The Development Of The Arms Race Served As A Stablising Factor In Superpower Relations Particularly With The Revision On MAD In The Period 1946 62

The development of the arms race served as a stabilising factor in superpower relations particularly with the revision on MAD in the period 1946­62. How far do you agree? The development of the arms race can be argued to a be stabilising as a stabilising factor in the relations of the superpower nations but there is evidence that is substantial evidence that it was a significant factor that served as a destabilising factor. For instance the Berlin Crisis, the Korean War and Cuban Missile crisis. This demonstrates the instability of the period.
During this period the tensions between the superpowers increased and decreased as a result of factors such as the balance of military power and better relations they created with each other. So although the superpower relations had been destabilised by the end of the period, through the period there was not always growing tensions. Firstly between the period 1949 and 1953 the balance of military power between the superpowers brought a sense of stability. An example how the balance of military power stabilised a situation is the Berlin crisis of 1948­1949. As the Soviet’s knew that they were capable of being able to invade western Berlin and capturing it but they also knew that if they did this threat of nuclear attack from the US would be inevitable as they had sent B29 bombers to the UK which were capable of reaching the soviet sector. This therefore meant that Stalin did not take action against the Western Sector because he did not want nuclear retaliation, showing when balance of power occurred it was stabilising.Another example of how the balance of military power can be stabilising is the testing of the Soviets first atomic bomb in 1949, this was stabilising at the time because of the Korean War was taking place and it brought nuclear balance of terror between the superpowers. Nuclear balance of terror meant that the USA no longer had the upper hand over the Soviets so they could no longer use it as a threat which mean they had to avoid direct conflict by acting through the United
Nations as they feared a nuclear attack. Also another example of how they avoided direct conflict, is the Soviet decision to sponsor the North Korean and Chinese forces, so that the
USA and USSR avoided war. This shows that the nuclear threat enables stability as both wanted to avoid direct conflict because they knew that direct conflict and policies could escalate leading to a nuclear attack which both sides wanted to avoid. Another factor that allowed for stabilised relations between the superpowers was how the nuclear arms race encouraged the establishment of better relations between the powers in the period 1953­1955. The US’s Mike tests of November 1952 resulted in a megaton explosion, 1000 times that of the explosion of Hiroshima, producing a fireball 5.23 kilometres wide and a mushroom cloud that rose to 41,000 metres in three minutes. Again, the Soviet
Union was determined to keep up with US technology and it produced its own H­bomb within a year. The Soviet testing took place in Kazakhstan on 12th August 1953. The Soviet Union exploded a 400 kiloton device known as Joe 4. The test of Andrei Sakharov’s Third Idea in
November 1955 demonstrated that the Soviet Union had developed a bomb as powerful as the US H­bombs. However unlike the US the USSR success meant a huge cost to its economy, the US did not struggle in the same way as the USSR did to keep up in the Arms race because significantly smaller economy. As result of this the new soviet leadership lead

by Malenkov and Khrushchev, understood that they need to seek ‘peaceful coexistence’ with the US in order to reduce tensions so that the military spending that was need to keep up with the US could be decreased. The new policy meant the end of hostilities in Korea and the re­unification of Austria in 1955. Without question this shows that the nuclear arms race led to greater stability in superpower relations between 1953 and 1955 because of the massive cost that the Soviet government faced to develop H­bombs so they seeked better relations. However, between 1956 and 1963 the nuclear arms race became a destabilising factor within the relations of the superpowers. With Eisenhower in office in the period 1956­63 he took a harder stance against communism than that of Truman, Eisenhower's ‘New Look’ approach tp defence policy which committed the US from shifting its military budget from conventional forces to nuclear weapons. Eisenhower was committed to a policy of ‘massive retaliation’, which meant that in the event of war he would authorise a nuclear strike so big that the Soviet
Union would be annihilated. During this period, the number of US warheads increased to
18,000, far in excess of the Soviet stockpile. In addition to this, Eisenhower also commissioned Polaris submarines which could be attack the Soviet Union from the sea. So by the end of the late 1950’s it was clear that the USA has lead the nuclear arms race. Yet
Khrushchev was aware of the weaknesses the Soviets faced so he responded to this with demonstrations of soviet power. Firstly the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and then in 1961 the detonation of the Tsar bomb which was 58 megatons. Not only this but he also demonstrated
Soviet power but also its relations with others such as Cuba by stationing nuclear weapons there, which meant they could strike the USA without the use of Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles. As a result of the Soviet actions to demonstrate the technological and nuclear power they had lead to a destabilisation of relations because the USA feared nuclear threat from the
Soviets as they were unaware that they still led the race in nuclear and technological advancement. The most evident example of the destablisation of relations is the Cuban missile crisis of 1966 as although Khrushchev was aware of their weaknesses this did not stop the threats and stunts that he made towards the USA. Although no nuclear action was taken on either sides it was not most unstable the relations became and the closest they came to nuclear war. In conclusion the nuclear arms race was responsible for the destabilising of superpower relations in the period 1949­1963. Although in the period 1949­1955 the nuclear arms race tended to limit the conflicts and even allowed for peaceful coexistence, in the later period of
1956­63 it led to the climax of the relations over the threat of nuclear war, the Cuban missile crisis. Although there had been a balance in military power in the period of 1953­1955 the which had made relations stable, as nuclear parity led to the prospect of a war in which both superpowers would be annihilated, so military strategists mutually assured destruction.
However it did eventually become unstable and the balance of military power no longer mattered as result of Khrushchev’s actions as they had become more aggressive, this may have been to veil the Soviet’s weaknesses, as by 1963 the Cuban missile crisis had already reached its climax, with tensions still bitter after.