SALT+I+and+ABM

__**Historical Context: **__ Salt I occurred in 1972 when both superpowers were in detente and wanted to improve relations with each other, meeting together was one way of doing so without appearing weak to the outside countries. Also after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 the superpowers realized they had to make sure neither nation was threatened with nuclear war. Vietnam was costing the United States a lot, and the United States wanted to cut their defense budget. The Arms Race was also costing a lot to both sides who were both struggling economically. With the development of ABMs, Mutually Assured Destruction was disrupted as the superpowers could protect their cities from attack, so the two sides began to fear that because they could protect themselves, they might be more comfortable in attacking the other nation. MIRVs were also introduced, and as many nukes could be released at one time, the strategic balance was upset. Also during this time the United States and China were talking together; because of the Sino-Soviet split the USSR did not like this as their two "enemies" were meeting together. Therefore SALT was an arms control agreement to Bsafeguard against a threat and make the superpowers rely on MAD, not disarmament.

SALT 1 encompassed a way to regulate the new technology making it's debut in the arms race: the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM). This missile prevented the risk of attack by ICBMs, which were still widely used, but started to become outdated with the creation of the Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicle (MIRV). The missiles were delivered using long range bombers, ICBMs or submarines (SLBMs). The USSR achieved nuclear parity with the USA, however, the USA had the lead in the development of the MIRV technology, which means that even if the USSR had a higher number of missiles ( 1618 ICBMs against 1054 ICBMs), the USA still had the advantage because of the potency of MIRV missiles. The presence of ABMs removed MAD, because now the superpowers could protect themselves and the destruction would not be assured anymore.
 * __Strategic Environment: __**

During the Summit, no comprehensive agreement was made, but two lesser agreements were made: first was a 5 year freeze on offensive strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, and long range bombers.) The second agreement limited each side to two ABM sites with no more than 100 missile launchers; this ensured the nations could not protect their whole country so made MAD effective and limited expenditure which was good for both sides economically. The US had the lead in MIRV development and had more bombers, so the USSR was allowed more weapons. With these treaties, both sides accepted the existing balance and MAD.
 * __Terms of Treaty: __**

__** Critical Evaluation: **__ Mason notes that the SALT I treaty was initially criticized for not imposing severe enough limitations on both sides. He also notes that neither side intended on building an ABM system to the extent permitted by SALT I anyway, so it didn't change much. Mason mentions that some called SALT I a "crucial failure" because it didn't include MIRVs which the US and the USSR continued developing and building. However SALT I was good because the fact that both superpowers reached an agreement meant that detente was working, and it confirmed nuclear parity, so made the USSR more on an equal base with the US. Also, this treaty strengthened detente as it reduced tension between the superpowers and started the process of arms control agreements, according to Mason. Bell says it was one of the most tangible successes of detente as it showed the superpowers could work together and could accomplish something useful, so detente was working. Lundestad argues that it was the most important arms limiting measure, as it put MAD back into practice and confirm nuclear parity. Bell also says it was good because it started a process towards lasting peace as it caused more trust and confidence in the Soviet Union. Still, however, there were more Americans who distrusted the USSR than those who did. The agreements themselves were small, but useful for arms limitations, and they placed a check on the amount of money spent on ABMs. However this money was spent developing new kinds of missiles not covered by the SALT I agreement so SALT was criticized for not limiting enough. .