Nuclear Detterence: A Global Solution
...le in 1904 in order to combat the growing power of Germany. A single additional alliance could alter the balance of European power at any time, resembling the situation leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The differences in policy and culture clash raised nationalism and heightened suspicion. In a matter of a few years, Europe was clearly divided into two definite alliances and a single spark was all that was necessary to ignite war. That spark occurred on June 28, 1914 with the murder of the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand. The Cold War however, froze at the point of preliminary war despite numerous sparks that failed to ignite any violent conflict. The element of nationalism is consistent in all wars. It was a radically nationalist terrorist group who erupted a catastrophic world war with a single political assassination, and it was nationalism that summoned Germany to sign over a blank check to Austria-Hungary in the event of war. Russia quickly rushed to the defense of their Slavic brother after the declaration of war by the Austrian-German power, while France and Britain seem to have been drawn into the conflict for more systemic reasons in attempt to maintain a European balance of power. Nationalism, along with a systemic sequence of events caused by the bipolarity of the two actors, brought upon the climax of the Cold War. Nationalism grounded each nation to see the opposing nation as a threat to their way of life. In February of 1946, Joseph Stalin included in an address to the Soviet Union that even though World War II had ended to be wary for enemies still lurk among them. That same year, Winston Churchill gave a speech to a Missouri college and warned of the spread of the Soviet’s “Iron Curtain,” that enslaves those swallowed in its expansion. This sentiment gave way to the McCarthy era in the midst of the Red Scare, and led to outlandish propaganda on both hemispheres. It could be argued that since bipolarity accounts for the peaceful Cold War, it was the multi-polar system present in early 20th century Europe that gave way to war. The multi-polarity, however, is irrelevant in the crucial decade prior to the war due to the strength of the alliances. The alliances between Austria-Hungary and Germany, and then Russia and Serbia, were bonded by both nationalism and political interest. France and Great Britain were compelled to establish alliance despite imperialistic qualms in order to mitigate Germany’s growing navy and contagious nationalism. The Franco-Russian, Anglo-French, and Anglo-Russian ententes were in place long before the crisis of August 1914. Each state’s military power had grown at an enormous rate in a massive arms race at this time as well. The standing armies of France and Germany had nearly doubled in the two decades leading up to war. This build up of arms further strengthened the alliances as they planned for the possibility of war. Once war had begun, it was two powers fighting for the dismantling of the opposing governments. The Austrian belief maintained that the war must be successful in demolishing the Serbian state, but to do that Germany would have to inflict a deep enough wound on Serbia’s mother Russia and her politically motivated allies. The multi-polarity did not in effect bring about such a world war; it was a war between two equally divided superpowers of Europe over territory and political influence. The Cold War saw a similarly equal division of power and influence, but the undeniable certainty of destruction by nuclear weapons deterred the two powers to agreement. Had nuclear weapons been involved in the mix of the conflict in Europe, Germany’s William II would have never signed over a blank check to Austria-Hungary, doing so would risk the total annihilation of his state. War would have meant the destruction of what they wanted to obtain, forfeiting that all the participating actors held similar nuclear capabilities. States would have been require...