The first issue that I have is that I think Waltz misuses the word "coexist". When I read that he believes that "states continue to coexist in an anarchic order" (624) I felt that was a misuse of the word but to be sure I looked up the definition of coexist.
co·ex·ist
1. to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries
ɪgˈzɪstThe "but peaceably" part is the area that I don't think applies when thinking about the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War. While direct conflict wasn't possible, due to the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), indirect conflicts were happening all the time. Given the nature of the Cold War I would consider that these acts weren't peaceful. A peaceful interaction between two countries doesn't result in the shooting down of spy planes but rather results in the country trying to end spying through diplomatic channels. I feel like to say that the US and Soviet Union coexisted undermines the intense military buildup and rivalry that resulted in the economic demise of the Soviet Union and thus doesn't really give credit to how different the Cold War really was.
The second issue I had was when Waltz stated that "had the atom never been split, those two nations would still have much to fear from each other" (625). I think it was the splitting of the atom that drove these two countries into such fear of each other. Prior to atomic weapons being created the fear of invasion was calmed by the geographical location of the two countries. For the US the Pacific and Atlantic oceans acted as a buffer against international act so the fear of war was diminished. Take the American response to WWII as a good example of this. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Americans wanted very little to do with the War in Europe. There wasn't a large fear that their way of life was in trouble since conventional warfare meant that you would have to send ships and move troops in order to attack. With the creation of the atomic bomb the notion of a buffer vanished. Any country that possessed atomic weapons could now destroy an entire city with just a single plane (and as time went on with just a missile). This fear of a secret attack is what lead to the military arms race and the hostility between the US and Soviet Union. I think that had it not been for the creation of the atomic bomb the US and Soviet Union would have been able to coexist and the Cold War wouldn't have happened.
Ryan,
ReplyDeletejust like the difference between coercion and persuade can get fuzzy at times, I believe coexist can be more broadly defined and agree with Waltz. If nukes had not been around there would have been a major armed conflict between the Soviet Union and the West. The fact that the deep rooted values and beliefs of each side were so diametrically opposed would have driven them to a fight in Europe. The threat of MAD raised the stakes to a point where any "open" conflict would have escalated to a nuclear weapon exchange and both side, not to mention the rest of the Earth, would have lost. This opened the door to multiple instances of working together to lessen the possibility of global destruction. In that very broad example, I believe we coexisted... I agree that there were several "wars by proxy", and the Cuban Missile Crisis very nearly took us to a "nuclear" level; but I truly believe that if both sides were only armed with conventional weapons at the time, there would have been a major war not only in Europe, but in the Western Hemisphere as well.