J
Julius.himself
Gast
Hallo erstmal.
Ich wohne momentan in Neu Seeland und belege hier natürlich auch history als schultag. Wir haben einen aufsatz aufgekricht und da das mein erster hier in neu seeland ist, sollte der ganz okay sein. Der Aufsatz folgt unten. Entschuldigung das der in Englisch geschrieben is aber ich hoffe das ihr den trotzdem versteht. Fallen euch irgendwelche Sachen auf die ich vllt. falsch gemacht oder vergessen habe?
How successful were attempts to control the nuclear arms race between the Superpowers in the period from 1960-1991?
Over the period of 1960-1991, numerous attempts were made by the Superpowers to control the nuclear arms race. The results of these attempts varied with degrees of failure and success at different times throughout the time period. The degree of success achieved and the various attempts will be described and discussed in this essay.
The Arms Race was the struggle for military superiority in the world; just as the Americans developed advanced systems of security and weapons, so too did the Soviets. Following The Cuban Missile Crisis and the realisation that continued atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was a major threat to the environment and human beings, the topic of disarmament became an important issue on both the US and Soviet’s agenda’s.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was an international treaty, opened for signature in 1968, to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. There were 187 signatories and the treaty entered into force in 1970. The number of signatories highlighted the significant world appreciation that nuclear proliferation is a fundamental threat to the globe. Although significant reductions didn’t result from the talks it achieved its initial aims and objectives. In terms of disarmament, though, it was still rather insignificant in comparison to the number of weapons still operational.
Throughout the period of 1969-1972, in both Helsinki and Vienna, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) was in progress. These talks aimed to freeze the number of ballistic launchers and reduce the number of ABM’s. SALT can be viewed as a success as it both highlighted the fact the US and USSR could make agreements and also the fact it produced two treaties: The ABM Treaty and The Interim Agreement. The ABM Treaty limited the numbers of allowed weapons and radars and regulated their composition and location, but allowed continued testing and development. Both signatories agreed to limit the placement of ABM systems within their own national territories, and both agreed not to build any systems other than the immobile land-based types already developed or deployed. Under the Interim Agreement the parties concurred in limiting the numbers of strategic missile launchers on both land and sea to the numbers and types then existing or under construction, but they allowed for the improvement of those existing types. The agreement was to remain in force for five years, with a six-month notification of termination, but both sides informally agreed to extend it beyond expiration. The success of SALT 1 can be viewed and considered from two angles. The success in terms of the achievement of the objectives prior to the talks, where it can be argued that SALT 1 was a success as it came away with results (be it only relatively small scale to the number of weapons still operational). Success can also be considered from the question of whether the talks were a success in terms of global disarmament and significant reductions in tactical nuclear weapons. Considering the fact only a relatively small percentage of global arms was reduced, the success in the sense of disarmament is limited. However SALT 1 (and a lot of the arms reduction talks) highlighted a development in co-operation between the USA and USSR which can possibly be argued that this reduced the chance of nuclear war occurring, regardless of the number of weapons each side possesses.
The second round of negotiations, called SALT II, resulted in the Vladivostok Accord of November 1974 and the SALT II Treaty, signed on June 18, 1979. The agreed terms of this treaty though 6 months later were discarded by the US senate because the USSR invaded Afghanistan. However its terms were honoured by both sides. SALT 2 saw the US and USSR co-operate to promote disarmament and reduce the number of nuclear weapons the two rivals possessed. The talks can be said to have improved relations between the two sides. The US and USSR, following talks, had drinks afterwards. This further highlighted the improving relations between the two sides, and Nixon returned to a heroes welcome back in the US. SALT 2, along with eventually honouring its terms which it set out to achieve, further reduced the risk of nuclear weapons being used. SALT 2’s success as far as disarmament is concerned was a positive step however it was hardly significant on the larger scheme of things. It did however it did accomplish its goals and honoured them. It should also be noted that success is defined as ‘an event that accomplishes its intended purpose’, so in that sense it was a success. It did help control the arms race but the degree of success SALT 2 made significant aid to this goal is debatable. However many successes and positives can be drawn from the talks.
The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (START) was further talks between the USA and USSR to further the reduction in nuclear weapons. It was first proposed by Ronald Reagan (US President). The treaty placed limits on the number of various types of vehicles and attributed warheads that could be deployed by either side. It remains in effect, as a treaty between the US and Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have since disarmed their strategic arms capabilities, so in that sense it was successful. The US and USSR reduced ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers to 1,600 delivery vehicles with no more than 6,000 warheads.
The arms reduction talks over the period of 1960-1991 did help control the arms race and promote disarmament. Also, (considering the fact success can be defined as an event that accomplishes its intended purpose) most of the talks achieved their desired goals and highlighted a new period of co-operation between the two superpowers (as far as the talks and disarmament was concerned anyway). However the talks failed to make any significant reductions in terms of global disarmament, with huge numbers of weapons still operational. Therefore it is far to say that the talks carried with them a degree of success in terms of accomplishing their goals and highlighting the cooperation between the two superpowers. However we must also view them as having little effect on the whole as large numbers of weapons remained operational.
Vielen Dank schon allein das ihr meinen aufsatz gelesen habt.
Ich wohne momentan in Neu Seeland und belege hier natürlich auch history als schultag. Wir haben einen aufsatz aufgekricht und da das mein erster hier in neu seeland ist, sollte der ganz okay sein. Der Aufsatz folgt unten. Entschuldigung das der in Englisch geschrieben is aber ich hoffe das ihr den trotzdem versteht. Fallen euch irgendwelche Sachen auf die ich vllt. falsch gemacht oder vergessen habe?
How successful were attempts to control the nuclear arms race between the Superpowers in the period from 1960-1991?
Over the period of 1960-1991, numerous attempts were made by the Superpowers to control the nuclear arms race. The results of these attempts varied with degrees of failure and success at different times throughout the time period. The degree of success achieved and the various attempts will be described and discussed in this essay.
The Arms Race was the struggle for military superiority in the world; just as the Americans developed advanced systems of security and weapons, so too did the Soviets. Following The Cuban Missile Crisis and the realisation that continued atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was a major threat to the environment and human beings, the topic of disarmament became an important issue on both the US and Soviet’s agenda’s.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was an international treaty, opened for signature in 1968, to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. There were 187 signatories and the treaty entered into force in 1970. The number of signatories highlighted the significant world appreciation that nuclear proliferation is a fundamental threat to the globe. Although significant reductions didn’t result from the talks it achieved its initial aims and objectives. In terms of disarmament, though, it was still rather insignificant in comparison to the number of weapons still operational.
Throughout the period of 1969-1972, in both Helsinki and Vienna, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) was in progress. These talks aimed to freeze the number of ballistic launchers and reduce the number of ABM’s. SALT can be viewed as a success as it both highlighted the fact the US and USSR could make agreements and also the fact it produced two treaties: The ABM Treaty and The Interim Agreement. The ABM Treaty limited the numbers of allowed weapons and radars and regulated their composition and location, but allowed continued testing and development. Both signatories agreed to limit the placement of ABM systems within their own national territories, and both agreed not to build any systems other than the immobile land-based types already developed or deployed. Under the Interim Agreement the parties concurred in limiting the numbers of strategic missile launchers on both land and sea to the numbers and types then existing or under construction, but they allowed for the improvement of those existing types. The agreement was to remain in force for five years, with a six-month notification of termination, but both sides informally agreed to extend it beyond expiration. The success of SALT 1 can be viewed and considered from two angles. The success in terms of the achievement of the objectives prior to the talks, where it can be argued that SALT 1 was a success as it came away with results (be it only relatively small scale to the number of weapons still operational). Success can also be considered from the question of whether the talks were a success in terms of global disarmament and significant reductions in tactical nuclear weapons. Considering the fact only a relatively small percentage of global arms was reduced, the success in the sense of disarmament is limited. However SALT 1 (and a lot of the arms reduction talks) highlighted a development in co-operation between the USA and USSR which can possibly be argued that this reduced the chance of nuclear war occurring, regardless of the number of weapons each side possesses.
The second round of negotiations, called SALT II, resulted in the Vladivostok Accord of November 1974 and the SALT II Treaty, signed on June 18, 1979. The agreed terms of this treaty though 6 months later were discarded by the US senate because the USSR invaded Afghanistan. However its terms were honoured by both sides. SALT 2 saw the US and USSR co-operate to promote disarmament and reduce the number of nuclear weapons the two rivals possessed. The talks can be said to have improved relations between the two sides. The US and USSR, following talks, had drinks afterwards. This further highlighted the improving relations between the two sides, and Nixon returned to a heroes welcome back in the US. SALT 2, along with eventually honouring its terms which it set out to achieve, further reduced the risk of nuclear weapons being used. SALT 2’s success as far as disarmament is concerned was a positive step however it was hardly significant on the larger scheme of things. It did however it did accomplish its goals and honoured them. It should also be noted that success is defined as ‘an event that accomplishes its intended purpose’, so in that sense it was a success. It did help control the arms race but the degree of success SALT 2 made significant aid to this goal is debatable. However many successes and positives can be drawn from the talks.
The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (START) was further talks between the USA and USSR to further the reduction in nuclear weapons. It was first proposed by Ronald Reagan (US President). The treaty placed limits on the number of various types of vehicles and attributed warheads that could be deployed by either side. It remains in effect, as a treaty between the US and Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have since disarmed their strategic arms capabilities, so in that sense it was successful. The US and USSR reduced ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers to 1,600 delivery vehicles with no more than 6,000 warheads.
The arms reduction talks over the period of 1960-1991 did help control the arms race and promote disarmament. Also, (considering the fact success can be defined as an event that accomplishes its intended purpose) most of the talks achieved their desired goals and highlighted a new period of co-operation between the two superpowers (as far as the talks and disarmament was concerned anyway). However the talks failed to make any significant reductions in terms of global disarmament, with huge numbers of weapons still operational. Therefore it is far to say that the talks carried with them a degree of success in terms of accomplishing their goals and highlighting the cooperation between the two superpowers. However we must also view them as having little effect on the whole as large numbers of weapons remained operational.
Vielen Dank schon allein das ihr meinen aufsatz gelesen habt.