The Cold War's Dangerous Phase

This essay discusses the most dangerous and unstable phase of the Cold War, focusing on significant events such as nuclear tests and the political changes instigated by leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It highlights the tensions in Eastern Europe and the impact of these leaders on their respective countries during the 1980s.

THE MOST DANGEROUS AND UNSTABLE PHASE OF THE COLD WAR
Name of the student
Subject Name:
Date:

2
Section A
The most dangerous and unstable phase of the cold war
Before cold conflictended in the last decade, is right that it had entered into a dangerous
and unstable phase. For instance, first hydrogen test of bomb that was done in the Atoll Eniwetok
within the Islands of Marshall provided a proof of how the nuclear age could be so frightening.
The trial formed a 25-square mile fireball that could vaporize the entire island, blowing a huge
hole in the ocean and its power destroyed half of the Manhattan. Some other dangerous events
during this time were the subsequent American and Soviet tests that spewed very toxic
radioactive materials into the atmosphere. All these events as presented at the end of the cold war
show how dangerous direction the world had taken. The American domestic life had been put
into alarms as people ever were issued with threats of nuclear annihilation.
Space exploration presents another dramatic arena during the cold war competition, and
this brought the world into the entry of a dangerous phase. In 1957, the world’s initial artificial
as well ashumanlyitem was placed in the orbit launched of earth by a Soviet R-7 intercontinental
missile. The launch surprised many but did not please the Americans as this was done by the
Russian. The Americans felt not to lose too much ground to the Soviets and therefore started
their space exploration, as Americans feared the overwhelming force of the R-7 missile that
seemed to have possibilities of bring the nuclear warhead into the US.
By 1950, the Soviet Union in its future war is viewed to have equalized with the United
States of America as evidenced by the atomic air offensive by U.S that could not manage in
defeating the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was also mostly pushing the western abilities
away and far from Europe along with the Middle East. At beginning, just immediately after
Second World War, both Americans and the planners of Soviet military was viewing bomb made

3
from atomic elements as the only tool that could end the world war. The relationship amid the
Soviet Union together with the western authorities worsened in first 5 years after Second World
WarI, and the function of nuclear devices was fully adopted in battle. In this case, Truman did
not threaten the Soviet Union, but by the fact that there was a nuclear weapon, that was an
automatic provoking. The fact that they were threatening each other with nuclear weapons; this
provides clear evidence that the cold world war opened a dangerous and unstable phase for the
world.
The ongoing conflicts ever witnessed between the Eastern European countries threaten
the stability of the newly established European order. There have been serious tensions that
occur between the Hungary and the Romania regarding the Romania’s treatment. If the Soviet
Union was not present in the region (Eastern Europe) both Romania and the Hungary would
have entered into a war over this issue, and this might erupt a war between the two countries in
future and hence dangerous and unstable phase brought during the last decade of the cold world
war. Warfare that is always witnessed in the Eastern Europe generally would lead to a significant
suffering to the Eastern Europeans.
It is also unclear to predict whether there will be a precise balance of the military power
in the Eastern European and hence causing the unstable phase of post-cold world conflict. It is
unclear also the Soviet Union might regain its powers soon after coming out from the Eastern
Europe. In this case, it is evident that the Soviet Union would be stronger than Germany.
Probably, Germany and the Soviet Union might equalize in the powers. The only problem will
be in the non-nuclear area of Europe, as they would be exposed to these dangers since the
security on such zones would only remain with the massive armies, and in such a case, it cannot

4
be maintained without mobilizing the public. In conclusion, it is very true that the last decade of
the cold world war has left its most dangerous and unstable phase.
Section B
How Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher instigate changes to the 1980s governments
Introduction
Both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are seen to share one quality that is more
important unlike their differences of style and temperament. In this case, they are politicians who
paint in primary colors. More often than not, their personalities arouse feelings of enthusiastic
admiration1. Usually, the lasting influence of any political leader is judged by the effect felt by
his or her opposition leaders. In this case, is there any opposition party that may be forced to
come to a consensus with the changes provoked by such a leader? Both Thatcher and Ronald
Reagan have tried to have such qualities of insinuating for changes that reflect the saying that the
government was not the solution to the troubles that face the U.S but was the problem2.
By cutting income tax
Both of them are known to have reduced the revenuestrictlyand creating it tough for
leaders who were to come after them to reinstate such tax charge to their priorranks in either
nation without providing a good excuse1. In this case, Ronald managed to allow for low taxes as
one of the sacred cows of American politics. Even after Reagan leadership, his successor was
forced by some other leaders into exaggerated protests aiming to raise the tax rates impurely. The
Reagan successor as the vice president of the Reagan leadership could not adhere to what other
1Dalby, Simon. Creating the second cold war: The discourse of politics. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016
2 Maier, Charles S. Recasting bourgeois Europe: stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the decade
after World War I. Princeton University Press, 2015.

5
politicians kept on forcing him to do since Reagan had made it a more embarrassing politically
for leadership to be involved in raising the tax rates with a significant margin2.
Margaret Thatcher also contributed to changing the governments of the 1980s through
her privatization program. The plan could be modified by another administration; however, it
still makes a historic change of ownership of British industry. She also introduced an idea of a
trade union that can be reformed by being amended by the Labor government, but it cannot be
completely swept away.
Reducing the power of government
Both Reagan and Margaret were very much committed to lessening the power of the
government once in office, and they achieved it. In this, there existed a strange difference
between them3. Thatcher utilized the privatization program while Reagan used a deregulation
method, but both of them were in line to the same strategy. The two policies yet with their
different ways could transfer economic power from the state into the hands of private sectors. In
this situation and within the government, thatcher contributed by taking power away from the
local authorities to concentrate it at the center while Reagan handed the power to the states from
the federal administration4.
Encouraging international movement through free markets
Both Reagan and Margaret were prominent champions of this policy of supporting global
movement through free markets5. The administration delivered an increased prosperity for their
3 Meriwether, James H. "Reagan and Africa." A Companion to Ronald Reagan (2015): 378.
Scammell, Margaret. Designer politics: How elections are won. Springer, 2016
4 Crosbie, Sylvia K. A tacit alliance: France and Israel from Suez to the Six Day War. Princeton University
Press, 2015.
5 Nye Jr, Joseph S. Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. Basic Books, 2016.

6
people all the time and is set to be a good example to other administrations. In fact, Margaret and
Reagan were the first and the most prominent advocates for the free markets.
Brought a greater sense of confidence to their countries
Reagan brought the faith to his country by projecting a radiant optimism and insouciance
unlike his predecessor Jimmy Carter who was diagnosed with malaise as the American
condition6. Reagan was very comfortable with such governing, and hence the country felt
comfortable being governed by such a leader. Another leader, Irangate opposed undermined the
Reagan achievement but luckily could not bring it down. On the other hand, Thatcher brought
confidence to her country by an implacable determination. She introduced an economic
Thatcherism that is greatly accepted by many British people even though this achievement could
vary from one country to another. However, when she tried extending her doctrines to the social
field, she found herself into political trouble.
Regardless of all the achievements that both Reagan and Thatcher made, there is that
limitation for their lasting influence. Such that, despite both of them having a significant impact
on their opponents, none of them of can prove to have provided a direct political inheritance. In
this case, Reagan was not succeeded by a Reaganiteand Thatcher is unlikely to have been
achieved by a Thatcherite. However, it is very imperative to note that both of them have made a
huge difference to their own countries7.
6 Gale, Cengage Learning. A Study Guide for Political Theories for Students: CONSERVATISM. Vol. 19.
Gale, Cengage Learning, 2015.
7 Gale, Cengage Learning. A Study Guide for Political Theories for Students: CONSERVATISM. Vol. 19.
Gale, Cengage Learning, 2015.

7
The relationship exhibited by both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan was personally
warmer, and they both shared both ideologies in their governance8. In fact, this was very much
contrary to any of the previous president and prime minister who came before them. They
collaborated and never had any historical impact as evidenced by the Roosevelt-Churchill. In this
case, they did not register any world war to fight. However, their various agreements were
broader and embraced both domestic and international affairs.
8 Nye Jr, Joseph S. Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. Basic Books, 2016.

8
Bibliographies
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The grand chessboard: American primacy and
its geostrategic imperatives. Basic books, 2016.
Crosbie, Sylvia K. A tacit alliance: France and Israel from Suez to the Six Day War. Princeton
University Press, 2015.
Dalby, Simon. Creating the second cold war: The discourse of politics.Bloomsbury Publishing,
2016.
Gale, Cengage Learning. A Study Guide for Political Theories for Students: CONSERVATISM.
Vol. 19. Gale, Cengage Learning, 2015.
Hopkin, Jonathan, and Kate Alexander Shaw. "Organized combat or structural advantage? The
politics of inequality and the winner-take-all economy in the United Kingdom." Politics
& Society 44, no. 3 (2016): 345-371.
Maier, Charles S. Recasting bourgeois Europe: stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in
the decade after World War I. Princeton University Press, 2015.
Meriwether, James H. "Reagan and Africa." A Companion to Ronald Reagan (2015): 378.
Nye Jr, Joseph S. Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. Basic Books, 2016.
Oliete-Aldea, Elena. "Britain in the 1980s: The Thatcher Decade." In Hybrid Heritage on Screen,
pp. 31-48. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015.
Scammell, Margaret. Designer politics: How elections are won. Springer, 2016.
Shaw, Martin. War and genocide: Organised killing in modern society. John Wiley & Sons,
2015.