Arms Race
Hypersonic weapons close in on their targets at a minimum speed of Mach 5, five times the speed of sound or 3,836.4 miles an hour. They are among the latest entrants in an arms competition that has embroiled the United States for generations, first with the Soviet Union, today with China and Russia. Pentagon officials tout the potential of such weaponry and the largest arms manufacturers are totally gung-ho on the subject. No surprise there. They stand to make staggering sums from building them, especially given the chronic “” of such defense contracts— in the far-from-rare case of the Joint Strike Fighter. Voices within the military-industrial complex—the Defense Department; mega-defense companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and Raytheon; hawkish armchair strategists in Washington-based think tanks and universities; and legislators from places that depend on arms production for jobs—insist that these are must-have weapons.
Their refrain: Unless we build and deploy them soon, we could suffer a devastating attack from Russia and China.The opposition to this powerful ensemble’s doomsday logic is, as always, feeble. The (Il)logic of Arms RacesHypersonic weapons are just the most recent manifestation of the urge to engage in an “arms race,” even if, as a sports metaphor, it couldn’t be more off base. Take, for instance, a bike or foot race. Each has a beginning, a stipulated distance, and an end, as well as a goal: crossing the finish line ahead of your rivals. In theory, an arms race should at least have a starting point, but in practice, it’s usually remarkably hard to pin down, making for interminable disputes about who really started us down this path.
Historians, for instance, are (and arguing) about the roots of the arms race that culminated in World War I.The arms version of a sports race lacks a purpose (apart from the perpetuation of a competition fueled by an endless action-reaction sequence). The participants just keep at it, possessed by worst-case thinking, suspicion, and fear, sentiments sustained by bureaucracies whose budgets and political clout often depend on military spending, companies that rake in the big bucks selling the weaponry, and a priesthood of professional threat inflators who merchandise themselves as “security experts.”While finish lines (other than the finishing of most life on this planet) are seldom in sight, arms control treaties can, at least, decelerate and muffle the intensity of arms races. But at least so far, they’ve never ended them and they themselves survive only as long as the signatories want them to. Recall President George W. Bush’s scuttling of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Trump administration’s from the Cold War–era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in August.
Similarly, the accord, which covered long-range nuclear weapons and was signed by Russia and the United States in 2010, will be up for renewal in 2021 and its future, should Donald Trump be reelected, is uncertain at best. Apart from the fragility built into such treaties, new vistas for arms competition inevitably emerge—or, more precisely, are created. Hypersonic weapons are just the latest example. Arms races, though waged in the name of national security, invariably create yet more insecurity.
Imagine two adversaries neither of whom knows what new weapon the other will field. So both just keep building new ones. That gets expensive.
And such spending only increases the number of threats. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, US military spending has consistently and substantially China’s and Russia’s combined. But can you name a government that imagines more threats on more fronts than ours? This endless enumeration of new vulnerabilities isn’t a form of paranoia.
It’s meant to keep arms races humming and the money flowing into military (and military-industrial) coffers. Current Issue. Because of sluggish wage growth many workers find it hard to land jobs that pay enough to cover basic life expenses even when, as now, unemployment is low ( this year compared to 8 percent in 2013). Meanwhile, millions earning low wages, particularly who want to work, struggle to find —not surprising considering that in 10 states and the District of Columbia the annual cost of such care exceeded last year; and that, in, childcare centers charged more than the cost of tuition and fees at four-year public colleges.Workers trapped in low-wage jobs are also hard-pressed to cover unanticipated expenses.
In 2018, the “median household” banked only, and households with incomes in the bottom 20 percent had, on average, only $8,790 in savings; 29 percent of them, $1,000 or less. (For the wealthiest 1 percent of households, the median figure was $2.5 million.) percent of American families would be unable to cover emergency-related expenses in excess of $400 without borrowing money or selling some of their belongings. That, in turn, means many Americans can’t adequately cover periods of extended unemployment or illness, even when are added in. Then there’s the burden of medical bills.
The percentage of uninsured adults has from 10.9 percent to 13.7 percent since 2016 and often your medical insurance is tied to your job—lose it and you lose your coverage—not to speak of the high deductibles imposed by many medical insurance policies. (Out-of-pocket medical expenses have, in fact, increased since 2007 and now average $1,300 a year.)Or, speaking of insecurity, consider the epidemic in (400,000 people since 1999), or (47,173 in 2017 alone), or murders involving firearms ( in that same year). Child poverty? The US rate was than that of 32 of the 36 other economically developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Now ask yourself this: How often do you hear our politicians or pundits use a definition of “national security” that includes any of these daily forms of American insecurity?
Admittedly, progressive politicians do speak about the economic pressures millions of Americans face, but never as part of a discussion of national security.Politicians who portray themselves as “budget hawks” flaunt the label, but their outrage over “irresponsible” or “wasteful” spending seldom extends to a national security budget that currently. Hawks claim that the country must spend as much as it does because it has a worldwide military presence and a plethora of defense commitments. That presumes, however, that both are essential for American security when sensible and less extravagant are.In that context, let’s return to the “race” for hypersonic weapons.Faster Than a Speeding BulletAlthough the foundation for today’s hypersonic weaponry was laid decades ago, the pace of progress has been slow because of daunting. Developing materials like capable of withstanding the intense heat to which such weapons will be exposed during flight leads the list. In recent years, though, countries have stepped up their games hoping to deploy hypersonic armaments rapidly, something Russia has begun to do.China, Russia, and the United States lead the hypersonic arms race, but —including, and —have joined in (and more undoubtedly will do so).
Each has its own list of dire scenarios against which hypersonic weapons will supposedly protect them and military missions for which they see such armaments as ideal. In other words, a new round in an arms race aimed at Armageddon is already well underway. There are two variants of hypersonic weapons, which can both be equipped with conventional or nuclear warheads and can also demolish their targets through sheer speed and force of impact,.
“” (HGVs) are lofted skyward on ballistic missiles or aircraft. Separated from their transporter, they then hurtle through the atmosphere, pulled toward their target by gravity, while picking up momentum along the way. Unlike ballistic missiles, which generally fly most of the way in a parabolic trajectory—think of an inverted U—ranging in from nearly 400 to nearly 750 miles high, HGVs stay low, maxing out about 62 miles up. Amiga forever plus isotopes. The combination of their hypersonic speed and lower altitude shortens the journey, while theoretically flummoxing radars and defenses designed to track and intercept ballistic missile warheads (which means another kind of arms race still to come).By contrast, hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs) resemble pilotless aircraft, propelled from start to finish by an on-board engine.
They are, however, lighter than standard cruise missiles because they use “” technology. Rather than carrying liquid oxygen tanks, the missile “breathes” in outside air that passes through it at supersonic speed, its oxygen combining with the missile’s hydrogen fuel.
The resulting combustion generates extreme, propelling the missile toward its target. HCMs fly even lower than HGVs, below, which makes identifying and destroying them harder yet.Weapons are categorized as hypersonic when they can reach a speed of at least Mach 5, but versions that travel much faster are in the works. A Chinese HGV, launched by the Dong Feng (East Wind) DF-ZF ballistic missile, reportedly registered a speed of up to during tests, which began in 2014. Russia’s Kinzhal, or “Dagger,” launched from a bomber or interceptor, can reportedly also reach a speed of. Lockheed Martin’s AGM-183A Advanced Rapid Response Weapon , an HGV that was first test-launched from a B-52 bomber this year, can apparently reach the staggering speed of.And yet it’s not just the speed and flight trajectory of hypersonic weapons that will make them so hard to track and intercept. They can also maneuver as they race toward their targets.
Unsurprisingly, efforts to develop against them, using, technology, and “” have already begun. The Trump administration’s plans for a new Space Force that will put sensors and interceptors into space cite the threat of hypersonic missiles. Even so, critics have the initiative for being poorly funded.Putting aside the technical complexities of building defenses against hypersonic weapons, the American decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and develop missile-defense systems influenced Russia’s decision to develop hypersonic weapons capable of penetrating such defenses. These are meant to ensure that Russia’s nuclear forces will continue to serve as a credible deterrent against a nuclear first strike on that country.The Trio Takes the LeadChina, Russia, and the United States are, of course, leading the hypersonic race to hell.
Contents.World War II The first nuclear weapon was created by the United States of America during the and was developed to be used against the. Scientists of the were aware of the potential of nuclear weapons and.The Soviet Union was not informed officially of the until was briefed at the on July 24, 1945, by, eight days after. Despite their wartime military alliance, the United States and Britain had not trusted the Soviets enough to keep knowledge of the Manhattan Project safe from German spies: there were also concerns that, as an ally, the Soviet Union would request and expect to receive technical details of the new weapon. When President Truman informed Stalin of the weapons, he was surprised at how calmly Stalin reacted to the news and thought that Stalin had not understood what he had been told.
Other members of the United States and British delegations who closely observed the exchange formed the same conclusion.In fact Stalin had long been aware of the program, despite the Manhattan Project having a secret classification so high that, even as Vice President, Truman did not know about it or the development of the weapons (Truman was not informed until shortly after he became president). A ring of spies operating within the Manhattan Project, (including and ) had kept Stalin well informed of American progress. They provided the Soviets with detailed designs of the implosion bomb and the hydrogen bomb. Fuchs' arrest in 1950 led to the arrests of many other suspected Russian spies, including Harry Gold, David Greenglass, and Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.In August 1945, on Truman's orders,. The was dropped on, and the was dropped on by the bombers named and respectively.Shortly after the end of the Second World War in 1945, the was founded. During the United Nation's first General Assembly in London in January 1946, they discussed the future of Nuclear Weapons and created the.
The goal of this assembly was to eliminate the use of all Nuclear weapons. The United States presented their solution, which was called the. This plan proposed that there should be an international authority that controls all dangerous atomic activities. The Soviet Union disagreed with this proposal and rejected it. The Soviets' proposal involved universal nuclear disarmament.
Both the American and Soviet proposals were refused by the UN.Early Cold War. Main articles:, and Warhead Development In the years immediately after the Second World War, the United States had a monopoly on specific knowledge of and raw materials for nuclear weaponry.
American leaders hoped that their exclusive ownership of nuclear weapons would be enough to draw from the Soviet Union but this proved ineffective.Just six months after the UN General Assembly, the United States conducted its first post-war nuclear tests. This was called. The purpose of this operation was to test the effectiveness of nuclear explosions on ships. These tests were performed at in the Pacific on 95 ships, including German and Japanese ships that were captured during World War II.
One plutonium implosion-type bomb was detonated over the fleet, while the other one was detonated underwater.Behind the scenes, the Soviet government was working on building its own atomic weapons. During the war, Soviet efforts had been limited by a lack of uranium but new supplies in were found and provided a steady supply while the Soviets developed a domestic source. While American experts had predicted that the Soviet Union would not have nuclear weapons until the mid-1950s, the first Soviet bomb was detonated on August 29, 1949, shocking the entire world. The bomb, named ' by the West, was more or less a copy of ', one of the bombs the United States had dropped on Japan in 1945.Both governments spent massive amounts to increase the quality and quantity of their nuclear arsenals.
Both nations quickly began the development of a and the United States detonated the first hydrogen bomb on November 1, 1952, on, an in the. Code-named 'Ivy Mike', the project was led by Edward Teller, a Hungarian-American nuclear physicist. It created a cloud 100 miles wide and 25 miles high, killing all life on the surrounding islands. Again, the Soviets surprised the world by exploding a deployable thermonuclear device in August 1953 although it was not a true multi-stage hydrogen bomb.
However, it was small enough to be dropped from an airplane, making it ready for use. The development of these two Soviet bombs was greatly aided by the Russian spies Harry Gold and Klaus Fuchs.On March 1, 1954, the U.S.
Conducted the test, which tested another hydrogen bomb on Bikini Atoll. Scientists significantly underestimated the size of the bomb, thinking it would yield 5 megatons. However, it yielded 14.8 megatons, which is the largest nuclear explosion tested by the U.S. The explosion was so large the nuclear fallout exposed residents up to 300 miles away to significant amounts of radiation.
Arms Race Fall Out Boy
They were eventually evacuated, but most of them experienced radiation poisoning and resulted in one death from a crew member of a fishing boat 90 miles from the explosion.The Soviet Union detonated its first 'true' hydrogen bomb on November 22, 1955, which had a yield of 1.6 megatons. On October 30, 1961, the Soviets detonated a hydrogen bomb with a yield of. Arms Race With both sides in the 'cold war' having nuclear capability, an developed, with the Soviet Union attempting first to catch up and then to surpass the Americans.Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov warned about a risk of nuclear war, as the negative dynamics was quite noticeable in 2018. He urged the nuclear states to build channels on forestalling potential incidents, in order to lower the risks. Delivery Vehicles were the primary delivery method at the beginning of the Cold War.Missiles had long been regarded the ideal platform for nuclear weapons, and were potentially a more effective delivery system than bombers.
Starting in the 1950s, and ('IRBM's) were developed for delivery of tactical nuclear weapons, and the technology developed to the progressively longer ranges, eventually becoming (ICBMs). On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union showed the world that they had missiles able to reach any part of the world when they launched the satellite into Earth orbit.
The United States launched its first satellite on January 31, 1958.Meanwhile, were also developed. By the mid-1960s, the 'triad' of nuclear weapon delivery was established, with each side deploying bombers, ICBMs, and SLBMs, in order to insure that even if a defense was found against one delivery method, the other methods would still be available.Some in the United States during the early 1960s pointed out that although all of the individual components of nuclear missiles had been tested separately (warheads, navigation systems, rockets), it was infeasible to test them all combined. Critics charged that it was not really known how a warhead would react to the gravity forces and temperature differences encountered in the upper atmosphere and outer space, and Kennedy was unwilling to run a test of an ICBM with a live warhead. The closest thing to an actual test was 1962's, in which the submarine launched a over 1,000 miles to the nuclear test site at. It was challenged by, among others, who put missile accuracy into doubt to encourage the development of new bombers.
Main article:By the mid-1960s both the United States and the Soviet Union had enough nuclear power to obliterate the other side. Both sides developed a capability to launch a devastating attack even after sustaining a full assault from the other side (especially by means of submarines), called a. This policy became known as: both sides knew that any attack upon the other would be devastating to themselves, thus in theory restraining them from attacking the other.Both Soviet and American experts hoped to use nuclear weapons for extracting concessions from the other, or from other powers such as, but the risk connected with using these weapons was so grave that they refrained from what referred to as. While some, like General, argued nuclear weapons should be used during the, both Truman and Eisenhower opposed the idea. Both sides were unaware of the details of the capacity of the enemy's arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Americans suffered from a lack of confidence, and in the 1950s they believed in a non-existing.
Aerial photography later revealed that the Soviets had been playing a sort of game with their bombers in their military parades, flying them in large circles, making it appear they had far more than they truly did. The saw accusations of a wholly spurious between the Soviets and the Americans. On the other side, the Soviet government exaggerated the power of Soviet weapons to the leadership. Initial nuclear proliferation.
Main article:In addition to the United States and the Soviet Union, three other nations, the, and developed nuclear weapons during the early cold war years.In 1952, the became the third nation to possess nuclear weapons when it detonated an atomic bomb in on October 3, 1952, which had a yield of 25 kilotons. Despite major contributions to the Manhattan Project by both Canadian and British governments, the U.S. Congress passed the, which prohibited multi-national cooperation on nuclear projects. The Atomic Energy Act fueled resentment from British scientists and Winston Churchill, as they believed that there were regarding post-war sharing of nuclear technology, and led to Britain developing its own nuclear weapons. Britain did not begin planning the development of their own nuclear weapon until January 1947.
Because of Britain's small size, they decided to test their bomb on the Monte Bello Islands, off the coast of Australia. Following this successful test, under the leadership of Churchill, Britain decided to develop and test a hydrogen bomb. The first successful hydrogen bomb test occurred on November 8, 1957, which had a yield of 1.8 megatons. An amendment to the Atomic Energy Act in 1958 allowed nuclear cooperation once again, and British-U.S. Nuclear programs resumed.
During the Cold War, British nuclear deterrence came from submarines and nuclear-armed aircraft. The armed with the American-built provided the sea deterrent, while aircraft such as the, and several other carrying gravity bomb provided the air deterrent.became the fourth nation to possess nuclear weapons on February 13, 1960, when the atomic bomb ' was detonated in, then still a French colony Formally a part of the Metropolitan France.
France began making plans for a nuclear-weapons program shortly after the Second World War, but the program did not actually begin until the late 1950s. Eight years later, France conducted its first thermonuclear test above Fangatuafa Atoll. It had a yield of 2.6 megatons.
This bomb significantly contaminated the atoll with radiation for six years, making it off-limits to humans. During the Cold War, the French nuclear deterrent was centered around the, a nuclear triad consisting of bombers carrying such nuclear weapons as the gravity bomb and the stand-off attack missile, and ballistic missiles, and the armed with strategic nuclear missiles.became the fifth nuclear power on October 16, 1964 when it detonated a 25 kiloton bomb in a test codenamed at. In the late 1950s, China began developing nuclear weapons with substantial Soviet assistance in exchange for uranium ore. However, the Sino-Soviet ideological split in the late 1950s developed problems between China and the Soviet Union. This caused the Soviets to cease helping China develop nuclear weapons. However, China continued developing nuclear weapons without Soviet support and made remarkable progress in the 1960s.
Due to, the Chinese might have used nuclear weapons against either the United States or the Soviet Union in the event of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, the Chinese nuclear deterrent consisted of gravity bombs carried aboard, missile systems such as the, and, and in the later stages of the Cold War, the. On June 14, 1967, China detonated its first hydrogen bomb.Cuban Missile Crisis. Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev and U.S. President Reagan signing the, 1987During the mid-1980s, the U.S-Soviet relations significantly improved, Mikhail Gorbachev assumed control of the Soviet Union after the deaths of several former Soviet leaders, and announced a new era of perestroika and glasnost, meaning restructuring and openness respectively. Gorbachev proposed a 50% reduction of nuclear weapons for both the U.S and Soviet Union at the meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland in October 1986.
However, the proposal was refused due to disagreements over Reagan's SDI. Instead, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was signed on December 8, 1987 in Washington, which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.Due to the dramatic economic and social changes occurring within the Soviet Union, many of its constituent republics began to declare their independence. With the, the Soviet Union was unable to impose its will on its satellite states and so its sphere of influence slowly diminished. By December 16, 1991, all of the republics had declared independence from the Union. The Soviet leader, resigned as the country's President on December 25 and the Soviet Union was declared non-existent the following day.Post–Cold War.
Dmitry Medvedev with Barack Obama after signing the treaty in Prague, 2010With the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia cut down on nuclear weapons spending. Fewer new systems were developed and both arsenals were reduced; although both countries maintain significant stocks of nuclear missiles. In the United States, programs have taken over the role of maintaining the aging arsenal.After the Cold War ended, large inventories of nuclear weapons and facilities remained. Some are being recycled, dismantled, or recovered as valuable substances.
As a result, a large amount of resources and money which was once spent on developing nuclear weapons in Soviet Union was then spent on repairing the environmental damage produced by the nuclear arms race, and almost all former production sites are now major cleanup sites. In the United States, the plutonium production facility at and the fabrication facility at are among the most polluted sites.
Military policies and strategies have been modified to reflect the increasing intervals without major confrontation. In 1995, United States policy and strategy regarding nuclear proliferation was outlined in the document ', produced by the Policy Subcommittee of the Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) of the.On April 8, 2010, U.S. President and Russian President signed the, which called for a fifty percent reduction of strategic nuclear missile launchers and a curtailment of deployed nuclear warheads. The ratified the treaty in December 2010 by a three-quarter majority. Large stockpile with global range (dark blue), smaller stockpile with global range (medium blue), small stockpile with regional range (light blue).On 13 December 2001, gave notice of the United States' withdrawal from the. This led to the eventual creation of the American.
Russian President responded to the withdrawal by ordering a build-up of Russia's nuclear capabilities, designed to counterbalance U.S. Capabilities.On December 22, 2016, U.S. President proclaimed in a that 'the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,' effectively challenging the world to re-engage in a race for nuclear dominance. The next day, Trump reiterated his position to host of, stating: 'Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.'
In October 2018, the former Soviet leader commented that U.S. Withdrawal from the is 'not the work of a great mind' and that 'a new arms race has been announced'.In early 2019, more than 90% of world's 13,865 nuclear weapons were owned by and the.According to the Pentagon's June 2019 ', 'Integration of nuclear weapons employment with conventional and special operations forces is essential to the success of any mission or operation.' India and Pakistan. Further information: andIn, and have also engaged in a technological nuclear arms race since the 1970s. The nuclear competition started in 1974 with India detonating the device, codename, at the Pokhran region of the.
The Indian government termed this test as a ' ', but according to independent sources, it was actually part of an accelerated covert of India.This test generated great concern and doubts in Pakistan, with fear it would be at the mercy of its long–time arch rival. Pakistan had its own covert in 1972 which extended over many years since the first Indian weapon was detonated. After the 1974 test, Pakistan's atomic bomb program picked up a great speed and accelerated its atomic project to successfully build its own atomic weapons program. In the last few decades of the 20th century, India and Pakistan began to develop nuclear-capable rockets and nuclear military technologies.
Finally, in 1998 India, under government,. Domestic pressure within Pakistan began to build steam and Prime Minister ordered the test, detonated 6 nuclear war weapons ( and ) in a tit-for-tat fashion and to act as a deterrent.Defense against nuclear attacks.
Main article:From the beginning of the Cold War, The United States, Russia, and other nations have all attempted to develop. The United States developed the in the 1950s in order to destroy incoming.Russia has, too, developed ABM missiles in the form of the and the later. Chinese state media has also announced to have tested anti-ballistic missiles, though specific information is not public.India has successfully developed its Ballistic Missile Shield in the programme with the test fire of Prithvi Air Defense (PAD) and it has also developed a cruise missile defense Akash Air Defense (AAD) to intercept low flying missiles making India one of the five countries with Missile Shield.See also.References. Nuclearweaponarchive.org.
2007-10-24 at the. ^. Dannen.com. ^ 2007-11-16 at the. Mike Fisk, Chief Information Officer, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Operated Los Alamos National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy. CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list.
Retrieved 24 November 2012. Retrieved 24 November 2012. Retrieved 24 November 2012. Retrieved 24 November 2012. 'More accurate than the 'race' metaphor is the observation that if it was a contest at all, the Americans walked while the Soviets trotted.
There was no race-but to the extent that there was an arms competition, it was almost entirely on the Soviets side, first to catch up and then to surpass the Americans.' - (1962) Thinking about the Unthinkable, Horizon Press.
Retrieved 2019-09-12. Gerald Segal, The Simon & Schuster Guide to the World Today, (, 1987), p. 82. Edwin Bacon, Mark Sandle, 'Brezhnev Reconsidered', Studies in Russian and East European History and Society (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).
Archived from on 2011-05-22. Retrieved 2006-09-27.
2018-10-21. Senat.fr (in French). Fas.org. 'Document 65 - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume VI, Kennedy-Khrushchev Exchanges - Historical Documents - Office of the Historian.' Document 65 - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume VI, Kennedy-Khrushchev Exchanges - Historical Documents - Office of the Historian.
Accessed October 30, 2014. Masco, Joseph (2006). (paperback ed.). P. 78. Majumdar, Dave (1 March 2018). The National Interest. USA.
Arms Race Definition
Pilkington, Ed; Pengelly, Martin (2016-12-24). The Guardian. Ellyatt, Holly (22 October 2018). CNBC.
Swanson, Ian (27 October 2018). The Hill. Reichmann, Kelsey (16 June 2019). Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
17 June 2019. 21 June 2019. The Guardian. 19 June 2019.
Nuclearweaponarchive.org. FIles. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Nuclear files archives. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
Tania Branigan (2010-01-12). The Guardian. The New Indian Express. Boughton, G. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs (16th ed.).
Arms Race Meaning
Miami, United States of America: Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami. Brown, A. Retrieved November 22, 2012. Atomic Archive. Retrieved November 16, 2012. Doty, P., Carnesale, A., & Nacht, M. (1976, October).
The Race to Control Nuclear Arms. Jones, R. Pakistan's Nuclear Posture: Arms Race Instabilities in South Asia. Joyce, A., Bates Graber, R., Hoffman, T. J., Paul Shaw, R., & Wong, Y.
(1989, February). The Nuclear Arms Race: An Evolutionary Perspective. Maloney, S.
Learning to love the bomb: Canada's nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Washington, D.C: Potomac Books. May, E. Retrieved November 22, 2012. Van, C. Nuclear proliferation and the future of conflict. New York, United States: Free Press.Further reading., conference and forum at the, Boston, October 12, 2009.
Four panels: 'The Race to Build the Bomb and the Decision to Use It', 'Cuban Missile Crisis and the First Nuclear Test Ban Treaty', 'The Cold War and the Nuclear Arms Race', and 'Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and the Presidency'.External links. Erik Ringmar, ',' Cooperation & Conflict, 37:2, 2002. the arms race between the superpowers explained through the concept of recognition.