V o L u m e I : a d

The Arctic Ocean was a contested place as well. However, it was less

a question of territorial claims than of geopolitical dominance. The United

States, Canada, Russia, and several northern European countries all border

this polar region. Nuclear submarines of both superpowers played a dan-

gerous game of cat and mouse beneath the shifting polar ice, while slight

changes in water temperature disguised huge ships by diffusing enemy

sonar. The proximity to each other’s country was a source of constant con-

cern during the Cold War. Security interests dominated in the Arctic, but

economic activities also had a geostrategic component in terms of oil, natural

gas, and mineral deposits. On a political level, the end to the Cold War has

had a profound effect on the Arctic. Because of the radioactive contamination

of the waters caused by leaking Soviet submarines and discarded reactors,

the region has emerged as an area of environmental cooperation involving all

Arctic-border nations.

The various territorial claims in Antarctica, however, created an atmos-

phere of tension that threatened scientific cooperation. The International

Geophysical Year (IGY), from July 1957 to December 1958, was the first sub-

stantial multination research program that coordinated geophysical research

and proved a useful step in resolving political disputes. Twelve nations

(Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand,

132

Antarctica and Arctic

Ice covers the water and land of Antarctica. (Corel)

---

Norway, South Africa, the United States, and the USSR) agreed that their

political and legal differences should not interfere with the research program.

More than 5,000 scientists and support staff served at forty-nine inter-

national Antarctic stations. Research projects included studies of atmospheric

physics, meteorology, oceanography, glaciology, seismology, and geology.

The international cooperation and overall success of the IGY led the gov-

ernments of the twelve nations to establish the Special (later Scientific)

Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) in 1958, a group designed to coor-

dinate additional research that exists to this day.

This was followed up with the Antarctic Treaty, signed on 1 December

1959 and entered into force on 23 June 1961. The treaty stipulates that

Antarctica be used only for peaceful purposes, prohibits militarization and

weapons testing, requires freedom of scientific investigation, provides for

exchanges of scientific results, and allows mutual inspection of stations, ships,

and aircraft. The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions and disposal of nuclear

waste in the area south of latitude 60 degrees. The treaty also addressed

long-standing territorial conflicts in Antarctica. It made no ruling on the

validity of existing claims by seven nations (Argentina, Australia, Britain,

Chile, France, New Zealand, and Norway) and stated that no member nation

was required to recognize the claims of other nations. Although the United

States and the Soviet Union reserved the right to stake future claims of their

own, the indefinite freeze on territorial claims served to ease Cold War sus-

picions of each other’s activities in Antarctica.

The nations that signed the treaty became Antarctica’s governing body,

the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The treaty also provides that any mem-

ber state of the United Nations (UN) can attain membership in it. At the

end of 2004, there were forty-five ATS member nations. The treaty has been

recognized as one of the most successful international agreements in modern

history. Differences over territorial claims have been effectively set aside,

and as a disarmament agreement the treaty has been very successful. In

1991, ATS members recognized the enduring strength and relevance of the

treaty by adopting a declaration proclaiming their determination to maintain

and strengthen it and to protect Antarctica’s environmental and scientific

values.

Katja Wuestenbecker

See also

Soviet Union; United States

References

Blay, Samuel K. N., Ryszard W. Piotrowicz, and B. Martin Tsamenyi, eds. Antarctica:

A Selected Annotated Legal and Political Bibliography. Hobart: University of Tas-

mania Law School, 1989.

Nuttall, Mark, and Terry V. Callaghan, eds. The Arctic: Environment, People, Policy.

Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 2000.

Taubenfeld, Howard Jack. A Treaty for Antarctica. New York: Carnegie Endowment

for International Peace, 1961.

Antarctica and Arctic

133

---

Weapons designed to attack and destroy aircraft from the ground or sea,

deployed throughout the Cold War. Such weapons were used in combat in

Vietnam and elsewhere, although many were never fired in anger. Nonethe-

less, many countervailing technologies and changes to military doctrine were

spurred by the development of such arms.

At the onset of the Cold War, the U.S. military was equipped with small

numbers of antiaircraft guns remaining from World War II. When the Korean

War began in June 1950, some of these weapons were dispatched to the war

zone, but they ultimately encountered few targets. Others were hurriedly

situated at strategic locations in the United States because American leaders

feared that the Korean conflict might presage a surprise Soviet bomber

attack, an especially disturbing possibility because the USSR had recently

acquired nuclear weapons. Even after the Korean hostilities ended, concern

about a Soviet strike grew with the advent of higher and faster jet aircraft

requiring more capable antiaircraft weapons.

Initially, the United States fielded radar-aimed antiaircraft guns, which

were better than previous antiaircraft weapons. However, a faster, self-

propelled, maneuverable projectile capable of reaching high altitudes was

necessary for defense against strategic bombers. Consequently, the U.S.

Army oversaw the development of a relatively complex system that utilized

radars, rudimentary computers, and other equipment to locate and track dis-

tant targets and to direct missiles at them. Because missiles received elec-

tronic guidance commands after launch and could alter their course as they

flew, they were capable of reacting to a target’s evasive actions. The Nike-

Ajax missile’s 25-mile range, high speed, and maneuverability made it consid-

erably more capable than antiaircraft guns. Beginning in 1954, these missiles

were deployed at 222 specially constructed locations across the United States,

and within four years an improved version (dubbed Nike-Hercules), which

flew farther and faster, replaced the earlier model at many sites.

The Nike-Hercules carried a relatively low kilotonage nuclear warhead

meant to provide the greatest practical blast at the interception point, thereby

obviating the need for a direct hit and ensuring destruction of all aircraft in

the target area. After 1964, when the Nike-Hercules defenses were joined by

two launch facilities for nuclear-equipped BOMARC antiaircraft missiles in

Canada and six more manned by the U.S. Air Force, the substantial commit-

ment to defending North America against bomber raids was most evident.

Many of these weapons had been decommissioned by 1974, although some

remained operational until 1979.

Other nations including the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France

developed similar surface-to-air (SAM) antiaircraft networks during the Cold

War. The Soviet Union’s elaborate antiaircraft effort was obviously influenced

by the size and capability of U.S. strategic bomber forces and by persistent

U.S. and British reconnaissance overflights of Soviet territory. After the So-

viets developed sophisticated antiaircraft technologies—best demonstrated

when a Soviet SA-2 missile downed an American U-2 reconnaissance plane

134

Antiaircraft Guns and Missiles

Antiaircraft Guns 

and Missiles

---