How Did The Soviet Union Collapse

The following lists and describes the options for responding to and dealing with the Collapse of the Soviet Union.

Development of Events The Soviet Union has collapsed due to a number of different reasons. It is mainly the direct result of the end of the Cold War. Multiple different events led to this result, from multiple revolutions in Europe to General Secretary Gorbachev making concessions domestically and internationally, led to this, once powerful, nation to collapse. In the late 1980’s, Gorbachev conceded so many different things such as the allowance of states to become independent. These intentions were shown to be true through multiple occurrences. The first would be in 1989, when Gorbachev ordered a full disengagement in Afghanistan.
The first policy and in my opinion most dangerous is the elimination of nuclear weapons in Europe. This option would entail multiple peace agreements with European nations to remove nuclear arsenals from England, France, Russia, and any countries developing these programs. If somehow we do manage to get these states to rid themselves of their weapons, it would still be a challenge to create a sense of security for these states. Mearsheimer writes, “In fact a nuclear-free Europe has the distinction of being the most dangerous among the envisionable post-Cold War orders. The pacifying effects of nuclear weapons--the caution they generate, the security they provide, the rough equality they impose, and the clarity of the relative power they create-- would be lost.” Without these weapons, the peace would depend on the deterrence of militaries. Military build ups would occur rapidly and be much more difficult to manage and lead to tensions, crisis, and most likely wars. Many people believe that Europe without nuclear weapons would be the most peaceful time the modern world has seen due to arguments and tensions being handled through diplomacy rather then through fear of mass destruction. However, the fear of destruction is what allows diplomacy to be the first choice of settling conflicts. Eliminating weapons of mass destruction will have the opposite effect that many scholars say will lead to peace and in fact cause destruction. There is some chance it leads to short peace
The second option would be to try to manage the nuclear arsenals of foreign powers so that no state has a significant amount of power over another. Allowing, but managing the amount of nuclear weapons each state has is the preferred option that would lead to the most peace post the collapse of the Soviet Union. With a nuclear arsenal, nations who are playing defense will have an advantage over the aggressors because the defenders value their freedom more then the other side values their conquests. The question that comes from this option is how many nuclear weapons should each state be allowed to possess, who should be allowed to have them, and how will we manage the amount each state