Tomas Iturregui
International Relations
The Cold war was a "war" between the U.S. and its NATO allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies. It was not really a war because although there were a few small scale regional battles, there was not any real fighting between any of the major powers. In this post I will argue why it was mutually beneficial for all nations involved that there was no fighting as a result of hard power.
The cold war took place from around after World War two until 1991. During this time The U.S. and Soviet Union were the two largest superpowers in the world and had a huge rivalry. The Soviet Union had a lot of influence over Yugoslavia which at the time was a group of eastern European nations, while the U.S. had its western allies on their side. The two superpowers had a large rivalry in sports such as in the olympics, as well as in the space race to see which county would acquire spaceflight capabilities first. The U.S. was and of course still is a Democracy, while the Soviet Union was a communist state. The two nations had major political disagreements, as the U.S. wanted to spread democracy while the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism.
Both nations came very close to fighting with each other as a result of hard power. In response to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by the U.S., the Soviets agreed with the Cubans to set up nuclear weapons in Cuba in preparation to potentially use on the U.S. in what was known as the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets eventually removed them after talks were held with the U.S.. After which tensions eased up a little. The MAD (mutually assured destruction) theory can describe why nuclear war didn't occur. If the Soviets had nuked the U.S., the U.S. would have in response nuked the Soviet Union. When two nations both have nuclear weapons they are unlikely to deploy them against one another since they know that it will just end badly for both of them. Furthermore, going to war would have hurt both countries financially. The cost of war is immense, especially against another great power. Even though both nations had large economies, it still wouldn't have been an ideal situation. Lastly, it could have triggered World War three. The U.S. and Soviet Union each had many allies, so if the two of them had begun to fight it may have dragged other nations into the mix which would have cause a World War.
The world may of been a very different place if the U.S. and Soviets had gone to war. In conclusion, due to the potential destruction of both nations, the potential financial repercussions, and the potential for World War three, it was best for both nations that Hard power from the Cuban Missile crisis did not result in any actual fighting.
I agree with your argument that mutually assured destruction was the cause for the USSR and the U.S. not going to war, but I don't think it has much to do with hard power. Both states had a large amount of hard power, but I think mutually assured destruction was the reason there was no fighting, not really the other hard power each country held. Hard power can include WMDs but I think it is more about the military of each state. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position that deterrence is a form of hard power, and that it was very useful in preventing war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The U.S.’s military arms buildup in the 1950’s was both in response certainly in response to the Soviet threat. However, I would like to mention that for the U.S. at least, military buildup was also the result of the increasing power of the military industrial complex. Mass production of costly nuclear weapons proved very profitable for weapons manufacturers. By identifying a third, private entity, the reasons for peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union become less Realist and more Liberalist. Mutually assured destruction should therefore be considered as influential as economic, private entities.
ReplyDeleteJust for my reference, hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. (Wikipedia)
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that hard power prevented a war between the US and USSR. I wonder if you could consider brinkmanship as one of the forms of hard power. Throughout the lectures I thought that brinkmanship was kind of like MAD, two sides continuously escalate their threats and actions until one party backs down, or both are annihilated. What are your thoughts on that?
Elaine, I completely agree with you. I think brinkmanship and MAD are similar, if not the same. The U.S. and the Soviet Union seemed to just be playing a game to see who would back down first, even though they both knew neither would act due to MAD.
DeleteI agree with Kathryn! Hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. While this may have played a role in keeping the U.S. and Soviet Union from going to war, I think MAD and the threat of total destruction had more to do with it.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Kathryn. As I explained in my blog the Cuban Missile Crisis was avoided through the use of the Bargaining Theory as well as mutually assured destruction. I do agree with you on the fact that if the two powers went to war, even if it wasn't nuclear, it would have been extremely costly to both sides and no matter who the 'winner' would be they would have been severely economically crippled.
ReplyDelete