Nuclear Warfare After World War II And Cold War

The fundamental purpose of strategic strategist, is to theorized ways to win wars, there has been an upsurge of criticism by critics who are opposing against these thinkers. Strategist endeavor themselves to render ways to win war; but these anti policy advocators believe that war is an outdated activity. Now in modern time weaponry has advance from swords, to cannons, to missiles and now the latest advent is nuclear warfare. The argument that is being made by critics, is that, we have reach this new era of nuclear warfare, strategic studies are not developing policies that will end conflict between countries and their possession of nuclear missiles. Instead of ending the tension, their only contributing to the problem. After World War II and Cold War, there was a rise of civilian strategist who started to influence the way policies were being created. These new civilian strategists took it upon themselves to come up with alternatives to prevent nuclear conflict. The reason why these strategists started to critique strategic studies, was after the use

After this incident the concernment of nuclear weapon brought a sense of urgency and called for a different approach. These views that the critics held, were different from a military perspective, civilian strategist had a different opinion. Nuclear weapons, is what brought civilians strategist to become active and demand for a different policy to be drafted out. During the end of the Cold War, the aftermath had shocking effects. Some of the weakness, that occurred after WWII, was national security studies. World War II and the 1960’s era is considered the “golden age” which was dominated by nuclear weaponry, Baldwin argues “how could states advocate for weapons of mass destruction