Nuclear Security | Introduction
In August 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing World War II to a close. Some 140,000 people died in the blasts, and many thousands died later from radiation sickness. The bombing of Hiroshima was the first use of atomic weapons, and the detonation set off a decades-long nuclear arms race between the former Soviet Union and the United States. The Cold War—as that arms race is called—cost both countries billions of dollars, created a global atmosphere of fear and mistrust, and eventually precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1990, the Cold War ended, and so did much of the public’s concern about nuclear weapons.
However, nuclear security is an even greater concern today than it was during the Cold War. The nuclear arms race during the Cold War was marked by caution and restraint and was played out by participants with an ocean between them. By contrast, nuclear proliferation today is characterized by unstable regional conflicts, lack of effective intelligence systems that could prevent an accidental deployment, and far more players, some of whom may not be deterred by fear of nuclear retaliation. Until recently, only five countries—the United States, Russia, England, France, and China—possessed nuclear capabilities. However, in 1998, India and Pakistan—contentious neighbors with a history of war—detonated nuclear bombs. Israel is purported to have nuclear weapons without declaring them. Furthermore, rogue nations— countries such as Iraq and Iran that the United States fears because they act outside the bounds of international law—have been acquiring nuclear technology from China and North Korea. A portion of this technology originates in the former Soviet Union, which has experienced nuclear security problems since its dissolution. Many of its nuclear sites remain unguarded, and the numerous institutional safeguards that once curtailed the proliferation of nuclear technology are now weakened.
As nuclear security becomes increasingly threatened, calls for more nuclear arms as well as calls for disarmament grow more vociferous. Many opponents of nuclear arms believe that the inherent risk of nuclear weapons—global annihilation—make the possession and use of these weapons immoral and indefensible. They assert that if countries persist in maintaining nuclear arsenals as a defense against growing nuclear threats, the world will actually be less safe. Nations that maintain a nuclear arsenal encourage others to develop nuclear weapons as a defense, abolitionists argue, which increases the likelihood that a mistaken or intentional deployment somewhere in the world will set off a sequence of retaliatory deployments that could eventually destroy the earth. The Goodpaster Committee for the Project on Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction asserts that “only [an international] policy aimed at steadily curbing global reliance on nuclear weapons . . . is likely to progressively eliminate nuclear dangers.”
U.S. abolitionists argue that eradicating nuclear weapons is in the best interest of the United States. Jonathon Schell, author of the 1981 book The Fate of the Earth, which was hailed as the definitive warning of nuclear peril, argues that the only serious threat the United States faces is from nuclear arms. Therefore, he contends, “the U.S. more than any other country probably has the most to gain from the global abolition of nuclear weapons.” Most U.S. abolitionists support international nuclear arms control agreements such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons. Only by restraining nations from developing nuclear weapons by force of international law, they contend, can proliferation be stopped.
Other people believe that the goal of nuclear disarmament, however noble, is simply unrealistic. Since the technology to build nuclear weapons has been invented and cannot be un-invented, they argue, rogue countries will always be able to obtain the know-how and materials to make atomic bombs. The only way for the United States to combat nuclear threats from these countries is to possess greater nuclear firepower, they contend. Proponents of nuclear weapons argue that nuclear arsenals have actually made the world safer by raising the stakes of warfare. Whereas wars waged with conventional weapons can be won and are therefore viewed as profitable, nuclear war is unwinnable— since it would guarantee the destruction of both parties—and is therefore unlikely to be waged. The result is less warfare and more international stability, supporters of nuclear arms maintain. Richard N. Haass, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institute, contends that “the cold war only remained cold because both the United States and the Soviet Union understood that any direct confrontation between them would likely escalate into a nuclear holocaust.”
Proponents of nuclear arms are also wary of international treaties designed to abolish nuclear weapons. Treaties such as the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibited nations without nuclear weapons from obtaining them, and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which called for a ban on all testing of nuclear weapons, have been ineffective at stopping proliferation, they contend. The Wall Street Journal claims that “there is ample evidence that arms-control agreements have done more to spread arms than to suppress them.” Nuclear arms proponents assert that some treaty signatories, such as the United States, abide by such treaties while other countries, such as China, cheat and continue to develop their nuclear arsenals.
As nuclear security becomes increasingly imperiled due to the proliferation of nuclear arms, scientists, military leaders, and concerned organizations worldwide have voiced differing views on how to contain the threat. The threat of nuclear disaster is greater today because of the increasing number of nations who possess nuclear technology, but also because nuclear weapons are now more deadly than ever. Since the United States’ Manhattan Project developed the atomic bomb in 1945, advanced technology has made nuclear weapons more destructive. The weapons used in Japan in 1945 produced energy equivalent to about 20,000 tons of TNT; today’s thermonuclear bombs generate energy equivalent to many millions of tons of TNT.
The splitting of plutonium and uranium atoms in the New Mexico desert decades ago ushered in one of the most momentous debates in history. The question of how to contain the dangers posed by nuclear weapons is the focus of At Issue: Nuclear Security.
