Cold War Effects Essay, Research Paper

A note to my would be reader:

Since I did not live through the cold war, I think that I can look back with a much more critical eye, and evaluate the cost and benefits of the cold war. Had I lived through the Cuban missile crisis, I probably would have said that the whole cold war was a success because I am still alive. I don t think that I ever can have the same respect for the situation, no matter how many accounts I read, or films I watch. I think that this should be taken into account when reading my analysis of the facts

To what extent did the cold war really aid the world (and America specifically), who were the real winners, if any? Yes I know it is a broad question, but I think that I can re-specify it so that this paper will be a readable length. During the research process, I noticed that there were three general views of how the cold war ended:

(1) It was a great American victory; we stopped the evil empire. (Rourke, 2)

(2) It was an American loss, because the cost of the war, and it s after effects were so great. (Rourke, 2)

(3) It was a zero-sum game, in the end the costs were equal to the benefits

On the one hand there were some mostly good things did come from the cold war: the freedom of the Russian people from a dictatorship, allowing them use freer speech, the avoidance of nuclear war, remarkable growth inside Russia, and the United States, and the furthering of democracy world wide. These results, amongst others, are the direct products of the cold war. On the other hand there were some mostly bad things that came from the cold war: the proliferation of nuclear weapons, vast stockpiles of nuclear armaments on both sides, and the nuclear waste that was the by-product of the production of these weapons, collapse of economies that were dependant on military dollars, the current state of Russia, and the disillusionment of Americans caused by the Vietnam war.

There are no absolutes when interpreting history, this being said I think that the answers should be re-specified: in order for the results to be clearly positive, or negative the costs must either be less than or greater than the benefits respectively. If the costs and benefits are relatively equal, than it was a tie – a zero sum game. Armed with our new pseudo math, let s begin.

If we were to look over the negatives for a moment, the cold war was possibly the best thing that happened to the United States. During the war we experienced a record economic and populous growth (boom of the 1950 s, 60 s, and 80 s), and expanded the rights of Americans. Successfully evading a nuclear war with the USSR, the U.S. stands alone as the last great superpower. Competition between the two sides strengthened international agencies like the U.N., setting a historical precedent that the world had never seen before.

The United Nations is possibly the greatest legacy of the 20th century, forged in the fires of the cold war, it has emerged as a possible solution to war, living up to Wilson s original dream.

A majority of the benefits are intangible, or in the process of occurring, this intangibility makes it far more difficult to assess their value, what value does something not happening have? How can you put a figure on an evaded accident? Some are easier that others, it is obvious that as far as humans are concerned, the avoidance of a nuclear war has a great value. But what about the rest of them, how can we measure freedom abroad, and with the fall of the USSR will the international community remain strong? I think that the positive results will outlive the negative results, but this is an assumption, and cannot be proven (I would hope that when I am old, I would find this paper, and laugh at the temporary nature of the negative effects that I have cited). Using the evidence that is available now, it is far easier to make that case that the world is a big mess because of the cold war. (160,000+ Americans killed in military operations from Korea to Grenada, this is the most tangible evidence: 160,000 individual gravestones)

I contend that almost any major problem in developing nations can be traced to United States, or Soviet involvement during the cold war.(Clodfelter 550-1124) The instability in the Middle East was aggravated by the addition of Soviet and/or NATO/UN/US weapons, training, and money(Chomsky, 319) . The political instability in the Balkans, South and Central America, and parts of Africa all has either Soviet or American fingerprints on it.

We are not free and clear of nuclear war either, in fact I believe that we are in just as much of a risk as we were 30 years ago. Since the end of the cold war, more nations have joined the nuclear club and more are on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. Many of these nations are far less predictable than the big Old Russian bear, this uncertainty is possibly a greater threat to American security that the USSR ever was (with the exception of the duration of the Cuban Missile crisis) .

The current fracturing that was caused by the end of the cold war is considered worse (by some) than the original cold war, now we have just as many hot spots to watch, but many more leaders and governments to deal with. If the USSR was analogous to a dragon, then today s state of affairs is comparable to a hydra. They both breath fire, but with the dragon you only have to watch one head versus the hydra which has so many heads that it is impossible to watch them all at once.

A current popular theory states that NATO could have contained communism without using military forces (assuming that the communist agents would use a revolution, and not direct military invasion). A large poor working class is needed for a communist revolution to be successful, if the United Sates, and later NATO, had invested in all the key nations, so that a middle class equal in size to the poor was created, it would thwart any true revolution. In certain instances, communist nations did use aggressive military tactics to acquire territory, and most likely no amount of money could stop these invasions. In these cases the only way to keep these lands free would be to intervene with military forces. But should we protect these people? If you believed in the domino effect, then you would say that the containment of communism is imperative because the accession of territory would strengthen the communist forces, and they would expand again with greater force than before. If you put aside this idea and take my personal theory for a moment, I believe that you could just let the lands go.

The body politic, as well as the human body, begins to die as soon as it is born,

and carries in itself the causes of its destruction. But both may have a constitution

that is more or less robust and suited to preserve them a longer or shorter time.

(Rousseau, Book 3 Ch. 11) Jean Jacques Rousseau, a man whose ideas molded the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution, believes that certain types of government cannot sustain themselves, such as the brand of communism practiced during the 20th century. Every communist country is now softening, and becoming more and more capitalist and democratic. This short life span explicates the inherent flaws in their style of government, it lacks the constitution to last more than 75 years. I propose that all we had to do was keep the commies from invading everywhere and we could just wait them out.

All of this is strong evidence for the cause of a great loss, but I still think that it can t outweigh them totally. Right now I will have to call it a draw, because the jury is still out on the positive effects. If Russia rebuilds itself, the former Yugoslavia can somehow find peace, then we will have made a great.