Shagufta Parveen
Cold war is a state of tension between countries in which each side adopts policies formulated to strengthen it and weaken the other side or country falling short by actual war. It can also be called the verbal war which is fought through newspaper, magazine and other propaganda methods. It is a type of diplomatic war between the countries. The difference between USSR and USA lead to the cold war. The Americans could not tolerate the communist idea of Russia. On the other hands the Russian do not want to accept the superiority of the Americans on the other countries of the World. The race of the armament between the two super powers also caused the cold war. The increased strength in military power of Russia which was feeling the western countries a big threat. Americans started to prepare the atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, and other badly death weapons. The other European countries also started to prepare the weapons and trying to participate in this race. This was the reason why the world divided into two groups and paved the way for the cold war. Russians promoted the communism and Europeans started propaganda of capitalism so this also gives a way of acceleration to the cold war Russian declaration made another cause for the cold war. Soviet Russian highlighted the communism in mass media and encouraged the labor revolution. On the other hands Americans helped capitalists against the communism so it helped to the growth of the cold war. American’s nuclear program was also the way of responsibility of cold war. After the bombardment of Americans on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russians afraid for their existence. So, it followed the same path to combat America. This leads to the accelerated growth to the cold war. The Enforcement of veto by Russia against the western countries made them to the hate Russia. The western countries put forth any view in the security council of the UNO, Russians also opposed it. The western countries became annoyed and it gives the full strength to the cold war. It is further added that during the Cold War, the United States maintained nuclear forces that were sized and structured to prevent from any attack by the Soviet Union and its allies. In the year 1991 demise of the Soviet Union, officials in the U.S. government and analysts outside government have conducted numerous reviews and studies of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and about force structure. Although these studies have varied in scope, concentration, and outcome, most have sought to describe a new role for U.S. nuclear weapons and to identify the appropriate size and structure of the U.S. nuclear resources in the post-Cold War era. The U.S. Department of Defense conducted several far-reaching reviews, when combined with less prominent internal studies, resulted in many a type of changes to the structure of U.S. nuclear forces and policy guidelines. However, many critics of the Unites States Administration said that, at the end of the 1990s, the U.S. nuclear position looked much as it had at the time of beginning. The number of deployed nuclear weapons had declined as the United States implemented the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) and completed the withdrawal of most of its non-strategic nuclear weapons. On the other hands the Soviet Union no longer existed and the threat of global nuclear war had sharply contracted, the United States continued to focus on its nuclear planning and size and structure of its nuclear forces to prevent from the potential threat of a Russian attack. In several speeches and statements, President Bush and his advisers stated that “Russia is no longer our enemy” and they pledged to alter U.S. nuclear weapons policy. In 2001 the discussion over the Defense Authorization Bill, the Senate gave permission that called on the next President to conduct a new nuclear position during his first year in office. During the last few years of the Clinton Administration, Congress had prevented the President from reducing U.S. strategic nuclear forces below the levels specified in START I until the 1993 START II Treaty entered into force. But some Members asked whether the Clinton Administration might reduce U.S. forces too far if Congress lifted the bar. Hence, the Senate retained the bar in the Financial Year 2001 bill and stated that the next President could only reduce U.S. forces after conducting a new nuclear position review. The Congressional mandate and the Presidential commitment established the framework for the Bush Administration’s review of U.S. nuclear position. The Administration completed its review and sent a detailed report to Congress at the end of December 2001; it provided the public with a summary of its results in early January 2002. The results of the Administration’s review generated a significant amount of debate in January, and then again in March, when a copy of the classified report leaked to the press. Most analysts focused on areas where the Bush Administration had proposed to change U.S. nuclear posture; some focuses on areas where U.S. nuclear policy would remain the same as it had been for years, or even decades. As a general it provided the overview of the past, present, and possible future of U.S. nuclear policy. It begins with a review of the international security environment, highlighting the threats that the United States has sought to deter or respond to with its nuclear forces. It then reviews the strategy and doctrine guiding the U.S. nuclear force strength, targeting and employment policy, the numbers and types of weapons in the nuclear force structure, and the infrastructure that has supported design, development, and testing of U.S. nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear policy during the Cold War, identifies changes implemented in the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and details how the Bush Administration proposes to bring continuity and change to U.S. nuclear weapons, policy, and infrastructure. This includes the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security policy, how to make the U.S. nuclear deterrent “credible,” the relationship between U.S. nuclear position and the goal of discouraging nuclear proliferation, plans for strategic nuclear weapons, and the future of non-strategic nuclear weapons. The end of the Cold War marked a significant turning point in global geopolitics and, consequently, in the realm of nuclear weapon policy. The cold war thus ended with the demise of superpower. The Russians disintegration came to the new sovereign states, like Armenia, Azarbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithunia, Maldova, Kazakkhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. It was also promised that there would not be any military conflict. The Russian economy also slow down, and it was also compromised as its capacity to fund its military objectives to say nothing the cost of trying to maintain technological parity with America. Both domestic and foreign policies of the Russia were drastically changed so the communist regimes in Eastern Europe fell one by one.