To what extent did the nuclear arms race make the world a more dangerous place in the years 1949-63?
To what extent did the nuclear arms race make the world a more dangerous place in the years 1949-63? The arms race arguably made the world a more dangerous place, the word 'dangerous' could be defined as an unsafe threat to the world and human population. This was demonstrated through the tests of 'brinkmanship' in the Cuban missile crisis. The increased spending, in order to impress the 'third world', leading to new delivery systems, such as the ICBM's in 1957, the destructive power of the new H-bomb and Lithium bomb. However, the arms race acted as a strong deterrent through promise of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' and also creating a limited war due to the capacity of the nuclear weapons. The nuclear arms race made the world a more dangerous place; it evoked a threat coming from the two world superpowers. The destruction capacities of this developed nuclear weapon have increased thousand times more than the atomic bomb. The world greatly changed when the USA exploded the Hydrogen bomb in 1952; following by the Russians creation of the Hydrogen bomb in 1953 this led to the world becoming a much more dangerous place. This stimulated the arms race and creating a resilient competitive atmosphere between the world powers. In result obviously the damages of the consequences would be greater than of the atomic bomb more, therefore this placed the world in a dangerous position.
How far do you agree that the Cold War broke out in Europe because the USA and the USSR disagreed fundamentally about how they should treat the shattered European economy?
How far do you agree that the Cold War broke out in Europe because the USA and the USSR disagreed fundamentally about how they should treat the shattered European economy? Subsequent to the Second World War in 1945, the European economy was in tatters as much of the infrastructure had been laid to waste and industrial centres destroyed. As such, the two main victors of the war, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), declared their commitment to postwar unity and mutual cooperation in improving global conditions. 1 Yet, in less than two years, a fervent rivalry between the two nations led to a breaking up of accord, concerning mutual blaming, the division of Europe, as well as the difference in political ideologies. The Cold War broke out in Europe in 1947, signifying a sharp and unexpected deterioration in postwar relations between the USA and USSR. Yet all through this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers was played out in numerous areas: military coalitions; ideology, military, industrial, and technological developments. Europe was split in half, with Western Europe supporting the USA, and Eastern Europe being an ally of the USSR. So, was the disagreement on how to deal with the shattered European economy between the USA and USSR the sole reason for the Cold War? I would agree with this statement only to a small
The collapse of the USSR was caused by internal problems and had nothing to do with the Cold War. Assess this view.
“The collapse of the USSR was caused by internal problems and had nothing to do with the Cold War”. Assess this view. In 1991, after over half a century of communist rule, the USSR ceased to exist as a political entity after many years of decline. This statement asserts that the cause for this cessation was only due to the effects caused by issues, policies and the framework within the USSR itself, and had absolutely no relation with regards to the external problem of the Cold War - defined by Ann Lane as a state of tension, conflict, hostility and competition which characterized US-USSR relations though not amounting to an actual war; this subscribes to the Soviet Initiative school of thought. However, this statement is unfair insofar that the collapse of the USSR was not only the result of trouble within its territorial boundaries, but rather a combination of factors both internal and external, including the foundational weakness of the Soviet economic system coupled with the long term pressure brought forth by the US policy of containment, the Reagan Doctrine as a catalyst, the turning point in USSR’s history with Gorbachev’s reforms and finally the immediate effect of the August 1991 coup d’etat that characterized the USSR’s decline. As such, this essay espouses that it was an amalgamation of both factors both within and outside the USSR that served as a
Who was to blame for the Cold War?
As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signified, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold but not clothed." This statement could be directly applied to the Cold War. The term "Cold War" means "a state of political hostility and military tension between two countries or power blocs, involving propaganda, subversion, threats, etc" (Cold War Def.). The Cold War lasted from the end of WWII, in 1945, to the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1989. It also included the Korean and Vietnam Wars and other conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. Both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) were responsible for the political, economic, militaristic and ideological causes of the Cold War. Following the Second World War, Germany was separated into four independent quarters, Russian, American, British and French; from this division, the Cold War emerged (Collier 26). This proximity led to tensions and hostilities that surfaced in the years following WWII. There are three theses regarding the origins of the Cold War: the "Orthodox" belief that "the intransigence of Leninist ideology, the sinister dynamics of a totalitarian society, and the madness of Stalin" (McCauley 88) caused the Cold War; the "Revisionist" idea that "American policy offered the Russians
Who was to blame for the Cold War?
Who was to blame for the Cold War? There are two possible verdicts; the USA and USSR. Both these sides had different beliefs, USA was a capitalist country while the USSR was a communist country, and this was one of the main causes of the cold war. I believe that both sides were almost equally responsible for the start of the Cold War but USA may be blamed slightly more than the USSR because as you will see there are more arguments against the USA. The arguments against the USA (that indicate that the USA was the one to blame) are many. At the Yalta conference, February 1945, towards the end of the 2nd World War, Roosevelt didn't define what he meant by Eastern Europe being seen as "A Soviet sphere of influence". Stalin seems to define it as a total control of the USSR over the East but the USA interprets it by saying that Russia would only have a slight influence. Roosevelt also showed lack of trust in Stalin, as we can see at sources 6 and 8. An other mistake of Roosevelt was that he allowed Russia to move border into Poland as long as Russia didn't interfere with Greece. This clearly shows how the USA wanted to prevent the wide spreading of communism in Europe. The fact that America tested the atomic bomb in 1945 caused tension between the two countries and caused the USSR to fear even more the USA. After Roosevelt died, Truman became the president of the USA.
Nuclear Fusion as energy provider
For ?-decay, unstable atom emits an ?-particle, this can also apply to ?-decay. To distinguish ?-decay and ?-decay, here is a number of characteristic of each of the decay: relative charge, relative mass, nature, range, material to stop, deflection in electric field and magnetic field. ?-emission ?-emission Relative charge +2 -1 Relative mass 4 0.00055 Nature 2 protons + 2 neutrons (Helium nucleus) Electron Range 5cm 6m Material to stop Paper Aluminium(5mm thick)[] Deflection in electric field [2] Slightly towards negative terminal Greatly towards positive terminal Deflection in magnetic field[2] Slightly upwards Greatly downwards As an example, Bismuth can decay into Thallium and Polonium by emitting ?- and ?-particle respectively. For ?-decay of Bismuth: For ?-decay of Bismuth: The example above can show ?-particle is Helium particle while ?-particle is electron. Radioactive decay is different from fission reaction. Radioactive decay Fission . unstable . absorb 1 neutron 2. emit ?/?/?- particle 2. oscillate 3. become other elements 3. unstable 4.Fission (split) 5. give out 3 neutrons Fission reactions differ from radioactive decay both in the way that the reaction must be started and in the type of products that are formed [1]. Radioactive decay is a passive action, while fission is active. For radioactive decay, the atom is unstable;
Is nuclear power the future? Should we build more nuclear power stations in Britain?
Is nuclear power the future? Should we build more nuclear power stations in Britain? Dennis Wang Contents Introduction 2 What is nuclear power? 3 Advantages of nuclear power 4 Disadvantages of nuclear power 6 Conclusion 8 References 8 Introduction Nuclear Power is what more and more people believe to be the answer to the problem of where our energy should come from. Our main source of power, fossil fuel, is running out: all the oil in the world is likely to be have used up in only 43 years. The world is warming due to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. And the world's population is increasing all the time meaning more energy consumption. It means we need a different source of energy. Nuclear power is a clear option: it doesn't pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, it uses uranium which is reasonably common and not about to run out and it is reliable and can work under any conditions (unlike wind or solar power). However there are disadvantages which cause nuclear power to be the subject of debate: it produces nuclear waste which needs to be disposed of, and the accident at Chernobyl showed the world what the dangers of nuclear power are. In this case study I will look at the pros and cons of nuclear power in detail and evaluate whether it is suitable to use as a new energy source for the future. What is Nuclear Power? Some atoms are
Is the Nuclear Family universal?
Is the Nuclear Family Universal? A nuclear family is a family that consists of two cohabiting parents in a sexual relationship with children. The parents must be heterosexual as this is 'socially acceptable', a nuclear family does not have to contain a certain amount of children and the children may be adopted or step children. The nuclear family can also contain an extended family such as a spouse of the children or a grandparent. This idea was first developed by Murdock who believed the nuclear family was universal. George Peter Murdock was a Sociologist who was prominent around 1940 onwards when he developed his 'nuclear family' idea which he believed to be universal. The nuclear is a unit of people living together and this could be considered universal as most countries and cultures raise their children within their own household. Murdock was one of the first sociologists to propose the idea of a nuclear family and applied it to all cultures proclaiming it was universal. Economic cooperation, common residence and reproduction are the main points of the nuclear family and Murdock believed all these things applied to families around the world. A sexual relationship was a point Murdock thought was important, within most societies there are rules that limit sexual relationships or even forbid them before marriage. Sexual relationships provide sexual gratification for both
History of british race relations
The Celts are the first to lay claim to being the indigenous people of the British Isles, in a period of Britain referred to as the Iron Age. For 500 years before any Roman invasion they managed to firmly establish Celtic culture throughout Britain. The Celts themselves where hunter/gathers and very resourceful farmers. They adopted a clan mentality and were ferocious are proud warriors, which would eventually be there undoing as infighting among the various clans was rife. The lack of unity left them susceptible to attack, which the Romans seized upon. Julius Caesar Claimed "it was necessary to stop British support for the Celts still resisting there" (Black, Jeremy, 'A history of the British isles', 1997) The subsequent Roman Conquest and occupation of Britain (AD 43) saw the arrival the first blacks in England. The Romans brought with them the infrastructure; Britain gained urban systems linked by roads, Romanised farms and cities like London, York, Bath and Colchester became centres of roman culture and eventually Christianity was introduced to Britain. Britain ultimately began to come under attacks from "Barbarians" (the angles, jutes and Saxons) the ability of the Roman Empire to resist these invasions began to falter, thus ended the occupation of Britain by the Romans (410AD). It remains unclear why the "Barbarians" came to Britain. It may be down to their
Does the nuclear family benefit the bourgoisie?
DOES THE NUCLEAR FAMILY BENEFIT THE POWERFUL? The nuclear family can be taken to be two parents and their children. Is the nuclear family primarily to benefit the powerful rather than society as a whole can be perceived to be true. This point of view is associated with Marxism and the powerful are the ruling class or bourgeoisie. They own the means of production such as land, factories, machines and so on. Marxism is based on an exploitative and unequal relationship between two classes. The proletariats who are the workers are the majority and this is were the family comes in. The family is controlled by those who control the economy and they control the family and manipulate the family into benefiting them. In any society the economic aspect (that is, the productive process involving the creation of goods and services for distribution and exchange) is always the most basic, fundamental and ultimately most significant aspect because it is only through economic activity that people can produce the things they need for their physical survival. Marxists tend to see institutions like the family in terms of what they do to support the overall structure of capitalist society, their function within the limit of a particular form of economic production. Unlike Functionalist sociology, Conflict sociology tends to view these functions from more than one angle (for example, the family
