Haiman 1

Sophie Haiman

PLSC 14u

19 April 2017

Did the Americans and Soviets Battle in a Dilemma of Security?

In International Relations, there are two central bodies of thought: realism and liberalism.

This essay is going to focus on the realist approach to International Relations. Based on this rule

of thought, international relations are founded on two fundamental characteristics: anarchy and

uncertainty. Anarchy refers to a lack of central authority in the international system. Unlike

states which have governments ruling over its citizens, the international system does not have a

government in charge of each of the states. The second fundamental characteristic, uncertainty,

refers to reservations about other actors intentions. The lack of a central authority to enforce and

maintain order and uncertainty of other states intentions, creates insecurity and competition

within the international system. This entire belief system goes along with the Hobbesian

approach to world affairs. He believed insecurity and competition in an anarchic system was due

to the state of nature. This state of nature created a life that was nasty, brutish, and short, and

every man against every man. Therefore, the anarchic system and uncertainty within

international relations drives states towards a chief goal of self-help.

The main way states can help themselves is to maximize their power in the international

system. States maximize their power in order to feel more secure and ensure their survival within

the international system. But, due to the efforts of each state to maximize their own power, other

states will inevitably believe their security is threatened. And, as a result the state that feels less

secure will then try to increase their own power. States continue to go back and forth, each

increasing their own power and then feeling less secure as the other reacts by doing the same.
 Haiman 2

This back and forth in the international system is referred to as the security dilemma. As a result

of this dilemma the international system is continuously tainted with conflict. Additionally, the

security dilemma creates a lack of cooperation and causes international organizations to have

minimal impact.

There are two specific types of realistic thought that directly apply to the security

dilemma: defensive and offensive realism. Defensive realism is the belief that the goal of self-

help, leading to the security dilemma, will result in only few actors whose prime goals are to

dominate the other actors. Meanwhile, the other actors in this rule of thought, it is believed, will

resort to maintaining the current state of affairs: the status quo and peace. On the contrary,

offensive realism believes that the self-help which leads to the security dilemma will result in

warfare becoming a constant threat and point of unease.

In order to grasp a better understanding of how realism and the security dilemma work

one must be able to apply these concepts to the real world. Therefore, this essay will look into

the Cold War and apply both realism and the security dilemma to a few major events which

occurred during this conflict. Each event will either fit into the category of a security dilemma or

will fail to qualify as such. In the end, all of these events will be added together to evaluate

whether or not the Cold War can be categorized as a security dilemma.

The Cold War is a term used to describe overarching clashing of beliefs between the

USSR and Americans. During this conflictual period, the two countries were involved in a

multitude of conflicts and competitions with one another. This report will focus on the entry into

the Cold War, the Space Race, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam and the end of the Cold War.

The reason each of these events were chosen to be evaluated was because they each represent a
 Haiman 3

wide variety of very different types of interactions which occurred during this period. Therefore,

by evaluating each of these events, an accurate calculation can be reached.

During World War II the Soviet Union and the United States, along with other countries,

formed the Allied Powers. They had each worked together during the war towards the same goal

of stopping a common enemy, the Axis powers. But, coming out of the war, tensions rose

between the Soviets and the United States the only two countries with strong military power in

the aftermath. Disagreements in ideology, leadership style, and resentment and distrust from the

war brought these tensions to an all-time high. Additionally, due to their strength coming out of

the war, they were the two powers with the ability to influence the state of affairs in Europe at

the time. As a result of this clash, the two countries were in constant competition with one

another in terms of defense and indirectly fought in wars against each other by aiding smaller

countries.

The change in the relationship between the USSR and Americans exemplifies realism. In

order to maximize their power in the Second World War against the Axis powers, the two

countries along with Great Britain, and France, banded together. This cooperation was only

temporary, as seen in the aftermath of the war. Due to the lack of trust in the international

system, alliances and agreements between countries hold little validity in the international

system, as believed by realists. Therefore, the United States and the Soviets only banded together

when they needed one anothers aid, but when this help was no longer needed, they returned to

being enemies.

The back and forth between the Soviet Union and American entering into the Cold War is

a classic example of a security dilemma. Due to the threat they each posed to one another, both

countries began to take measures to strengthen their security. America began to spread its
 Haiman 4

influence across Europe and Japan through financial aid and began creating military alliances

worldwide such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO created a military

alliance with the United States, Canada and most of Western Europe as a reaction to the Soviet

threat. As a reaction to this alliance, the Soviets began to strengthen ties with the Chinese once

the communist government took control of the country in 1949. And, years later, the Soviets

formally formed an alliance known as the Warsaw Pact between Eastern Europe and other

communist regimes for military support. Not only had they both taken measures to maximize

their power in the very beginning of the conflict, but they had done so as reactionary measures to

the other state gaining more power.

The Space Race was a classic example of the security dilemma as well. During this

period of time there was a constant competition to show which country was more superior in its

technological, military, political and economic powers. Meanwhile, in efforts to be more

superior, each country created more unease in the other. On October 4th 1957, the Soviet Union

released Sputnik into orbit. Sputnik was a R-7 missile, the first ever satellite and man-made

object into Earths orbit. Not, only was this the case, but this missile was capable of delivering a

nuclear weapon into the American air field. Thus, the security dilemma of the Space Race began.

Releasing Sputnik created an urgency in America to one up the Soviets and secure Soviet

intelligence to further their defense. Immediately after they gathered intel on the R-7 missile, the

US began investing heavily into their own space program. Therefore, President Eisenhower

created NASA and Special Operation Project Corona. NASA was created with the sole purpose

of expanding the American military into space. Meanwhile, led by a few national security

organizations, Corona used American satellites to gather intelligence on the Soviets. These

satellites were first launched by the United States, shortly after the Soviets, in 1958. After the
 Haiman 5

American satellite was released, a constant back and forth between the two countries ensued. The

Soviets reacted to the US advancement - launching the first probe to hit the moon in 1959 and in

1961 they sent the first man into orbit around the Earth. Following the Soviet lead, the US

countered sending their first astronaut into space in 1961, in 1962 sent their first man to orbit the

Earth, and in 1968 send the first manned mission to orbit the moon. Then, on July 20th, 1969

Americans won the space race when Neil Armstrong became the first man to ever walk on the

moon. As each country advanced their technology and advancements, the other directly

responded. Each country feared that the other was taking strides which strengthened their power,

thus diminishing the others defense and strength. Therefore, this led to an urgency for each

country to take the lead in space; they each thought of these advancements as increasing their

military strength.

The idea of realism is a continuous lack of trust for other nations and uncertainty. As a

result of this lack of trust, the United States was acting in their best interests when they decided

to fly a military plane over Cuba as a matter of analyzing their nation's security. Cuba allied itself

with the Soviet Union as a result of Fidel Castro's takeover of leadership in Cuba. Due to this

alliance, the Soviets and Cubans were able to maximize their power. The Soviets secured a better

location for their nuclear arsenal, as a result, bringing their strength closer to the United States.

Simultaneously, the Cubans were receiving economic and military resources from the USSR.

With a present threat of national security close to American soil, from both the Russians and

Cubans, America needed to react. An action which directly correlated to the action and response

mechanism seen in the security dilemma. When Kennedy found out about the Soviet missile on

Cuban soil he immediately created a committee and came up with two responses. The first was to

set up a naval blockade around the island of Cuba. The second was to prepare his country for war
 Haiman 6

if the first option had not panned out. The blockade prevented the Soviets from supplying Cuba

with more missiles or military equipment, containing the threat. And if the Soviets had engaged

with the American naval forces, then the United States would resort to military action. But, from

the stance of the security dilemma, these responses may seem to not work out with the theory.

Although this may seem like the case, this conflict does work in tandem with the dilemma.

Quarantining the island from outside resources allowed the United States to expand its defense

and respond to the Soviet threat. And, simultaneously, they were preparing themselves for a war.

By preparing for military action rather than initiating, they were expanding their power while

protecting themselves. If they were to initiate in full blown war the threat was extremely close to

home, 90 miles away from the American coast to be exact. Additionally, it was possible the

threat could have led to nuclear war which would have been far from the interests of either

country. Following the 13 days of military standoff, President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev

came to an agreement; the United States promised not to invade Cuba and removed missile

installations in Turkey while the USSR removed their missiles from Cuba. In the end, although

this seems to go against the dilemma, both countries gave up resources in an effort to prevent

security threats on their home turf or the threat of a full blown nuclear war. Even with the

agreement established by the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and a few other nuclear treaties which

came out of this standoff, neither country trusted or believed in these pieces of paper. This could

be seen after the matter when Soviets immediately began investing in a ballistic missiles arsenal

which they were hoping could reach the US from the USSR, violating the treaty. Violating the

treaty, the USSR further emphasized the belief that self-interest and the drive for more power

prevails, eliminating the ability of treaties and agreements to be enforced for significant periods

internationally.
 Haiman 7

The turmoil in Vietnam was a direct result of French colonization. Due to French

involvement a war sparked between the French and communist forces. After the war the Geneva

treaty was signed, splitting the country into two along the 17th parallel. The North was

communist, led by Viet Minh forces and the South was democratic, led by Diem. Due to the

communist involvement in the North, the United States along with French forces felt the need to

involve themselves. This type of approach runs hand in hand with the realist theory; unease and a

lack of trust led some Americans to believe that this threat of communism could run rampant

across Southeast Asia. The threat already hit China and the Soviets were aiding the North

Vietnamese, so what was to stop this from continuing? This ideology was called the Domino

Theory, a belief that if one nation fell to communism, then its neighbors would, and the process

would continue on. But, although this war is compatible with realist theory, this is not the case

for the security dilemma. The United States had not needed to involve themselves in the war the

way they had, and by doing so they used up more of their resources than necessary: monetarily,

man power, arms, etc. The Soviets contributed very little man power to the war. Financial aid,

military training and other materials were a majority of the resources supplied by the Soviets.

Even when the Soviets were engaging troops in the war, these troops were indirectly fighting the

United State military forces. Even though Americans had believed they were a security threat,

there were alternative measure which could have been taken to secure themselves. But, instead

they engaged in heavy combat which harmed their defense in the long run. As advised by the

CIA, America had a strong military presence in Southeast Asia already which would deter the

communist threat from spreading. Another top official, the head of Office of Strategic Services

and World War II forerunner in the CIA, Bill Donovan, said the US had nothing to gain and too

much to lose if they embarked on this war. Additionally, the pretense under which the United
 Haiman 8

States involved itself in the war goes against the dilemma. There was absolutely no viable threat

to the status quo of the United States, and there was no action taken by the opposing side to

escalate the situation. This lack of action by the Soviets can be highlighted in the case of the USS

Maddox, which was the cause of the increased American involvement in the war. In August of

1964, the American ship, the USS Maddox was approached by 2 North Vietnamese boats during

the day. Then, two days later electrical storm interfered with the radar of the ship which made

people believe that they were about to be attacked. But, neither the people on the ship or the F-

9E crusader pilot which was flying above at the time saw any attacking boats. Meanwhile,

Congress still felt that they had feasible cause to sign the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The Gulf of

Tonkin Resolution gave Johnson the power to send troops into Vietnam. And, the war quickly

escalated thereafter. But, as shown in this case, the Soviets still had yet to directly attack the

United States. In the end, the Americans pulled out of the war before a possible defeat of the

Vietnamese. Therefore, the war failed to qualify as a dilemma; the United States had not

eliminated the supposed threat, there was no viable threat in the first place, they lost around

60,000 soldiers and came home with an additional 150,000 wounded. In the end, the war harmed

more than it secured the national security of Americans.

Although both could be argued for, the eventual demise of the Soviet Union and the end

of the Cold War was a security dilemma. The prime reason lies in the cause of the matter. Ronald

Reagan, president of the United States at the time, found any regime type other than democracy a

threat to freedom. He believed only one of the two could prevail: democracy or communism.

Therefore, due to this threat, the United States needed to find a way to fight back. But, he

realized the previous methods of the United State had been ineffective because they had not

actually expanded their power comparatively to the Soviets. Instead, they were matching the
 Haiman 9

power of the Soviets throughout the whole conflict. Reagans plan instead hinged on finding the

largest Soviet weakness and taking advantage of it: their economic system. Once this weakness

was found, the United States began to build up their military, knowing the Soviets would do the

same. Reagan understood that once America had built up their military the Soviets would do so

as well and in turn they would debilitate their countrys entire economic system. This would

destabilize their economy because it would force the Soviets to move their already limited

domestic funds towards military spending. Additionally, the United States had chosen to

specifically increase military technology while restricting transfers of technology abroad which

put even more economic strain on the Soviets. But, the Soviets continued to argue that this

money transfer was necessary for the matter of their nations security. Additionally, everywhere

there was a Soviet presence the United States countered, forcing the Soviets to pour out more

funds over and over again. The focus on other parts of the world had done what Reagan intended,

it spread the Soviets too thin and funneled out their resources. As a result, the communist

governments in the Soviet Unions satellite countries began to fall and prevention was

impossible for the Soviets due to these lack of funds. The broken Soviet economy also forced

them to restructure and open up to outside influences. These new changes were credited for the

fall of the Soviet Unions communist regime as well. The continuous back and forth with both

sides refusing to back down exhibits a prime example of the security dilemma. Some may argue

that because the United States did not directly engage in war with the Soviets during their demise

that the end of the Cold War would not classify as a dilemma. But, this would not qualify as a

valid argument. Invading the Soviet Union was not in the best interest of the United State: it

would have cost them far too many resources and a possible nuclear threat. No intervention was
 Haiman 10

needed, the Soviet Union fell on its own and with it the communist regimes across Eastern

Europe fell as well.

The beginning of the Cold War, the Space Race, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam

War, and the end of the war were each analyzed to determine whether they qualified as a security

dilemma. In order to classify as a dilemma, each of these events had to first show a maximization

of state power due to the system of self-help. As a result of this increase in strength, the opposing

state would believe their nations security was threatened. When this security was minimized the

threatened state would react by maximizing their power and a constant back and forth between

the states ensues to increase their power.

If an event followed this cycle, they would fill the qualifications of a security dilemma.
Qualify as a Security Dilemma DO NOT Qualify as a Security Dilemma
Cuban Missile Crisis, Intro to the Cold Vietnam War
When
War, the Space Race, and the End of the
the
Cold War
scores were tallied between each of these events, it was determined that those qualifying as a

security dilemma far outweighed those that had not. The only conflict not considered a security

dilemma was the Vietnam war. Therefore, based on the calculations, the Cold War is an example

of a security dilemma. These events provide an accurate result because they were each vastly

different and together all five periods of time touched upon a mixture of the types of interactions

between the Soviets and the United States during the Cold War.

Works Cited
 Haiman 11

"Cuban Missile Crisis." History.com, A+E Networks, 2010, http://www.history.com/topics/cold-

war/cuban-missile-crisis. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

"End of Cold War: Did Ronald Reagan Win the Cold War?" History in Dispute, edited by Robert

J. Allison, vol. 2: American Social and Political Movements, 1945-2000: Pursuit of

Liberty, St. James Press, 2000, pp. 56-63. U.S. History in Context,

link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX2876200015/UHIC?u=alli1510&xid=4d35e076.

Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

"Fall of the Soviet Union." History.com, A+E Networks, 2011,

http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/fall-of-soviet-union. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

Lemke, Douglas. Realism Powerpoint

Spector, Ronald H. "Vietnam War." Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9 Mar. 2017,

www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

"The Collapse of the Soviet Union." Office of the Historian, United States of American

Department of State, history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/collapse-soviet-union.

Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

"The Space Race." History.com, A+E Networks, 2010, http://www.history.com/topics/space-

race. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

"Timeline: US/Vietnam Relations." Fox News, Fox News Network, 21 June 2005,

www.foxnews.com/story/2005/06/21/timeline-us-vietnamese-relations.html. Accessed 18

Apr. 2017.

"Vietnam War." HistoryNet, World History Group, www.historynet.com/vietnam-war. Accessed

18 Apr. 2017.

"Vietnam War History." History.com, A+E Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/vietnam-

 Haiman 12

war/ vietnam-war-history. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

"What is a Proxy War." The Vietnam War, 5 May 2016, thevietnamwar.info/proxy-war/.

Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.