Arms Race, Space Race, SALT Treaties

Arms Race - How did the number and type of US arms change by 1956?

In the early post-war years, the US had very few nuclear weapons (50 in 1949) but this number grew by about 100 per year during the Korean War. The US developmed bombers necessary to attack targets within the USSR, with 38 B36’s by 1950. It was the B29’s, which the US had 289 of by 1950, that were placed within the UK as the Cold War intensified in the late 1940s as they lacked intercontinental capability so weren’t a threat from the US.

Arms Race - How did the number and type of Soviet arms change by 1956? Which superpower posed a greater threat to the other?

The Soviets were lagging behind in the arms race, far more than was apparent at the time - Soviet copy of the B-29 bomber in 1946 and testing of the A-Bomb in 1949. They also created the Tu16 Badger and Tu20 Bear, but neither of these possessed much effective intercontinental force - could only reach the US on a one-way mission. The Bear was driven by propellers which made it an easy target for US fighters. Even though the US were certainly ahead in the arms race, there was significant paranoia and fear in the US of a ‘bomber gap’ developing from 1956 onwards, reinforced by the USSR’s obsessive secrecy.

Arms Race - How did the development of ICBM’s, SLBM’s and MIRV’s unsettle the arms race?

The Soviets successfuly launched the first ICBM and the first Satellite in 1957 but at this point, the US were still far ahead with missilies and bombers at the start of the 1960s - by 1962, the US had 280 ICBM’s compared to the USSR’s 35. It was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that the USSR caught up and then surpassed the US in their number of ICBM’s and SLBM’s (missiles launched from submarines) — the US had stopped adding to its missile stocks in the 1960s and early 70s, while the Soviets continued adding to this - this was something that the Soviets hadn’t expected.
This provoked the US to produce MIRVs, fearing a significant missile/bomber gap, which made it possible to destroy several enemy targets with just one missile — unsettled and intensified the arms race as with each new development came the threat of greater disruptive power and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction grew.

How did the balance of the Arms Race change in the late 60s and 70s (use statistics)?

For the first time, the USSR caught up and surpassed the US in their number of ICBM’s and SLBM’s — Until 1969, the US had far greater numbers - 1054 ICBM’s compared to the USSR’s 570. By 1975, this had changed - despite the SALT treaty, the USSR far exceeded the US, with 1,618 ICBM’s to the US’s 1,054

Arms Race - Why might the number of weapons that each of the powers possessed by the powers not have mattered?

The Arms Race re-focused from the number of weapons to how destructive weapons were, with more targeted MIRVs - race turned to increasing the accuracy of attacking specific targets and developing systems to intercept missiles and allow missiles to evade interception. There is also the argument that it was never likely that either side would actually use any of these weapons, as both sides became aware that they had nothing to gain from their use. The main significance of the Arms Race was that it was a consistent presence and way for each of the superpowers to assert superiority throughout the period, and that it led to possible confrontation and threat of Nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

What were 3 main impacts of the Arms Race on the development of the Cold War between 1956 and 1984?

• Directly precipitated to conflict in Cuba - Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 - 13-day confrontation between the US and USSR, as the Soviets matched deployment of US nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey, by deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba — the closes that the two superpowers came to nuclear conflict

• Importance of US development of ICBM’s and SLBM’s in shifting balance of the Cold War into their favour, prior to the USSR surpassing their numbers in the 1970s

• De-escalation of the Arms Race due to detente and MAD protected the status quo to some extent

Space Race - How may the Space Race have alarmed the US prior to 1963?

• It was the USSR that made the first major advance into space in 1957, with the launch of the man-made satellite Sputnik - the Americans only became aware when the Russians put their achievements on show - Antagonistic, propaganda victory for the USSR — showed that they were technologically more advanced than the US had anticipated, worsened as the initial launching of the US Vanguard satellite failed in a humiliatingly public way (1957)

• Crucially, it showed that Western liberal capitalism had not produced the levels of scientific and technological superiority that many in the US had assumed

• There was also the fear that the satellite was crossing the US in space and whether they could deploy it with weapons

• The US formation of NASA and the launch of SCORE, a US Communications Satellite, was quickly upstaged by the Russian Luna 1, which orbited then sun and the the successful orbit of the Earth by a manned spacecraft, Vostok 1 - Yuri Gagarin - was the most spectucular achievement in space to date (by 1963)

How did the US respond to USSR achievements in the Space Race in the 1960s?

Huge resources and funds were invested into the Apollo programme, which led to US astronauts circling the moon and returning safely in 1968. Most significant achievement in Space — Moon Landing in July 1969

How was the Space Race significant in terms of weapons development?

Sputnik being launched (1957) raised fears that a Russian Satellite could be paired with weaponry and therefore have targeted access to the US from Space; Increased fear and paranoia as the Space race showed the USSR to be more technologically advanced than had been thought, and in some instances, more advanced than the US

How was the Space Race significant in terms of propaganda and competition between the two superpowers?

The initial Russian advancements in Space over the US undermined ideas of Western liberalism as a more technologically advanced society, which could be used as propoganda by the Soviets to prove their superiority, specificallt after the US’s initial failed attempt to launch a Satellite. Much like with the Arms Race, the Space Race can be seen as a constant battle of proving who was superior, centering around constantly upstaging the other power, with advancements by the USSR spurring on the US to upstage them, such as by putting a man on the moon in 1969. Kennedy spoke of the Space Race as a hard challenge “which we intend to win.”

How was the Space Race significant for symbolic reconciliation between the US and the USSR?

Reconiliation between the two superpowers is seen when the first joint US-Soviet space mission took place in 1975 - the Apollo-Soyuz Mission

How can the Arms Race be seen as having a greater impact than the Space Race on the development of the Cold War 1956-1984?

It had greater practical applications than the Space Race, threatening a direct confrontation of nuclear arms, and carrying the threat of nuclear warfare and possible human extinction. By contrast, the Space Race was largely a propaganda rule and at times provided symbolic reconciliation or at the very least eased relations between the two superpowers with the Apollo-Soyuz Mission 1975.

The extent of Arms Agreement 1963-79: What was the Test Ban Treaty 1963? How did it affect East-West relations?

The Test Ban Treaty was an agreement signed by Britain, the USA and the USSR - it banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space, and so seemed to mark a significant step forwards towards detente. However it didn’t stop the sides building up their arsenals and a continuation of the arms race and was rejected by France and China, whose leaders went on to develop their own nuclear weapons.

The extent of Arms Agreement 1963-79: What was the Non-Proliferation Treaty 1968?

Signed by the USSR, USA and Britain in which they pledged not to transfer nuclear weapons to other countries or assist other states to manufacture them, limiting nuclear power to the USA, Britain, France, the USSR and China and therefore preventing a large number of nations having access to the powerful weaponry.

Extent of Arms Agreement 1963-79: Why did negotiations at the SALT talks prove difficult?

Proposed negotiations to limit arms began in 1968 but talks were delayed after the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia (end of the Prague Spring), which had caused outrage in America. When talks did resume, they were slow and lasted longer than either side anticipated — the superpowers found agreement difficult over how arms would be limited as well as which types of weapon should be included in the arrangements and there was a tendency to focus on setting limits for existing weapons, rather than the development of newer technologies.

Extent of Arms Agreement 1963 to 1973: What exerted pressure on the USSR to sign the SALT I treaty in May 1972?

• Nixon’s visit to China Feb. 1972 caused concern in the USSR, with the Soviet government desperate to avoid an agreement between its two main superpower rivals

Extent of Arms Agreement 1963-1979 - What was agreed with the ABM Treaty, the first part of SALT I, and how did it ease tensions between the two powers?

• The ABM Treaty — The USA and USSR agreed to a limit of two ABM systems each - one for their capital city and one to protect their nuclear missiles

• This was able to reduce tensions caused by the uncertain impact of defensive systems - with ABM systems, the ability to retaliate if hit by a nuclear missile was uncertain and therefore encouraged each side to strike first — by limiting the ABM systems to two sites, there was a deterrance provided by the knowledge that the other side could strike back was maintained

What was agreed with the Interim Treaty, as part of SALT I? How was it less effective than the ABM Treaty?

• Limits placed on the number of ICBM’s and SLBM’s to 1,618 and 740 for the USSR and 1,054 and 740 for the US

• The USSR was allowed more ICBM’s because in other areas, such as strategic bombers, the US had a large lead

• However - Both sides could only agree to an interim agreement that would expire in 1977.

• While it was an important step towards limiting nuclear arms, it omitted new technological developments such as MIRVs, which carried multiple warheads on a single missile — within the limts of the treaty, each side were able to replace old, obselete missiles with new, more targeted ones - the technological advantage here lay with the US and so in this way, this part of the Treaty may be seen as not as effective - still an imbalance and only short-term agreement

What was agreed with the Basic Principles Agreement, the third part of SALT I? What were its strengths and weaknesses?

It laid down rules for the conduct of nuclear warfare, extending guidelines to be used by both sides to minimise the development of nuclear war. The superpowers both pledged to ‘do their utmost to avoid military confrontations’ and to ‘exercise restraint’ in international relations. Trade was to be encouraged between the two superpowers.
The agreement was significant in marking a shift from the atmosphere of confrontation that had persisted through much of the Cold War, particularly with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963. However, its principles were merely a statement of intent.

Extent of Arms Agreement 1963-1979: What still remained unsettled in the SALT treaties? What were the weaknesses of SALT?

The Interim Treaty didn’t impose sufficient restrictions on a range of offensive nuclear weapons, with each power still retaining enough nuclear weapons to destroy the other multiple times.

How did the SALT treaties impact US-Soviet trade?

US-Soviet trade increased, though it tended to be limited to grain supplies for the USSR — throughout much of the 1970s, the USSR came to rely on American grain to make up shortfalls in domestic production and the American government recognised that trade could therefore be used as leverage to extract further concessions from the Soviets

What were the symbolic gestures that marked the easing of relations between the US and USSR after SALT?

Nixon visited Moscow in 1972 and 1974 and Brezhnev visited Washington in 1973 — these visits were symbolic of the new accord between the superpowers.

SALT II - What agreement was outlined at Vladivostok in 1974? Why did negotiations break down?

An agreement for SALT II was first outlined at the Vladivostok Summit in 1974 between Brezhnvek and the new US President - Ford. This set limits for missile launchers and strategic bombers but, importantly, it left out cruise missiles where the US had a significant lead — however, there was opposition from right-wing US Senators that felt all arms control have the USSR the opportunity to catch up with American weaponry - the right became too powerful for Ford to ignore

SALT II - How did Carter, when he became President, attempt to renegotiate the SALT II treaty? Why was ineffective about these negotiations? Why was SALT II

Carter became President in 1977 and attempted to renegotiate SALT II in order to reduce the number of Soviet missiles — exact figures weren’t agreed until 1979. June 1979 - the SALT II Treaty was signed by Carter and Brezhnev — However, American public opinion and that of Senators was turning against arms control with a Soviet government considered to be untrustworthy. It was the USSR’s intervention in the conflict in Afganistan that led to the Senate’s rejection of SALT II in 1980.

Overall, how significant were the SALT talks in contributing to Detente between 1969 and 1984?

• SALT I - Imposition of 5-year restrictions on the development of arsenals, including ICBM’s - seems to reflect a desire to at least start to move away from dangerous, direct confrontation

• SALT I imposed restrictions on defence systems, such as ABM screens, which limited each superpower to two ABM systems each, acting as a deterrant to nuclear warfare - ABM systems had meant that each side would want to strike first - greater threat of human extinction and nuclear warfare

• Basic Principles Agreement marked a key change from US policies of Massive Retaliation (1950s - Eisenhower)

• SALT promoted a more long-term de-escalation and proposed further reductions - missile launchers and strategic bombers

• However - SALT II failed to be ratified, rejected by the US Senate, largely due to inner conflict as to whether it would actually deter the Soviets, as well as the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, further brewing mistrust