Weapons technology in the two nuclear ages

C. Dale Walton

doi:10.1017/CHO9781139021203.023

19 - Weapons technology in the two nuclear ages

from Part III - Post-total warfare, 1945–2005

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2012

Edited by

Dennis Showalter and

Roger Chickering: Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Dennis Showalter: Affiliation:
Colorado College
Hans van de Ven: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Since the invention of nuclear weapons in 1945, there have been two distinct nuclear ages. The first was marked by technological and quantitative competition between two superpowers, which were radically different and ideologically irreconcilable. As nuclear weapons spread to a modest number of additional states during this period (in a process of “horizontal” proliferation), the first nuclear age was marked generally by a rapid increase in the number of nuclear weapons – “vertical” proliferation – as well as by continuing improvement in the design of both warheads and the vehicles used to deliver them. The total number of nuclear weapons deployed worldwide began to decrease during the closing years of the first nuclear age, but vertical deproliferation only accelerated during the second nuclear age, which began on December 25, 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. The second nuclear age, however, also has been notable for continuing horizontal proliferation. The number of states that possess nuclear weapons has steadily increased, and there is little reason to believe that the trend will soon reverse. In the current nuclear age, moreover, improvement in warhead and delivery-vehicle design has been modest. Such technologies have improved at a leisurely pace, whereas the rate of technological advancement in these areas was frenetic during the first nuclear age.

The two superpowers of the first nuclear age were different in almost every respect. The United States was a wealthy society, which had traditionally been reluctant to involve itself deeply in European affairs. Although it had occasionally fought European powers (as in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the naval Quasi-War with France, and the Spanish–American War), not until 1917 did the United States, which by then had the world’s largest economy, become involved in an effort to shape profoundly the strategic environment in Europe. Even thereafter, during the interwar period, Washington remained a reluctant participant in great-power gamesmanship. In the aftermath of World War II, however, the United States took on the role of protector of the western European democracies as a matter of perceived necessity.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of War , pp. 472 - 492

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHO9781139021203.023 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Payne, Keith B., Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age (Lexington, KY, 1996)Google Scholar

Payne, Keith B., The Great American Gamble: Deterrence Theory and Practice from the Cold War to the Twenty-First Century (Fairfax, VA, 2008)Google Scholar

Walton, C. Dale, “Navigating the Second Nuclear Age: Proliferation and Deterrence in this Century,” Global Dialogue 8 (2006): 22–31;Google Scholar

Walton, C. Dale, “The Second Nuclear Age: Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century,” in Baylis, John et al., eds., Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies (3rd edn., Oxford, 2010), 208–26Google Scholar

Herring, George C., From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations since 1775 (New York, 2009)Google Scholar

Millett, Alan R. and Maslowski, Peter, For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States of America (New York, 1994)Google Scholar

Rhodes, Benjamin D., United States Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period: The Golden Age of American Military and Foreign Policy Complacency (Westport, CT, 2001)Google Scholar

Billington, James, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (New York, 1966)Google Scholar

Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime (2nd edn., New York, 1997)Google Scholar

Sinyavsky, Andrei, Soviet Civilization: A Cultural History (New York, 1990)Google Scholar

Schneider, James J., The Structure of Strategic Revolution: Total War and the Roots of the Soviet Warfare State (Novato, CA, 1994)Google Scholar

Glantz, David M., Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War (Lawrence, KS, 1998)Google Scholar

Glantz, David M., Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941–1943 (Lawrence, KS, 2005)Google Scholar

Wilson, Ward, “The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima,” International Security 31 (2007): 162–79.CrossRef Google Scholar

Walton, C. Dale, Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the Twenty-First Century: Multipolarity and the Revolution in Strategic Perspective (London, 2007), 1–5Google Scholar

Gray, Colin S., War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History (London, 2007), 210CrossRef Google Scholar

Kozak, Warren, LeMay: The Life and War of General Curtis LeMay (Washington, DC, 2009)Google Scholar

Dungan, T. D., V-2: A Combat History of the First Ballistic Missile (Yardley, PA, 2005)Google Scholar

Neufield, Michael, The Rocket and the Reich: Peenemünde and the Coming of the Ballistic Missile Era (Cambridge, MA, 1994)Google Scholar

Neufield, Michael, Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War (New York, 2007), 116–98Google Scholar

Polmar, Norman and Moore, K. J., Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of US and Soviet Submarines, 1945–2001 (Dulles, VA, 2003)Google Scholar

Kimball, Roger, Nixon’s Vietnam War (Lawrence, KS, 1998), 20–25Google Scholar

Payne, Keith B. et al., Rationale and Requirements for US Nuclear Forces and Arms Control, Vol II: Foundation Report (Fairfax, VA, 2001), A3–A11Google Scholar

Brodie, Bernard, ed., The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order (New York, 1946)Google Scholar

Paul, T. V. et al., eds., The Absolute Weapon Revisited: Nuclear Arms and the Emerging International Order (Ann Arbor, 2000)Google Scholar

Kissinger, Henry A., Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (New York, 1969)Google Scholar

Ross, Steven T., American War Plans, 1945–1950: Strategies for Defeating the Soviet Union (London, 1996)Google Scholar

Gray, Colin S., Strategic Studies and Public Policy: The American Experience (Lexington, KY, 1982), 40–44Google Scholar

Sokolovsky, V. D., ed., Military Strategy: Soviet Doctrine and Concepts (New York, 1963)Google Scholar

Garthoff, Raymond L., Deterrence and the Revolution in Soviet Military Doctrine (Washington, DC, 1990)Google Scholar

Odom, William E., Collapse of the Soviet Military (New Haven, 1998)Google Scholar

Scott, Harriet Fast and Scott, William L., eds., The Soviet Art of War: Doctrine, Strategy, and Tactics (Boulder, 1982)

Rhodes, Richard, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (New York: 1988), 676Google Scholar

Powaski, Ronald E., Return to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1981–1999 (New York, 2000), 40–42Google Scholar

Pry, Peter Vincent, War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink (Westport, CT, 1999), 33–44Google Scholar

Franz, Douglas and Collins, Catherine, The Nuclear Jihadist: The True Story of the Man Who Sold the World’s Most Dangerous Secrets . . . and How We Could Have Stopped Him (New York, 2007)Google Scholar

Langewiesche, William, The Atomic Bazaar: The Rise of the Nuclear Poor (New York, 2007)Google Scholar

Joseph, Robert G., Countering WMD: The Libyan Experience (Fairfax, VA, 2009)Google Scholar

Chubin, Shahram, Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions (Washington, DC, 2006)Google Scholar

Jafarzadeh, Alireza, The Iranian Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis (New York, 2008)Google Scholar

Melman, Yossi, The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran (New York, 2007)Google Scholar

Naughton, Barry, “The Third Front: Defence Industrialization in the Chinese Interior,” China Quarterly 115 (September 1988): 351–86CrossRef Google Scholar

Stephen, J. Cimbala argues convincingly that Russia still maintains more warheads than it requires for nuclear deterrence. “Russia’s Nuclear Deterrent: Realistic or Uncertain,” Comparative Strategy 26 (2007): 185–203.Google Scholar

Payne, Keith B. et al., Rationale and Requirements for US Nuclear Forces and Arms Control (2 vols., Fairfax, VA, 2001)Google Scholar

Walton, C. Dale, “The Decline of the Third Rome: Russia’s Prospects as a Great Power,” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 12 (1999): 51–63.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schneider, Mark writes that, “It is noteworthy that the increasing role played by nuclear weapons in Chinese strategy has occurred while most Western scholars continue to characterize the PRC’s approach as ‘minimum deterrence’ . . . [The PRC] is the only nuclear weapon state that has openly embraced long-term qualitative and quantitative expansion of its nuclear force.” “The Nuclear Doctrine and Forces of the People’s Republic of China,” Comparative Strategy 28 (2009): 245CrossRef Google Scholar

Sondhaus, Lawrence, Strategic Culture and Ways of War (London, 2006)Google Scholar

Book contents

19 - Weapons technology in the two nuclear ages

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive