• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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 emergence of the Superpowers 1945-1962

    He made sure that in the post-war world he took over the Eastern European States and that they were rules under his ideas etc. Truman: Became a member of the US senate in 1935 and appointed vice President to Roosevelt in 1944.

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

    The reasons that explained why the capitalist world was again badly affected by the steep increase in oil prices in the second oil shock years if 1979-80 are largely similar to that of the first oil shock years. If the capitalist nations had invested in increasing fuel efficiency or seeking

  1. Should Britain eliminate its nuclear arsenal?

    MccGwire consolidates this by pointing out that we no longer live in a bi-polar system. Thus the existence of a multi-polar system with one or two more players would sharply increase the future probability of inadvertent or accidental war (MccGwire, 1994, pg225).

  2. The Cuban Missile Crisis

    political moves, conflict inside the White House allowed American foreign policy to appear fragmented and thus unpredictable. These things ensured that an already precarious situation was complicated by factors that masked the true intentions of each side. Cuba may seem an unlikely place for this clash between superpowers to occur,

  1. The Sino-Soviet Split

    a new Treaty of Friendship and Alliance be drafted to replace the old one signed by the Soviet Union and the GMD. When the Chinese leader traveled to Moscow to discuss this issue, Stalin did not even turn up at the station to meet him, a disrespectful gesture which deeply wounded Mao's dignity.

  2. History of the United States

    that black people ceaselessly protest Jim Crow laws, demand education in the highest professions as well as in crafts, and work for complete social integration. In 1910 the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) was founded to advance these ideals.

  1. What was 'dtente' between the superpowers and why did it fail?

    Domestically, both sides reaped the awards of their efforts between 1971 and 1973. After being able to declare that peace was at hand in Vietnam (an issue which had so troubled the U.S.) and aided by the warming of the American people to the prospect of the Cold War coming

  2. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the blockade

    The blockade solution was one with many advantages and only a few disadvantages, which made it the most favourable of the three options. It's main advantage was that it involved action, which showed the world that the United States would not back down, but yet it did not involve violence, and therefore reducing the chances of a nuclear war.

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