DOCSLIB.ORG

Can a Ideological War Be More Dangerous Than a Physical War?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can a Ideological War Be More Dangerous Than a Physical War? ■Essential Question: ■Can a ideological war be more dangerous than a physical war? ■DO NOW: Have you ever wanted to hit someone but you knew it would cause so much chaos that you chose not to? Learning Targets and Intentions of the Lesson I Want Students to: 1. KNOW how the different ideologies of the USSR, Communism and the USA’s Capitalism led to the Cold War. 2. UNDERSTAND Explain the significance of covert actions during the Cold War to include: Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how it is relevant to the battle for the People of the Third World. 3. Complete the Cold War Vocabulary Organizer or a To the Brink and Beyond Activity (SKILL). Summary ■Post War Europe ■The Cold War ■The Arms Race ■The Space Race ■Bay of Pigs ■Cuban Missile Crisis Truman Doctrine [1947] 1. Civil War in Greece. 2. USSR Wants Dardanelles from Turkey 3. U. S. to support all who want to be free 4. The U.S. gave Greece & Turkey $400 million in aid. Marshall Plan [1948] 1. “European Recovery Program.” 2. Secretary of State, George Marshall 3. The U. S. should provide aid to all European nations that need it. 4. $12.5 billion of US aid to Western Europe extended to Eastern Europe & USSR, [but this was rejected]. A Clash of Ideologies ■ The Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) believes it should assume their rightful place; along side the United States (U.S.A.) as a world superpower. ■ So, what begins is a battle of wills, a battle for world superiority. ■ Is the U.S.S.R. ready to compete with “Mighty America?” The “Iron Curtain” From Stettin in the Balkans, to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lies the ancient capitals of Central and Eastern Europe. -- Sir Winston Churchill, 1946 The Cold War The Ideological Struggle Soviet & US & the Eastern Bloc Western Nations Democracies [“Iron Curtain”] GOAL spread world- GOAL “Containment” wide Communism of Communism & the eventual collapse of the METHODOLOGIES: Communist world. [George Kennan] Espionage [KGB vs. CIA] Arms Race [nuclear escalation] Ideological Competition for the minds and hearts of Third World peoples [Communist govt. & command economy vs. democratic govt. & capitalist economy] “proxy wars” Bi-Polarization of Europe [NATO vs. Warsaw Pact] From 1945 to 1991, the USA & USSR used a variety of strategies to win the Cold War In the early years of the Cold War (1945-1949), the USA used a containment policy to successfully stop the spread of communism in Europe Marshall Plan BerlinNATO Airlift Truman Doctrine When communism spread to China in 1949, the USA feared the “domino theory” & became more aggressive in its efforts to stop communism The USA went to war in Korea to defend South Korea from communism The Soviet Union supplied weapons to the communists in North Korea during the war The type of indirect fight between the USA & USSR is called a “proxy war” From 1949 to 1970, the Cold War escalated as a result of a nuclear arms race, space race, & espionage The Arms Race The U.S. monopoly on nuclear weapons ended in 1949 when the USSR successfully tested an atomic bomb The Soviet development of the atomic bomb led to a nuclear arms race between the USA & USSR In 1952, the USA tested the The Soviet Union first hydrogen bomb which responded by is 1,000 times more powerful detonating its own than the atomic bomb hydrogen bomb in 1953 By 1959, both the USA & USSR developed rockets called intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that could deliver nuclear warheads to distant targets U.S.Soviet Polaris Transporter Submarine Erector Launcher (TEL) U.S. Titan ICMB from the 1960s Soviet ICMBs from 1960-1975 In the 1950s, U.S. President Eisenhower escalated the Cold War by using brinkmanship: threatening to use nuclear weapons & willingness to go to the brink of war If the USSR attacked a NATO member, the U.S. would use massive retaliation: attack every major Soviet city & military target As a result, the USA & USSR began stockpiling nuclear weapons & building up their militaries With the USA & USSR in possession of large nuclear stockpiles, each side could destroy each other: this was known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Throughout the Cold War, the USA & USSR looked for ways to gain first strike capability The Space Race In 1957, the USSR Sputnik shocked Americans used its first ICBM to who feared the U.S. had launch Sputnik, the fallen behind the USSR in first satellite into space science & technology As a result of Sputnik, the Cold War escalated into a space race to show American & Soviet dominance In 1958, the USA created National Aeronautics & The USSR repeatedly Space Administration (NASA) beat the USA in space to catch up to the USSR… by launching the first man into orbit & …U.S. schools promoted orbiting the moon math, science, & technology NASA’s original seven NASA Mercury astronauts In 1962, President John Kennedy committed the USA to beating the Soviet Union in the race to the moon In 1969, Apollo 11 landed U.S. astronauts on the moon The Battle for Control of the Third World During the Cold War, the USA & USSR created intelligence agencies, the CIA and KGB, in order to spy and carry out covert operations The USA & USSR used spies to gather intelligence U.S. & Soviet spy planesConvicted gathered spies Juliusinformation & Ethel Rosenberg also The ColdThe War CIA escalated overthrew as the the governments threat of communism of spreadIran & into Guatemala the Middle and intervenedEast, Africa, in & Egypt, Latin Bolivia,America Chile, El Salvador, and Cuba to stop communism Bay of Pigs Debacle (1961) Overview of Kennedy, the Cold War & Cuba The Cuban Missile Crisis brought the United States & Soviet Union to a near nuclear war in 1962.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report: the New Nuclear Arms Race
    The New Nuclear Arms Race The Outlook for Avoiding Catastrophe August 2020 By Akshai Vikram Akshai Vikram is the Roger L. Hale Fellow at Ploughshares Fund, where he focuses on U.S. nuclear policy. A native of Louisville, Kentucky, Akshai previously worked as an opposition researcher for the Democratic National Committee and a campaign staffer for the Kentucky Democratic Party. He has written on U.S. nuclear policy and U.S.-Iran relations for outlets such as Inkstick Media, The National Interest, Defense One, and the Quincy Institute’s Responsible Statecraft. Akshai holds an M.A. in International Economics and American Foreign Policy from the Johns Hopkins University SAIS as well as a B.A. in International Studies and Political Science from Johns Hopkins Baltimore. On a good day, he speaks Spanish, French, and Persian proficiently. Acknowledgements This report was made possible by the strong support I received from the entire Ploughshares Fund network throughout my fellowship. Ploughshares Fund alumni Will Saetren, Geoff Wilson, and Catherine Killough were extremely kind in offering early advice on the report. From the Washington, D.C. office, Mary Kaszynski and Zack Brown offered many helpful edits and suggestions, while Joe Cirincione, Michelle Dover, and John Carl Baker provided much- needed encouragement and support throughout the process. From the San Francisco office, Will Lowry, Derek Zender, and Delfin Vigil were The New Nuclear Arms Race instrumental in finalizing this report. I would like to thank each and every one of them for their help. I would especially like to thank Tom Collina. Tom reviewed numerous drafts of this report, never The Outlook for Avoiding running out of patience or constructive advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Bipolarity, Proxy Wars, and the Rise of China
    We encourage you to e-mail your comments to us at: [email protected]. Bipolarity, Proxy Wars, and the Rise of China Mark O. Yeisley, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF The modern international system in which nation-states compete for survival has historically assumed three primary configurations: uni­ polarity, in which a single state acts as a hegemon;1 bipolarity, in which two states control the majority of power with weaker states aligning with one or the other; and multipolarity, where three or more nations are powerful enough to act as poles in the system. Since the 1648 Treaties of Westphalia, multipolarity with various great-power states jockeying for supremacy has been the norm. As the fortunes of these states waxed and waned, war typically has been the ultimate result of perceived power im­ balances among them. While there have been historical instances of bi­ polarity, each of these was regional rather than global in scope.2 Many scholars argue that the international system has assumed a unipolar orientation since 1991, with the United States the sole remaining “super­ power.”3 Perhaps more important are predictions of what will follow for international relations. For example, some believe the United States will face no viable challengers in the near term, with unipolarity a stable and long-term likelihood.4 Others see a return to a multipolar environment wherein many nations will possess military and economic might sufficient to be recognized as great-power states.5 Still others foresee a return to bipo­ larity with the United States and one future great power locked once again in a struggle for primacy.6 This last possibility is increasingly influenced by Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC).
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for Nuclear War: President Reagan's Program
    The Center for Defense Infomliansupports a strong eelens* but opposes e-xces- s~eexpenditures or forces It tetiev~Dial strong social, economic and political structures conifflaute equally w national security and are essential to the strength and welfareof our country - @ 1982 CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION-WASHINGTON, D.C. 1.S.S.N. #0195-6450 Volume X, Number 8 PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR: PRESIDENT REAGAN'S PROGRAM Defense Monitor in Brief President Reagan and his advisors appear to be preparing the United States for nuclear war with the Soviet Union. President Reagan plans to spend $222 Billion in the next six years in an effort to achieve the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war. The U.S. has about 30,000 nuclear weapons today. The U.S. plans to build 17,000 new nuclear weapons in the next decade. Technological advances in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and changes in nuclear war planning are major factors in the weapons build-up and make nuclear war more likely. Development of new U.S. nuclear weapons like the MX missile create the impression in the U.S., Europe, and the Soviet Union that the U.S.is buildinga nuclear force todestroy the Soviet nuclear arsenal in a preemptive attack. Some of the U.S. weapons being developed may require the abrogation of existing arms control treaties such as the ABM Treaty and Outer Space Treaty, and make any future agreements to restrain the growth of nuclear weapons more difficult to achieve. Nuclear "superiority" loses its meaning when the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ON the EFFECTIVE USE of PROXY WARFARE by Andrew Lewis Peek Baltimore, Maryland May 2021 © 2021 Andrew Peek All Rights Reserved
    ON THE EFFECTIVE USE OF PROXY WARFARE by Andrew Lewis Peek A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland May 2021 2021 Andrew Peek All rights reserved Abstract This dissertation asks a simple question: how are states most effectively conducting proxy warfare in the modern international system? It answers this question by conducting a comparative study of the sponsorship of proxy forces. It uses process tracing to examine five cases of proxy warfare and predicts that the differentiation in support for each proxy impacts their utility. In particular, it proposes that increasing the principal-agent distance between sponsors and proxies might correlate with strategic effectiveness. That is, the less directly a proxy is supported and controlled by a sponsor, the more effective the proxy becomes. Strategic effectiveness here is conceptualized as consisting of two key parts: a proxy’s operational capability and a sponsor’s plausible deniability. These should be in inverse relation to each other: the greater and more overt a sponsor’s support is to a proxy, the more capable – better armed, better trained – its proxies should be on the battlefield. However, this close support to such proxies should also make the sponsor’s influence less deniable, and thus incur strategic costs against both it and the proxy. These costs primarily consist of external balancing by rival states, the same way such states would balance against conventional aggression. Conversely, the more deniable such support is – the more indirect and less overt – the less balancing occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian-A(Merican) Bomb: the Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project
    J. Undergrad. Sci. 3: 103-108 (Summer 1996) History of Science The Russian-A(merican) Bomb: The Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project MICHAEL I. SCHWARTZ physicists and project coordinators ought to be analyzed so as to achieve an understanding of the project itself, and given the circumstances and problems of the project, just how Introduction successful those scientists could have been. Third and fi- nally, the role that espionage played will be analyzed, in- There was no “Russian” atomic bomb. There only vestigating the various pieces of information handed over was an American one, masterfully discovered by by Soviet spies and its overall usefulness and contribution Soviet spies.”1 to the bomb project. This claim echoes a new theme in Russia regarding Soviet Nuclear Physics—Pre-World War II the Soviet atomic bomb project that has arisen since the democratic revolution of the 1990s. The release of the KGB As aforementioned, Paul Josephson believes that by (Commissariat for State Security) documents regarding the the eve of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Soviet sci- role that espionage played in the Soviet atomic bomb project entists had the technical capability to embark upon an atom- has raised new questions about one of the most remark- ics weapons program. He cites the significant contributions able and rapid scientific developments in history. Despite made by Soviet physicists to the growing international study both the advanced state of Soviet nuclear physics in the of the nucleus, including the 1932 splitting of the lithium atom years leading up to World War II and reported scientific by proton bombardment,7 Igor Kurchatov’s 1935 discovery achievements of the actual Soviet atomic bomb project, of the isomerism of artificially radioactive atoms, and the strong evidence will be provided that suggests that the So- fact that L.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrid Warfare Challenges to the Armed Forces: Realities and the Way Ahead
    Hybrid Warfare Challenges to the Armed Forces: Realities and the Way Ahead Kunendra Singh Yadav In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining the battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. —Sun Tzu Introduction With the recent landmark changes in the political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), a whole new era has been ushered in. A state which was unfortunately the test-bed of Pakistan’s nefarious agendas for decades, has now been subjected to a bold, exigent and logical step. The dissonance in decision-making has finally given way, laying fresh ground for renewed endeavours. With “Hybrid Warfare Challenges to the Armed Forces: Realities and Way Ahead” being the subject of scrutiny, a certain degree of factual clarity needs to be brought in right away. Three fundamental queries need to be answered at the outset. First, is the term hybrid war a relatively recent construct? The answer is a definite no. The phenomenon is actually as old as the history of warfare itself. Chanakya,1 around 300 BC, propagated the use of sama (conciliation), dama (economic gratification), danda (use of force) Major Kunendra Singh Yadav is serving officer of the Indian Army. His areas of interest include Hybrid Warfare, Strategy and Operational Art. 122 CLAWS Journal l Winter 2019 HYBRID WARFARE CHALLENGES TO THE ARMED FORCES and bheda (dissension) i.e., all resources at the disposal of the king (in today’s context—comprehensive national power) to achieve the intended outcome. Second, are we adequately equipped to deal with the current and upcoming challenges posed by this warfare? The answer is yes.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: a New Dataset of Battle Deathsz
    European Journal of Population (2005) 21: 145–166 Ó Springer 2005 DOI 10.1007/s10680-005-6851-6 Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: A New Dataset of Battle Deathsz BETHANY LACINA1,2,* and NILS PETTER GLEDITSCH2,3 1Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, U.S.A.; 2Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW), International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Hausmanns gate 7, NO-0186 Oslo, Norway; 3Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (*Author for correspondence, e-mail: [email protected]) Received 26 February 2004; accepted in final form 22 June 2004 Lacina, B. and N. P. Gleditsch, 2005, Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: A New Dataset of Battle Deaths, European Journal of Population, 21: 145–166. Abstract. Both academic publications and public media often make inappropriate use of incommensurate conflict statistics, creating misleading impressions about patterns in global warfare. This article clarifies the distinction between combatant deaths, battle deaths, and war deaths. A new dataset of battle deaths in armed conflict is presented for the period 1946–2002. Global battle deaths have been decreasing over most of this period, mainly due to a decline in interstate and internationalised civil armed conflict. It is far more difficult to accurately assess the number of war deaths in conflicts both past and present. But there are compelling reasons to believe that there is a need for increased attention to non-battle causes of mortality, especially displacement and disease in conflict studies. Therefore, it is demographers, public health specialists, and epidemiologists who can best describe the true human cost of many recent armed conflicts and assess the actions necessary to reduce that toll.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing the Character of Proxy Warfare and Its Consequences for Geopolitical Relationships
    https://securityandefence.pl/ Changing the character of proxy warfare and its consequences for geopolitical relationships Zoran Ivanov [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8486-648X TOBB Economics and Technology University, Sogutozu Caddesi No: 43, Sogutozu, Ankara 06560 Turkey Abstract The main purpose of the article is to examine the causal relationship between key elements of the geostrategic environment (i.e. po- litical, military, and technological) and the changes in the characteristics of proxy force. Qualitative data analysis is used to identify the geopolitical environment conditions, actors, and their relationship. The causal analysis between key elements of the geopolitical environment, such as politics, military, and technological, therefore influences how proxy forces change character. The findings imply that the contemporary geopolitical environment is changing the character of the proxies. They can be used as multipurpose forces depending on the desired strategic outcome. The results advocate that proxies have a global reach beyond the traditional battlefield. These capabilities allow proxies to be used in a wide range of political, economic, and military activities, especially in peacetime, and, therefore, influencing, changing, and damaging the state’s mutual relationships. Despite differences between several theoretical perspec- tives of security theories, many concur on the low desirability of proxy force. The changing characteristics of proxy war allow state and non-state actors to wage war with a minimal use of force, or none at all, beyond the traditional battlefield. Political violence dem- onstrated through proxy force to fulfil foreign policy goals has become even more violent. In such action, disregarding the sustainable strategic goal can easily damage the state’s international relations and threaten international and regional stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the Cold War
    Timeline of the Cold War 1945 Defeat of Germany and Japan February 4-11: Yalta Conference meeting of FDR, Churchill, Stalin - the 'Big Three' Soviet Union has control of Eastern Europe. The Cold War Begins May 8: VE Day - Victory in Europe. Germany surrenders to the Red Army in Berlin July: Potsdam Conference - Germany was officially partitioned into four zones of occupation. August 6: The United States drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima (20 kiloton bomb 'Little Boy' kills 80,000) August 8: Russia declares war on Japan August 9: The United States drops atomic bomb on Nagasaki (22 kiloton 'Fat Man' kills 70,000) August 14 : Japanese surrender End of World War II August 15: Emperor surrender broadcast - VJ Day 1946 February 9: Stalin hostile speech - communism & capitalism were incompatible March 5 : "Sinews of Peace" Iron Curtain Speech by Winston Churchill - "an "iron curtain" has descended on Europe" March 10: Truman demands Russia leave Iran July 1: Operation Crossroads with Test Able was the first public demonstration of America's atomic arsenal July 25: America's Test Baker - underwater explosion 1947 Containment March 12 : Truman Doctrine - Truman declares active role in Greek Civil War June : Marshall Plan is announced setting a precedent for helping countries combat poverty, disease and malnutrition September 2: Rio Pact - U.S. meet 19 Latin American countries and created a security zone around the hemisphere 1948 Containment February 25 : Communist takeover in Czechoslovakia March 2: Truman's Loyalty Program created to catch Cold War
    [Show full text]
  • The Chad–Sudan Proxy War and the 'Darfurization' of Chad: Myths and Reality
    12 The Chad–Sudan Proxy War and the ‘Darfurization’ of Chad: Myths and Reality By Jérôme Tubiana Copyright The Small Arms Survey Published in Switzerland by the Small Arms Survey The Small Arms Survey is an independent research project located at the Grad- uate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. It serves as the © Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva 2008 principal source of public information on all aspects of small arms and as a First published in April 2008 resource centre for governments, policy-makers, researchers, and activists. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a Established in 1999, the project is supported by the Swiss Federal Department retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior of Foreign Affairs, and by contributions from the Governments of Belgium, permission in writing of the Small Arms Survey, or as expressly permitted by Canada, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. The law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organi- Survey is also grateful for past and current project-specific support received zation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should from Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand. Further funding has been pro- be sent to the Publications Manager, Small Arms Survey, at the address below. vided by the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, the Geneva International Academic Net- Small Arms Survey work, and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. The Graduate Institute of International Studies Small Arms Survey collaborates with research institutes and NGOs in many 47 Avenue Blanc, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland countries, including Brazil, Canada, Georgia, Germany, India, Israel, Jordan, Copyedited by Emily Walmsley Norway, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • When Are Arms Races Dangerous? When Are Arms Races Charles L
    When Are Arms Races Dangerous? When Are Arms Races Charles L. Glaser Dangerous? Rational versus Suboptimal Arming Are arms races dan- gerous? This basic international relations question has received extensive at- tention.1 A large quantitative empirical literature addresses the consequences of arms races by focusing on whether they correlate with war, but remains divided on the answer.2 The theoretical literature falls into opposing camps: (1) arms races are driven by the security dilemma, are explained by the rational spiral model, and decrease security, or (2) arms races are driven by revisionist adversaries, explained by the deterrence model, and increase security.3 These Charles L. Glaser is a Professor in the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the Uni- versity of Chicago. For their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article, the author would like to thank James Fearon, Michael Freeman, Lloyd Gruber, Chaim Kaufmann, John Schuessler, Stephen Walt, the anonymous reviewers for International Security, and participants in seminars at the Program on In- ternational Security Policy at the University of Chicago, the Program on International Political Economy and Security at the University of Chicago, the John M. Olin Institute at Harvard Univer- sity, and the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia. He also thanks John Schuessler for valuable research assistance. 1. The pioneering study is Samuel P. Huntington, “Arms Races: Prerequisites and Results,” Public Policy, Vol. 8 (1958), pp. 41–86. Historical treatments include Paul Kennedy, “Arms-Races and the Causes of War, 1850–1945,” in Kennedy, Strategy and Diplomacy, 1870–1945 (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983); and Grant T.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kiwi That Roared: Nuclear-Free New Zealand in a Nuclear-Armed World
    Wade Huntley THE KIWI THAT ROARED: NUCLEAR-FREE NEW ZEALAND IN A NUCLEAR-ARMED WORLD by Wade Huntley Dr. Wade Huntley is Program Director for Asia/Pacific Security at the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development in Berkeley, California, where he produces the Northeast Asian Peace and Security Network’s Daily Report (www.nautilus.org). He has an article in the March 1996 issue of International Studies Quarterly and is working on a book based on his doctoral dissertation, “The Citizen and the Sword: Security and Democracy in the Liberal State.” The University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation provided support for research on this article. n July 14, 1984, New policy was widely criticized as a evance to larger democracies, is that Zealand elected its fourth frivolous moral exercise indulging a mass public is ill-suited to make O Labour government and vocal anti-nuclear activists and play- wise and prudent decisions regard- thus brought into effect its policy de- ing on an impassioned and unin- ing state security. Recent research claring the country “nuclear free,” formed public, while needlessly on this subject indicates that popu- which included prohibiting port entry jeopardizing the country’s national lar opinion is not as volatile and in- by any ships either under nuclear interests and sacrificing its ANZUS coherent, nor its effects on security power or carrying nuclear weapons.1 alliance relationship with the United policy as pernicious, as once The government’s commitment to States.3 This judgment is rooted in thought. However, many of these this policy reached a moment of truth two converging claims.
    [Show full text]