What effect did atomic weapons bring to United States-International relations?

The Anarchist Cookbook : An Analysis of Nuclear Weapons and its Impact on the Cold War Tension Between the United States and the Soviet Union

​

On August 6, 1945, the sky of Hiroshima was lightened with a bright flash followed by a firestorm and a shockwave that destroyed every building that existed on its path. Soon Nagasaki followed the same fate, forcing Japan to surrender and end WWII. Following the news of the surrender, Americans were filled with joy and hope that finally there would be a world peace. All was shattered when the Soviet Union successfully tested their first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949. Panic and paranoia swept the United States because of the fact that the Soviets could now attack them with the very weapon that ended the war. Thus, both countries competed for nuclear arms supremacy which increased tension and hostility during the Cold War. In close examinations, one could see that nuclear weapons led to an increase of tension between the United States and communist countries including the Soviet Union, because it spurred an arms race between the two superpowers.

​

With the testing of the atomic bomb by the Soviets, it was evident that the United States did not have the nuclear superiority. Soon, the U.S. military devised technological ways to deploy their newly weapons if a potential nuclear war was to happen. At the time, the United States was eager to learn and develop the nuclear weapons. “The United States, empowered by the binding energy of the universe, was to become the universal container. As the peaceful applications of atomic energy would expand, vie with, and ultimately reinforce its complementary material uses, huge containment domes would identify energy plants on the American landscape at the same time that sundry military and economic initiatives would identify global strategies of containment” (Nadel 14). With the increase of dependence on nuclear weapons in the military instead of infantry or military vehicles, the U.S. government was actively promoting ways to improve their newly discovered atomic bomb. This further explains the emergence of bigger bombs such as the hydrogen bombs and ballistic missiles as they were the results of United State’s research and development of nuclear energy and weapons system to deploy the weapons. These developments by the United States would have been threat to the Soviet Union as the United States had the capability to strike the Soviets with better technology and therefore have nuclear supremacy.

​

Francis Gavin clarifies that the arms race was ultimately due to the competition for supremacy through technological advancement, and that “without a U.S. program, the Soviets might not have the motivation or the scientific information to develop their own atomic weapon” (Gavin 18-19). The development of nuclear arms in the United States provided an important reason for the Soviets to keep up with the arms race and continually develop technologies that rivaled that of the United States. For example, there was the Tzar Bomba, the most powerful hydrogen bomb, and Tupolev Tu-95LAL, an experimental nuclear powered bomber. Whenever the United States or the Soviet Union developed a superior weapon system, the other would challenge through another weapon research. This relationship between both countries therefore led to a tension as both wanted a supremacy on nuclear weapons technology.

​

With the influx of new nuclear weapons like hydrogen bombs, missile systems, and experimental weapons like the nuclear bomber, the U.S. military generals and high ranking officers had to come up ways to counter new Soviet weapons. To do so they proposed several tactics and strategies to protect and potentially attack in case of a breakout of a nuclear war. Ultimately, however these strategies triggered a hostility between the United States and the Soviet Union as both saw the other’s strategy as a threat to themselves. One of these strategies devised by the U.S. government was “known as ‘massive retaliation,’ following a speech made by U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in January 1954, when he declared that in the future a U.S. response to aggression would be ‘at places and with means of our own choosing.’ That doctrine was interpreted as threatening nuclear attack against targets in the Soviet Union and China in response to conventional aggression anywhere in the world” ("Nuclear Strategy"). This strategy was seen as an effective defense by the U.S. military strategists, but to the Soviet Union, China and other countries, it was viewed as an excuse to build their arsenal and exercise their aggression around the world. Thus, the Soviets soon adopted a similar strategy to that of the United States, which only fueled the uneasiness between the two superpowers.

​

Another reason as to why nuclear weapons strategies increased tension was that some of these strategies were seen as dangerous and hostile even to the military generals and officers at the time since it would have provoked the Soviet Union. “Secretary McNamara’s public embrace of “mutual assured destruction” (MAD) or the Nixon administration’s negotiation of a treaty limiting both strategic offensive and defensive weapons seemed to be pulled right from the playbook of the leading theorists” (Gavin 20). In other words, the strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction seemed dangerous, and that it seemed like a threatening message to the Soviets rather than an effective defense strategy. These strategies were seen as a threat to the Soviet Union and other communist countries rather than a protective strategy to prevent an attack. Moreover, military strategists at the time were more concerned about a potential nuclear attack rather than a limitation of nuclear arms limitation for both superpowers. Since they were much more interested in protecting themselves than to reduce the weapons stock, the tension kept growing as both proposed new strategies that were viewed as hostile by the other.

​

The Cuban Missile Crisis epitomizes this tension between the superpowers due to this nuclear strategy. In 1962, U.S. intelligence received information about the buildup of nuclear missiles on Cuba. After receiving the information, President John F Kennedy ordered a blockade on Soviet ships to Cuba which set the stage for a standoff between the two countries for 13 days. The United States ordered the Soviets to remove missiles from the Cuban base while the Soviet Union refused to do so stating that it was for strategic defensive reasons. Fear of a potential World War III swept both countries. Eventually, both leaders agreed to end the hostility and made a compromise. “In the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the United States and the Soviets went to the nuclear threshold and then pulled back, it was hoped that it would not happen again” (Borremans). Anne Borremans here state that the tension between the United States and the Soviets was terrifying that no one wanted any similar incidents to happen again. Therefore, many of the military strategies were adding tension the the relationships between the two superpowers as both saw their strategies as a threat to their security and safety.

​

The 1980’s, however, saw the decline of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union which lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Ronald Reagan administration and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the nuclear arms control pact which ultimately brought end to the Cold War and the tension between the two countries. Previous attempts were made by the U.S. government to limit nuclear arms, but it was not passed by the Congress. Lansing Lamont, regarding a previous arms limitation treaty know as SALT, states that “As for the strategic arms limitation treaties of the 1970's - beacons of hope in the otherwise dismal history of arms control - the Senate refused to ratify SALT II after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, while the Reagan Administration's ''Star Wars'' plan threatens to undo the SALT I anti-ballistic missile accord” (Lamont). Initial attempts were made previously to decrease weapon stock, but with no result. In addition, the Reagan administration proposed several technological developments like the ‘Star Wars’ missile defense initiative. With the introduction of new defense systems in the late 1970’s and the early 1980’s, misled Gorbachev to believe that the Soviets and the United States to negotiate a nuclear weapon limitation. Both of these countries soon agreed an arms deal that would lift the uneasiness between the two superpowers that existed throughout the Cold War. During the conference, “Reagan concluded with increasingly radical arms control proposals developed in dialogue with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev from 1985. In January 1986, Gorbachev set out a radical disarmament agenda leading toward a nuclear-free world by the end of the century, and Reagan was clearly not unsympathetic to this vision” (“Atomic Bomb”). Both leaders were interested in an arms reduction and potentially end the long-going nuclear tension, no matter their motivation. This agreement signified the ending of the Cold War and the end of the tension between the two superpowers. Therefore, the hostilities between the countries decreased and later ended due to the arms reduction during the Reagan administration.

​

As the evidence suggests, several strategies and technologies of nuclear weapons further strengthened hostilities between the two countries until Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on an arms deal, which later resulted in the end of the Soviet Union. From these points, it is clear that nuclear weapons led to increase of tension in international relations, specifically between the United States and communists countries like Soviet Union. While these weapons were the cause of the tension during the Cold War, perhaps these weapons may have mediated a dangerous peace between the two superpowers and avoided them from another world war.