Renewed tension: the road to the Second Cold War
Trace deterioration before 1980 without assigning earlier decisions to a later president.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Partial 2026 course: introductory context across the twelve AS topics, with selected document workshops, not full AS or A Level preparation. All three Paper 3 alternatives have introductory context, historiography and original interpretation exercises; Italy, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Britain have introductory depth pathways across their four enquiries. The USA in the late 1940s/1950s and the 1960s/1970s have introductory American depth pathways; the 1980s/early-1990s theme now introduces all four enquiries with original teaching and two longer essay workshops. All four American themes now have introductory teaching and longer essay workshops, including US foreign policy, 1944–1992. The US–Soviet theme introduces all four enquiries through thirty core lessons and two longer essay workshops. Forty-one lessons introduce all four East and Southeast Asia enquiries: eight on post-war change, nine on Korea, twelve on Vietnam and twelve on Sino-American relations. Eight lessons introduce the African independence enquiry through Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Kenya and comparative reasoning. Nine further lessons introduce government, economic and social challenges after independence. Thirteen further lessons introduce Cold War involvement, Chinese support, non-alignment and Pan-Africanism. Twelve further lessons introduce UN involvement in Congo and Somalia, with 1993–1995 explicitly labelled as later context beyond the theme’s 1992 endpoint. Ten lessons introduce the creation-of-Israel enquiry. Twenty further lessons introduce wars and peace efforts in 1948–1979. Seventeen further lessons introduce superpower motives, oil, American and Soviet policies and their consequences through 1991. Twenty-one further lessons introduce the Iranian Revolution, Iran–Iraq War and 1990–1991 Gulf War. All four 2026 Middle East enquiries have introductory lessons; broader reading, depth, specialist review and full assessment remain unfinished. The separate 2027–2029 requirements are not mapped by these 2026 lessons. A separately labelled revised-year orientation and Eastern Europe enquiries 7.1–7.4 introductions and South Africa enquiries 8.1–8.3 and Zimbabwe enquiry 8.4, followed by Malaya enquiry 9.1 and introductory sequences for Malaysia formation enquiry 9.2 and Indonesian nationalism enquiry 9.3, with partial preparation, revolution, 1950s challenges and New Order teaching in enquiry 9.4, are available; other revised teaching remains unfinished. Source summaries are original StudyForA paraphrases, not quotations, complete documents or simulated eyewitness sources. Primary documents, historians’ arguments and original exercises are identified separately. Guided source comparisons, interpretation exercises and analytical models are not full papers, calibrated marking or Cambridge grades. Broader authentic source reading, historical depth and subject-specialist review remain required. US–Soviet relations, 1950–1991 is one theme within the International Paper 4 depth study in 2026. The official paper is 105 minutes and 60 marks, with two questions from the chosen depth study. These lessons and original planning briefs introduce US–Soviet relations, 1950–1991; broader historical depth, full timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Develop your own supported judgement using precise evidence, causal relationships and counterarguments. The Paper 4 choice is independent of Paper 3.
Before you begin
- Place events in chronological order
- Distinguish a historical document from a later account and from a student argument
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How should you begin a depth-study argument?
What you will learn
- Establish the sequence of strategic decisions
- Separate SALT II signature from entry into force
- Evaluate the causes of renewed tension by 1980
Build a depth-study argument
- Write your own evidence-based answer before opening the model.
- Define the judgement, connect precise examples, consider counterarguments and explain the relative weight of the evidence. The original brief is a planning aid, not a historical source to quote as testimony.
Partial 2026 course: introductory context across the twelve AS topics, with selected document workshops, not full AS or A Level preparation. All three Paper 3 alternatives have introductory context, historiography and original interpretation exercises; Italy, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Britain have introductory depth pathways across their four enquiries. The USA in the late 1940s/1950s and the 1960s/1970s have introductory American depth pathways; the 1980s/early-1990s theme now introduces all four enquiries with original teaching and two longer essay workshops. All four American themes now have introductory teaching and longer essay workshops, including US foreign policy, 1944–1992. The US–Soviet theme introduces all four enquiries through thirty core lessons and two longer essay workshops. Forty-one lessons introduce all four East and Southeast Asia enquiries: eight on post-war change, nine on Korea, twelve on Vietnam and twelve on Sino-American relations. Eight lessons introduce the African independence enquiry through Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Kenya and comparative reasoning. Nine further lessons introduce government, economic and social challenges after independence. Thirteen further lessons introduce Cold War involvement, Chinese support, non-alignment and Pan-Africanism. Twelve further lessons introduce UN involvement in Congo and Somalia, with 1993–1995 explicitly labelled as later context beyond the theme’s 1992 endpoint. Ten lessons introduce the creation-of-Israel enquiry. Twenty further lessons introduce wars and peace efforts in 1948–1979. Seventeen further lessons introduce superpower motives, oil, American and Soviet policies and their consequences through 1991. Twenty-one further lessons introduce the Iranian Revolution, Iran–Iraq War and 1990–1991 Gulf War. All four 2026 Middle East enquiries have introductory lessons; broader reading, depth, specialist review and full assessment remain unfinished. The separate 2027–2029 requirements are not mapped by these 2026 lessons. A separately labelled revised-year orientation and Eastern Europe enquiries 7.1–7.4 introductions and South Africa enquiries 8.1–8.3 and Zimbabwe enquiry 8.4, followed by Malaya enquiry 9.1 and introductory sequences for Malaysia formation enquiry 9.2 and Indonesian nationalism enquiry 9.3, with partial preparation, revolution, 1950s challenges and New Order teaching in enquiry 9.4, are available; other revised teaching remains unfinished. Source summaries are original StudyForA paraphrases, not quotations, complete documents or simulated eyewitness sources. Primary documents, historians’ arguments and original exercises are identified separately. Guided source comparisons, interpretation exercises and analytical models are not full papers, calibrated marking or Cambridge grades. Broader authentic source reading, historical depth and subject-specialist review remain required.
Enquiry brief and analytical model
This is an original StudyForA enquiry brief, not a quotation, a primary document or a historian’s extract. Use it to plan your own argument and read the linked evidence. US–Soviet relations, 1950–1991 is one theme within the International Paper 4 depth study in 2026. The official paper is 105 minutes and 60 marks, with two questions from the chosen depth study. These lessons and original planning briefs introduce US–Soviet relations, 1950–1991; broader historical depth, full timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Develop your own supported judgement using precise evidence, causal relationships and counterarguments. The Paper 4 choice is independent of Paper 3.
StudyForA enquiry brief · Renewed tension: the road to the Second Cold War
[1] Original planning brief. Trace deterioration before 1980 without assigning earlier decisions to a later president. Compare the evidence, its provenance and its limits. This brief is not contemporary testimony or a historian’s extract. Write an argument before opening the analytical model.
1. Evaluate the causes of renewed tension by 1980. Explain your judgement using precise evidence and a counterargument.
Compare after trying
Renewed tension by 1980 is best explained through an interacting sequence rather than one later president. Strategic disagreements and continuing rivalry had weakened confidence before NATO’s dual-track decision on 12 December 1979. That decision offered negotiation alongside planned deployment and preceded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that month. The chronology rules out the invasion as the cause of that earlier decision, while leaving its broader impact important.
Afghanistan intensified fears about Soviet intentions and hardened Carter’s response. It also damaged the prospects of SALT II, whose June 1979 signature had not brought it into force. Local Afghan politics and Soviet decisions require explanation alongside Western reactions. Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981 belongs to the next stage, not the origin of every earlier policy. Overall, the invasion was a major accelerator of deterioration, but strategic concerns, divergent expectations and political pressures explain why the relationship was already vulnerable.
Why this response fits
- Connects dated evidence to a mechanism of change or continuity.
- Distinguishes an actor’s claim, an observed action and the limits of the conclusion.
Establish the sequence before choosing a cause
The deterioration of relations at the end of the 1970s had several interacting strands. Continuing regional competition, strategic concerns and disputes over what détente permitted had already weakened confidence. A causal explanation should show how those issues changed decisions and expectations rather than treat the term Second Cold War as if it named one event on one universally agreed starting day.
NATO’s dual-track decision of 12 December 1979 combined a plan for new intermediate-range nuclear deployments with an offer of negotiations. The decision preceded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that month and Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981. Actual deployments followed in 1983. A timeline must separate decision, implementation and political explanation: neither a later invasion nor an administration not yet in office can be the direct cause of the earlier decision.
Explain Afghanistan through decisions and perceptions
The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December 1979 involved a local political crisis, fears about security and influence, and a choice by Soviet leaders to use force. Western governments interpreted the action through their own concerns about strategic position and Soviet intentions. Explanation should include both the decision’s setting and its effect on the relationship; it should not turn Afghanistan into a passive location with no local politics.
Carter’s response included a harder strategic posture and restrictions, while further consideration of SALT II in the US Senate was put aside. The treaty had been signed on 18 June 1979 but never entered into force. This means the invasion seriously damaged an already disputed process; it does not mean that a previously ratified treaty was suddenly undone. Signature, domestic approval and legal operation are different stages.
Weigh interaction rather than a single inevitable cause
One explanation emphasises Soviet actions and the alarm they created. Another gives greater weight to mutual suspicion, arms concerns and the fragility of détente’s political support. These can be compared by asking which explains the timing of particular decisions, their scale and the reasons given by participants. A participant’s public justification is evidence of how policy was defended, not a complete causal account by itself.
The enquiry ending in 1980 also needs a clear boundary. Reagan’s policies belong to a subsequent stage and cannot explain actions already taken under Carter, though later developments can help illustrate what followed. Do not claim negotiations vanished permanently: subsequent arms talks require their own dates and scope. A proportionate judgement can identify Afghanistan as a major accelerator and symbol of deterioration while showing why strategic disagreements and political pressures had made the relationship vulnerable beforehand.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2026 Version 3 · content pp. 9–41, assessment pp. 43–45, changes p. 52
- Cambridge History 9489 · December 2025 update · 2026 only
- NATO · selected 12 December 1979 dual-track decision and context; alliance account, decision distinct from later deployments
- Office of the Historian · selected December 1979 invasion and Carter response; local actors and later withdrawal distinct
- SALT II, 18 June 1979 · primary treaty and signature block, selected definitions; signature is not entry into force
- Office of the Historian · selected incentives and rivalry during détente; compressed early-1980s no-talks claim not adopted
Pause and explain
Which explanation respects the chronology?
Worked example
Which came first: NATO’s dual-track decision or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Show the worked solution
- Locate 12 December 1979.
- Place the invasion later that month.
- Separate the 1983 deployment stage.
Answer The dual-track decision came first. The invasion affected the wider deterioration, but cannot be the cause of a decision already taken.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Explain why chronology limits the claim that Afghanistan caused the dual-track decision.
Give me a hint
Distinguish the policy decision from later deployment.
Compare my reasoning
- Date the decision.
- Place the invasion afterwards.
- Identify the later implementation stage.
NATO took the dual-track decision on 12 December 1979, before the Soviet invasion later that month. Actual deployments followed in 1983. The invasion could influence the wider strategic atmosphere and subsequent choices, but it could not cause an earlier decision. The explanation therefore needs pre-existing arms and alliance concerns as well as an account of how Afghanistan intensified deterioration.
Look for these in your work
- Uses the correct temporal order
- Distinguishes decision and implementation
Independent: Explain why SALT II’s signature is not evidence it was already legally operating.
Give me a hint
Identify the missing stages rather than assuming the title proves them.
Compare my reasoning
- Date the June 1979 signature.
- Distinguish ratification and entry into force.
- Connect the later crisis to political prospects.
SALT II was signed on 18 June 1979, but signature did not complete domestic approval or bring the treaty into force. It never entered into force. The Afghanistan crisis damaged the political prospects for further consideration in the United States; it did not reverse a completed ratification and operating treaty. Any discussion of subsequent political restraint must also be distinguished from legal entry into force.
Look for these in your work
- Separates treaty stages
- Explains the crisis’s political effect accurately
Application: Rewrite a paragraph blaming all deterioration by 1980 on President Reagan.
Give me a hint
Use the endpoint and identify who was already making decisions.
Compare my reasoning
- Place Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981.
- Identify late-1970s decisions under other leaders.
- Give a multi-stage explanation.
A stronger paragraph would identify strategic disputes and continuing competition, the December 1979 dual-track decision, Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and Carter’s response as developments before Reagan took office in January 1981. Reagan shaped a later stage, but cannot be assigned responsibility for earlier presidential decisions. This correction still allows debate over relative causes; it requires that the argument explain the actual sequence rather than importing a later reputation into an earlier period.
Look for these in your work
- Preserves the 1980 enquiry boundary
- Explains several interacting developments
Common mistakes
- Assigning 1979 presidential decisions to Reagan
- Treating deployment as identical to the decision
- Claiming SALT II was ratified and operating
What can you explain now?
Which explanation respects the chronology?
Compare with the explanation
The late-1979 invasion intensified deterioration that already included strategic disputes and the dual-track decision
An accelerator can be important without being the sole origin of every earlier policy.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Which explanation respects the chronology?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.