Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseIn August 1945 the USA dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For four years it was the only country with the bomb. Then, on 29 August 1949, the Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb of its own, years sooner than American experts had expected. The American lead had gone, and a nuclear arms race began: each side tried to build more weapons, and more powerful ones, than the other.
Notice the pattern. The USA kept its atomic lead for four years, but its hydrogen lead for less than one. Neither side could stay ahead for long, so neither side ever felt safe.
Key terms:
A bomb is useless unless it can reach its target, so the superpowers also raced to build ways of delivering their weapons.
In the early 1950s nuclear bombs were carried by aircraft. From 1955 the USA had the B-52, a long-range jet bomber, and it could also use airfields in allied countries close to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union built long-range bombers too. In the mid-1950s many Americans feared a 'bomber gap', but in truth the USA had far more bombers. Bombers were slow, though. They took hours to arrive and could be shot down.
In August 1957 the Soviet Union successfully tested the first ICBM. A missile could cross the world in about half an hour, and there was no defence against it. The USA had ICBMs of its own ready by 1959 and placed shorter-range missiles in Britain. By 1960 it also had Polaris missiles, fired from submarines hidden under the sea. Now each side could destroy the other's cities with almost no warning.
On 4 October 1957 the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite. It was a metal ball weighing about 84 kg, and it circled the Earth roughly every hour and a half, sending out a radio beep. A month later Sputnik 2 carried a dog called Laika into space.
Americans were shocked. They had always believed that their science and technology were the best in the world. Worse, a rocket strong enough to put a satellite into orbit could also carry a hydrogen bomb to an American city. In December 1957 the first American attempt to launch a satellite blew up on the launch pad, live on television. The USA reacted quickly:
Khrushchev made the most of his success. He boasted that Soviet factories were turning out missiles like sausages. Many Americans believed him, and talk of a 'missile gap' spread. John F Kennedy used it against the Republicans in the 1960 presidential election. In fact the gap did not exist. The Soviet Union had only a handful of ICBMs, and the USA stayed well ahead in nuclear weapons overall. But the fear was real, and fear drove the race on.
Each new weapon looked like a threat to the other side, which then built more. President Eisenhower's government said it would answer Communist aggression with 'massive retaliation', meaning the threat of an all-out nuclear attack. Khrushchev's boasts and American fears of a 'gap' made each side assume the worst about the other. Ordinary people lived with the fear of nuclear war, and American schoolchildren practised 'duck and cover' drills.
Once both sides had hydrogen bombs, a war between them would destroy both. This was deterrence, and in the 1960s it became known as mutually assured destruction (MAD). It made leaders careful: in 1956 the USA would not risk war over Hungary. The danger and the cost also gave both sides a reason to talk, which is one reason Khrushchev called for peaceful co-existence and the leaders met at the Geneva Summit in 1955.
So the arms race pulled in two directions at once. It made the superpowers fear each other more, and it made them more afraid to fight. The rivalry was pushed into other areas instead, such as space, spying and propaganda.
Don't say the Soviet Union was ahead in the arms race: it led in space and tested the first ICBM, but the USA had far more nuclear weapons throughout the 1950s. Don't say the 'missile gap' was real: it was a fear, not a fact. And don't treat Sputnik as a weapon. It mattered because of what its rocket could carry.
'The main effect of the nuclear arms race in the 1950s was to make relations between the superpowers worse.'
How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [16 marks]
You may use the following in your answer:
You must also use information of your own.
I largely agree. The arms race did push the superpowers to talk and made them cautious, but its strongest and most lasting effect was to deepen fear and mistrust.
The arms race made relations worse because every advance by one side looked like a threat to the other. The hydrogen bomb had already raised the stakes: the USA tested the first in 1952 and the Soviet Union followed in August 1953. Then, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in October 1957, Americans realised that the same rocket could carry a hydrogen bomb to their cities. Khrushchev boasted that he was producing missiles like sausages, and Americans came to believe in a 'missile gap', which Kennedy used in the 1960 election. The USA answered with more missiles, including Polaris missiles on submarines by 1960. Each side assumed the worst about the other, so mistrust grew.
However, the arms race also pushed the superpowers towards better relations. Khrushchev argued for peaceful co-existence partly because a nuclear war would destroy both sides and the weapons were so costly. This led to the Geneva Summit of July 1955, the first meeting of the leaders since Potsdam, where the mood was friendly. But this effect was limited: nothing was agreed on arms, and the Soviet side turned down Eisenhower's 'Open Skies' plan.
A third effect was that the arms race made the superpowers afraid to fight each other. After both had tested hydrogen bombs, by 1953, any war could destroy them both. This deterrence explains why Eisenhower condemned the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 but sent no troops. In this way the arms race kept the Cold War from turning into a real war. Yet this was a peace built on fear and threats such as 'massive retaliation', not on trust.
Overall, I agree to a large extent. Judged by what lasted, the main effect was worse relations. The friendly mood of Geneva faded within a year and produced no agreement, and deterrence prevented war without removing any of the hostility. The fear and mistrust kept growing: by 1960 both sides had far more powerful weapons, aimed at each other's cities, than in 1950.
What lifts this to the top level: it covers three effects, one of them not in the bullets, argues both for and against the statement, and reaches a judgement using a clear test ('what lasted').
An answer that uses only Sputnik and the Geneva Summit cannot reach the top level, so plan a third point of your own before you start writing. Here deterrence and Hungary work well. In your conclusion, say what test you are using to choose the 'main' effect, such as which effect lasted longest.