similar incidents that a need to appear strong led each superpower to use a certain degree of deception in its dealings with the other. This did not essentially cause the conflict, however; as already stated, the missile crisis had been set up by intensifications in the

  1. The emergence of the Superpowers 1945-1962

    Soviets believed the USA wanted to create its own sphere of diplomatic, strategic and economic influence across Europe. o What part did personality play in the deteriorating relations? (Esp. Truman & Stalin) Stalin: He adopted the name Stalin as it meant 'steel' therefore that tells us that he was not


    * It was quite common for whole families - three generations often - to live in one room. Dormitories were supplied for workers, who were often separated from families. Canteens at work provided food. Standard of living * There is no doubt that the standard of living fell for most ordinary Russians during the 1930s.

  1. The Crisis Decades(TM) of capitalism in the early 1970s and early 1980s were the ...

    Thus it could be seen that the Bretton Woods system, an integral establishment of the Golden Age in promoting world trade, encouraged oil producers to raise oil prices to offset their loss of revenue when it broke down. Nonetheless, the fact that the price increase was so steep suggests that

  2. Should Britain eliminate its nuclear arsenal?

    Strategic defence systems could be built to counter the predicament of cheaters. Even if states did cheat the damage from war would be slight. Re-armament parity would allow states to re-arm at the same pace negating the problem of unstable arms build-ups with ineffable effects.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work