INTRODUCTION

The Cold war was perhaps one of the most significant eras defining events post the Second World War. It
ultimately led to the emergence of the United States of America as the Supreme World Power with the
disintegration of the Soviet Union. However, along with shaping the leader of world politics, the Cold War
also impacted the social, political, economic spheres of humanity.

The nature of the war was in itself unique. However, the primary focus of this project would stood witness
to bloodshed and massacre, on a scale which Humanity should hopefully never see. Perhaps the most
devasting act in this war was the Nuclear Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. R. Oppenheimer, the
inventor of the Atom Bomb made the following remark in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(Oppenheimer)-

“If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of
nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and
of Hiroshima.”

Oppenheimer lamented the use of the Nuclear Bomb and that is why when he was approached in 1949, by
Truman about creating a hydrogen bomb, Oppenheimer opposed it (Little, 2017).

The Nuclear bombs became a symbol of power and were perceived as a fundamental tool to retain influence
on the international stage and an identity as a Great Power, or perhaps the ultimate means in the hands of
some to challenge the existing world order ‘imperialism’ (Rivas, 2014)

Thus, the possession of Nuclear Bombs translated into power. The United States was the only country with
nuclear weaponry in the years immediately following World War II. The Soviets initially lacked the
knowledge and raw materials to build nuclear warheads (History.com Editors, 2020).

Within just a few years, however, the U.S.S.R. had obtained—through a network of spies engaging in
international espionage—blueprints of a fission-style bomb and discovered regional sources of uranium in
Eastern Europe. On August 29, 1949, the Soviets tested their first nuclear bomb (History.com Editors,
2020).

The United States responded by launching a program in 1950 to develop more advanced thermonuclear
weapons. The Cold War arms race had begun, and nuclear testing and research became high-profile goals
for several countries, especially the United States and the Soviet Union (History.com Editors, 2020).

This project will particularly focus upon how the nuclear arms race and negotiations shaped the future of
Nuclear technology in the Modern world. In particular, how did the nuclear arms race, treaties, negotiations

1|Page
and conflict led to the oligopolisation of Nuclear technology with a select few countries having an unfair
and exclusive hold over said technology whilst preventing other countries from developing their own
technologies.

The project will proceed from the nuclear technology aspect during the Cold War to how the said war
unilaterally and categorically defined the approach to nuclear technology in the modern world. It is also
pertinent that only major details pertaining to nuclear technology vis- à-vis the Cold War will be discussed
and not the Cold War in its entirety.

2|Page
 I. THE COLD WAR

During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis
powers. However, the relationship between the two nations was a tense one. Americans had long been wary
of Soviet communism and concerned about Russian leader Joseph Stalin’s tyrannical rule of his own
country. For their part, the Soviets resented the Americans’ decades-long refusal to treat the USSR as a
legitimate part of the international community as well as their delayed entry into World War II, which
resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Russians. After the war ended, these grievances ripened into an
overwhelming sense of mutual distrust and enmity (History.com Editors).

Thus, the Cold War, the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between the United
States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies. The Cold War was waged on political, economic,
and propaganda fronts and had only limited recourse to weapons (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica,
2020).

Post-war Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe fuelled many Americans’ fears of a Russian plan to control
the world. Meanwhile, the USSR came to resent what they perceived as American officials’ bellicose
rhetoric, arms build-up and interventionist approach to international relations. In such a hostile atmosphere,
no single party was entirely to blame for the Cold War; in fact, some historians believe it was inevitable
(History.com Editors).

The term was first used by the English writer George Orwell in an article published in 1945 to refer to what
he predicted would be a nuclear stalemate between “two or three monstrous super- states, each possessed of
a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds.” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 2020) It was first used in the United States by the American financier and presidential adviser
Bernard Baruch in a speech at the State House in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1947.

I.I. THE ATOMIC AGE

The containment strategy also provided the rationale for an unprecedented arms build-up in the United
States. In 1950, a National Security Council Report known as NSC–68 had echoed Truman’s
recommendation that the country use military force to contain communist expansionism anywhere it seemed
to be occurring. To that end, the report called for a four-fold increase in defense spending (BLAKEMORE,
2019).

3|Page
In particular, American officials encouraged the development of atomic weapons like the ones that had
ended World War II. Thus, began a deadly “arms race.” In 1949, the Soviets tested an atom bomb of their
own. In response, President Truman announced that the United States would build an even more destructive
atomic weapon: the hydrogen bomb, or “superbomb.” Stalin followed suit.

I.II. THE ARMS RACE

As an ideological “Iron Curtain” cut the Soviet Union and its satellite states off from the rest of Europe, the
U.S. and U.S.S.R. engaged in an arms race, pouring trillions of dollars into accumulating nuclear arsenals
and racing to explore space. By 1962, both countries had missile defences pointed at one another
(BLAKEMORE, 2019). That year, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought both countries closer to actual conflict
than any other event in the Cold War.

Multiple proxy wars stood in for actual conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. The
Korean War, Vietnam War, and a number of other armed conflicts, during which both sides either funded
one side of the war or fought directly against a communist or capitalist force, are all considered Cold War
proxies. Both sides also funded revolutions, insurgencies, and political assassinations in Central America,
Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

Though the Cold War ended with the dissolution of the Soviet bloc in the 1980s and the fall of the Soviet
Union in 1991, it still affects modern geopolitics (BLAKEMORE, 2019). As the last remaining superpower,
the U.S. retains wide-reaching alliances, high weapons investments, and international military outposts.
NATO, an alliance between the U.S. and Western European countries brokered at the outset of the Cold
War, still wields political power. Today, increased tensions between Russia and the West have been referred
to as a second Cold War (BLAKEMORE, 2019).

As a result, the stakes of the Cold War were perilously high. The first H-bomb test, in the Eniwetok atoll in
the Marshall Islands, showed just how fearsome the nuclear age could be. It created a 25-square-mile
fireball that vaporized an island, blew a huge hole in the ocean floor and had the power to destroy half of
Manhattan. Subsequent American and Soviet tests spewed radioactive waste into the atmosphere.

4|Page
 II. THE END OF THE COLD WAR

Three events heralded the end of the Cold War: the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany and
the dissolution of the Soviet Union. All came at the end of a tumultuous decade where ordinary people
challenged socialism and socialist governments (Jennifer Llewellyn, 2020).

The pressures these popular movements applied undermined and eroded political authority in Soviet bloc
nations. With Moscow no longer enforcing adherence to socialist policies, Soviet bloc governments
relented, allowing political reforms or relaxing restrictions such as border controls (Jennifer Llewellyn,
2020).

5|Page
 III. MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION

Mutually Assured Destruction, or mutually assured deterrence (MAD), is a military theory that was
developed to deter the use of nuclear weapons. The theory is based on the fact that nuclear weaponry is so
devastating that no government wants to use them (Wilde, 2019). Neither side will attack the other with
their nuclear weapons because both sides are guaranteed to be totally destroyed in the conflict. No one will
go to all-out nuclear war because no side can win and no side can survive.

In 1962, the concept of mutually assured destruction started to play a major part in the defence policy of the
US. President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, set out in a speech to the American Bar
Foundation a theory of flexible nuclear response (Castella, 2012).

In essence it meant stockpiling a huge nuclear arsenal. In the event of a Soviet attack the US would have
enough nuclear firepower to survive a first wave of nuclear strikes and strike back. The response would be
so massive that the enemy would suffer "assured destruction" (Castella, 2012).

Thus, the true philosophy of nuclear deterrence was established. If the other side knew that initiating a
nuclear strike would also inevitably lead to their own destruction, they would be irrational to press the
button

To many, mutually assured destruction helped prevent the Cold War from turning hot; to others, it is the
most ludicrous theory humanity ever put into full-scale practice. The name and acronym of MAD come
from physicist and polymath John von Neumann, a key member of the Atomic Energy Commission and a
man who helped the US develop nuclear devices (Wilde, 2019). A game theorist, von Neumann is credited
with developing the equilibrium strategy and named it as he saw fit.

At the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
kept the two sides from taking the conflict nuclear. The idea behind MAD is based on the theory of
deterrence, a military strategy which holds that the threat of annihilation would keep opponents at bay
(RATNER, 2017). If North Korea was to launch a first nuclear strike, it would surely perish in immediate
retaliation strikes by the United States.

Thomas Schelling, an American foreign policy and national security expert, argued in his 1966 book “Arms
and Influence” that modern military strategy must include coercion, intimidation and deterrence. The goal
of attaining military victory is almost too simplistic in the current state of international affairs. You can
influence another state by making it anticipate the violence your nation can inflict upon it.

6|Page
 IV. TREATIES AND NEGOTIATIONS AND THE POWER OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

There were many treaties signed during the Cold War. These treaties shaped the future of how the world
would approach Nuclear technology. Everyone in the World witnessed the Horrors of the Nuclear Bombs
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Tsar Bombana and the Hydrogen Bomb did not alleviate the fears of
the people and members of the International Community. The Doctrine of Mutually assured Destruction and
deterrence barely kept Nuclear war at bay as seen in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everyone was clear on one
thing that Nuclear War was to be avoided at all costs even if it entailed signing treaties or negotiating with
each other.

After the United States and the Soviet Union Britain and France also became Nuclear powered countries.
The United Kingdom became the third country to test nuclear weapons on 3 October 1952 with "Hurricane"
test conducted at the Montebello Islands in Western Australia. Initially, the United Kingdom tested in
Australia and later at Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean (Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty
Organisation, n.d.). From 1958 onwards its programme was closely coordinated with that of the United
States through the UK-US Mutual Defense Agreement and the UK tests were conducted jointly with the
United States at the Nevada Test Site (Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organisation, n.d.). France
became the fourth country to possess nuclear weapons after its first test in 1960 with its test Gerboise Bleue
(Nuclear Weapon Archive , 2001).

Therefore, major powers who were at the forefront of the Second World War had Nuclear power with the
option of arming their warheads. Hence, understanding the gravity of Nuclear power these world powers
signed major treaties in order to curb the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Technologies.

IV.I. TREATY BANNING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, formally Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer
Space, and Under Water, treaty signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963, by the United States, the Soviet
Union, and the United Kingdom that banned all tests of nuclear weapons except those conducted
underground (Freedman, 2019). The Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty banned nuclear-weapons tests in the
atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater but permitted underground testing and required no control posts,
no on-site inspection, and no international supervisory body. It did not reduce nuclear stockpiles, halt the
production of nuclear weapons, or restrict their use in time of war (Freedman, 2019). Within a few months
of signing by the

7|Page
three original parties in August 1963, the treaty was signed by more than 100 other governments, notable
exceptions being France and China. The three original parties to the treaty, the United States, the United
Kingdom, and the Soviet Union (and its successor, Russia), have the power to veto treaty amendments
(Freedman, 2019). Any amendment must be approved by a majority of all the signatory states, including all
three of the original parties.

By prohibiting atmospheric and underwater testing, the Limited Test Ban Treaty reduced the amount of
radioactive fallout emitted from nuclear explosions. However, Rhodes recognizes that “since it allowed
underground testing, the LTBT did little to limit the superpower nuclear arms race, but it contributed to
slowing proliferation by making nuclear weapons tests much more expensive.” (Atomic Heritage
Foundation, 2016)

The US Department of State acknowledges the treaty “did not have much practical effect on the
development of nuclear weapons, but established an important precedent for future arms control.” (Atomic
Heritage Foundation, 2016)

IV.II. THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in March 1970,
seeks to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Its 190 states-parties are classified in two categories:
nuclear-weapon states (NWS)—consisting of the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United
Kingdom—and non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS). Under the treaty, the five NWS commit to pursue
general and complete disarmament, while the NNWS agree to forgo developing or acquiring nuclear
weapons (Arms Control Association, 2020).

With its near-universal membership, the NPT has the widest adherence of any arms control agreement, with
only South Sudan, India, Israel, and Pakistan remaining outside the treaty. In order to accede to the treaty,
these states must do so as NNWS, since the treaty restricts NWS status to nations that "manufactured and
exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967." For India, Israel, and
Pakistan, all known to possess or suspected of having nuclear weapons, joining the treaty as NNWS would
require that they dismantle their nuclear weapons and place their nuclear materials under international
safeguards. South Africa followed this path to accession in 1991.

North Korea announced January 10, 2003, that it was withdrawing from the treaty, effective the next day.
Although Article X of the NPT requires that a country give three months' notice

8|Page
in advance of withdrawing, North Korea argued that it satisfied this requirement because it originally
announced its decision to withdraw March 12, 1993, and suspended the decision one day before it was to
become legally binding. There is not yet a definitive legal opinion as to whether North Korea is still a party
to the NPT (Arms Control Association, 2020).

India chose not to accede to the treaty that it is a biased legal instrument that divided the world into “nuclear
haves” and “nuclear have-nots.” The year 2018 also commemorates 20 years since India’s five nuclear tests
in May 1998, and 10 years since the 2008 congressional approval of the U.S.-India 123 agreement, also
called the U.S.–India Civil Nuclear Agreement (Ganguly, 2018).

IV.III. THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY

Negotiated between the United States and the Soviet Union as part of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks,
the now-defunct Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was signed on May 26, 1972 and entered into force
on October 3, 1972. The treaty, from which the United States withdrew on June 13, 2002, barred
Washington and Moscow from deploying nationwide defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. In the
treaty preamble, the two sides asserted that effective limits on anti-missile systems would be a "substantial
factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms." (Arms Control Association, 2017)

The treaty originally permitted both countries to deploy two fixed, ground-based defense sites of 100
missile interceptors each. One site could protect the national capital, while the second could be used to
guard an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) field (Arms Control Association, 2017).

IV.IV. SALT AGREEMENTS

On May 27 1972, Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev and U.S. President Richard Nixon, meeting in
Moscow, signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) agreements. At the time, these agreements
were the most far-reaching attempts to control nuclear weapons ever (History.com Editors, 2009).

Nixon and Brezhnev seemed unlikely candidates for the American and Soviet statesmen who would sign a
ground breaking arms limitation treaty. Both men carried reputations as hard-line Cold War warriors. Yet,
by 1972, both leaders were eager for closer diplomatic relations between their respective nations. The
Soviet Union was engaged in an increasingly hostile war

9|Page
of words with communist China; border disputes between the two nations had erupted in the past few years.
The United States was looking for help in extricating itself from the unpopular and costly war in Vietnam.
Nixon, in particular, wished to take the American public’s mind off the fact that during nearly four years as
president, he had failed to bring an end to the conflict (History.com Editors, 2009). The May 1972 summit
meeting between Nixon and Brezhnev was an opportune moment to pursue the closer relations each desired.

The most important element of the summit concerned the SALT agreements. Discussions on SALT had
been occurring for about two-and-a-half years, but with little progress. During the May 1972 meeting
between Nixon and Brezhnev, however, a monumental breakthrough was achieved.

The SALT agreements signed on May 27 addressed two major issues. First, they limited the number of
antiballistic missile (ABM) sites each country could have to two. (ABMs were missiles designed to destroy
incoming missiles.) Second, the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched
ballistic missiles was frozen at existing levels. There was nothing in the agreements, however, about
multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle missiles (single missiles carrying multiple nuclear
warheads) or about the development of new weapons (History.com Editors, 2009).

Nevertheless, most Americans and Soviets hailed the SALT agreements as tremendous achievements
(History.com Editors, 2009). In August 1972, the U.S. Senate approved the agreements by an overwhelming
vote. SALT-I, as it came to be known, was the foundation for all arms limitations talks that followed.

10 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION
Thus, we have observed that even though the Cold War did not involve actual use of Nuclear weapons,
there were a quite a few close calls. Various treaties and negotiations have gone into ensuring that nuclear
technology is not used for the destruction of Humanity but for the welfare of Humanity.

Nuclear Energy is perhaps one of the most sustainable and practical sources of energy known to man.
Nuclear reactors offer impressive based-load electricity and operate and produce power over 90% of the
time (Rinkesh, n.d.). The periods between refuelling have been substantially extended, plus downtime for
refuelling has been significantly minimized. In the United States, for example, these enhancements through
the years have been equated to building one reactor each year to the existing ones. Most nuclear reactors are
designed to operate for more than 40 years. Most of the reactors are nearing that age in perfect condition
and projections are that they could still operate for another 20 years.

The Cold War has undoubtedly shaped the foreseeable future of Nuclear Energy. The Cold war has
negatively impacted the constructive advancement of Nuclear Technology. Nuclear technology holds the
possibility of cleaner and greener energy which will help combat the Climate Crisis. However, the Cold
War and the nuclear tests which the world witnessed during that period have made the world averse to
openly accept this possibility of cleaner and greener energy.

The Nuclear treaties and deals made as a result of the arms race have to an extent unfairly shifted the scales
of balance with Russia and the United States exclusively determining the people who could get a hold over
Nuclear Technology. Other countries like Britain and France attempt to work their way around this
oligopolisation of Nuclear Energy. Many developing countries do not have the capability to develop nuclear
capabilities and neither are they readily and honestly assisted by the countries who have advanced
capabilities in developing the same.

The Cold War has instilled in the International Community a deep sense of fear of the horrors which could
caused by Nuclear weapons to the extent where the International Community is still averse to constructively
using Nuclear Energy. Thus, the cold war has had an undeniable and impact on the future of constructive
use of Nuclear Technology.

11 | P a g e