How far do you agree with the view that it was nuclear weapons that preserved peace between the superpowers in the period 1945-1991?

Authors Avatar

How far do you agree with the view that it was nuclear weapons that preserved peace between the superpowers in the period 1945-1991?

Introduction

“The international situation had been reduced to the primitive spectacle of two giants eyeing each other with watchful suspicion… Thus contain or be contained, conquer or be conquered, destroy or be destroyed, became the watchwords of the new diplomacy.”

Nuclear weapons: weapons of mass destruction whose explosive power derives from nuclear reactions (fission or fusion)

To preserve: to maintain unchanged

Peace:         a condition in which war does not occur – in the context of this question, it may be more useful to consider peace the condition in which the two superpowers do not enter into direct armed conflict with each other, a state of stable inactivity rather than harmony

In considering the notion that nuclear weapons were crucial in preserving the peace between the two superpowers, it is important to note that the question presupposes that a condition of peace existed between the two superpowers before 1945.  As such, this condition of relations between the two superpowers will be taken as a starting point for the argument.  However, over the period discussed, the nature and degree of “peace” varied greatly, from the peaceful coexistence of the 1950s to the brink of nuclear war in 1962.  Thus, while on a very superficial level, nuclear weapons contributed to maintaining “peace”, they did not “preserve” the situation that prevailed before 1945; by their awesome nature, they necessarily radicalised and redefined the way the superpowers dealt with each other.

Also, it must be noted that nuclear weapons did not inherently prevent conflicts from breaking out between the superpowers (here, we include the diplomatic and verbal antagonism, and globalised conflicts like Vietnam and the Middle East which can be seen to some extent as indirect expressions of aggression between the superpowers) – rather, what was needed was the widely held belief that the use of nuclear weapons would spell the end of the world, coupled with the notion that effective suicide was an undesirable means to eliminate the other ideological rival. The emergence and proliferation of nuclear weapons aggravated rather than reduced superpower tensions; what actually preserved a tenuous peace, to a large extent, was the fear that the nuclear threat – symbolised by nuclear weaponry – induced in its would-be perpetuators.

The Role of Nuclear Weapons

“It seems inescapable that what has really made the difference in inducing this unaccustomed caution has been the workings of the nuclear deterrent.”

  1. To provide a backdrop against which superpower relations were conducted

  • The use of American nuclear weapons against Japan at the end of WWII signalled the need for a fundamental change in the strategic thinking of both superpowers – it “[forced] each nation to balance the short-term temptation to exploit opportunities against the long-term danger that things might get out of hand”
  • The US found itself in possession of a super-weapon, and the USSR saw itself at a serious strategic disadvantage – a disadvantage that the Americans exploited with their Massive Retaliation doctrine, as it was applied by the US to pre-empt USSR’s intervention in the Korean War
  • Similarly, nuclear weapons were the main cause behind the Cuban Missile Crisis – the USSR wanted parity in nuclear capability, and one of the conditions for resolving the crisis was the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba, and the removal of US missiles from Turkey
  • Thus nuclear weapons provided a constant atmosphere of threat of attack, in which the superpowers tried to conduct relations with each other – and it was precisely this threat of devastating conflict that was used to preserve the peace
  • “The bomb during this early period [Berlin Blockade] provided a backdrop for the Cold War.  It was there, but in a muted form.”
Join now!

  1. As a policy tool to influence the other superpower’s behaviour

  • “The Cold War was…the result of the early decision by both states to manage [their] relationship through containment of influence and power of the other”
  • The real destructive potential of nuclear arsenals enabled the superpowers to use them symbolically, as threats to restrict the freedom of a superpower to use war against the other’s interests
  • Furthermore, the threat of war does not necessarily mean a lack of peace – symbolic threats are commonly used to secure peace through deterrence of attack
  • “The means ...

This is a preview of the whole essay