was Detente superficial essay
“Despite the claims of those who promoted Détente, its achievements were superficial.”
Superficial means that something appears to be deep and true only at the surface, until it is closely examined. This definition does apply to Détente because it only reduced tension on the surface, but behind the scenes the arms race did not change and the many agreements limiting the use of nuclear arms were shallow in the types and amounts of arms they limited. In truth, détente did bring some temporary stability to Europe but that was never built to last as the two systems were too different to be able to cooperate successfully.
On the the biggest issues during the cold war and so inevitably when establishing the Détente was the nuclear arms race. M. Bower and P. Williams (1988) said that détente was not superficial as it reduced hostilities between the two superpowers, which was especially needed after the Cuban Missile Crisis where a nuclear war almost broke out. However, though it may have reduced some hostilities between the USSR and the US making Europe more stable, the hostilities between China and the USSR remained high with intensified conflict in the third world. Détente cannot be seen as a meaningful statement of national cooperation because the superpowers did not make the whole world safer and less hostile, they focused on Europe and the reduced hostilities were only temporary because although most people did not want a nuclear war, some criticised both government for being too soft on the opposing system. This was bound to create more both international and national hostilities.
Some historians argue that the economic situation of the superpowers was forcing them into Détente because too much money was being spent on arms which should be dedicated to the society and national development. This argument would suggest that Détente was not superficial as it gave the superpowers the opportunity to repair their economies, however that was not the case. After the
Superficial means that something appears to be deep and true only at the surface, until it is closely examined. This definition does apply to Détente because it only reduced tension on the surface, but behind the scenes the arms race did not change and the many agreements limiting the use of nuclear arms were shallow in the types and amounts of arms they limited. In truth, détente did bring some temporary stability to Europe but that was never built to last as the two systems were too different to be able to cooperate successfully.
On the the biggest issues during the cold war and so inevitably when establishing the Détente was the nuclear arms race. M. Bower and P. Williams (1988) said that détente was not superficial as it reduced hostilities between the two superpowers, which was especially needed after the Cuban Missile Crisis where a nuclear war almost broke out. However, though it may have reduced some hostilities between the USSR and the US making Europe more stable, the hostilities between China and the USSR remained high with intensified conflict in the third world. Détente cannot be seen as a meaningful statement of national cooperation because the superpowers did not make the whole world safer and less hostile, they focused on Europe and the reduced hostilities were only temporary because although most people did not want a nuclear war, some criticised both government for being too soft on the opposing system. This was bound to create more both international and national hostilities.
Some historians argue that the economic situation of the superpowers was forcing them into Détente because too much money was being spent on arms which should be dedicated to the society and national development. This argument would suggest that Détente was not superficial as it gave the superpowers the opportunity to repair their economies, however that was not the case. After the