The successful detonation of a nuclear bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, and the subsequent destruction of two Japanese cities by this fearsome weapon, forever altered the equation of security in the world. In the short term these events contributed to an unconditional Japanese surrender, but in the long-term they have continued to impact international relations and global security all the way to the present day.
Nuclear weapons can produce a yield measuring into the megatons, and can be delivered by land (intercontinental ballistic missiles or ICBMs), air (strategic bombers), and sea (submarines). The world’s foremost nuclear powers include the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, France, Israel (widely suspected) and North Korea. Currently, the United States and Russia have together enough warheads to completely destroy each other, if not the rest of the world as well. Even an exchange between India and Pakistan, both of which have arsenals of around 100, could conceivably lower global temperatures and rainfall, and perhaps cause the starvation of 2 billion people.
Indeed, a nuclear war could quite possibly result in the eradication of humanity. It seems as though the fate of the world rests with a handful of politicians, military leaders, and programmers in the White House and the Kremlin. This view is frightening enough considering how many times the world has come close to an all-out nuclear war. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, a Soviet attempt to place warheads in Cuba in 1962 led to a tense military stand-off. As US President John F. Kennedy and Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev negotiated, American civilians feared that nuclear war was imminent and began preparing for such. Thankfully diplomacy won, and the crisis was “defused.”
The case against nuclear weapons is compelling. To many people, the danger that these warheads pose is reason enough. Also cited are the environmental and economic costs of creating and maintaining a nuclear arsenal. The signing of the 1963 Test Ban Treaty, which banned all non-underground nuclear tests, was warranted by the destructive impact that these can have on our planet’s biosphere. From 1940 to 1996, the United States spent more than $5 trillion on its arsenal, the majority of it being on deployment. It is undeniable that nuclear arsenals require significant economic commitment on the part of a country’s government and citizens.
However, nuclear weapons have attracted considerable support from those who believe that their existence has saved lives. To understand how, we need to revisit the final stages of World War II, when atomic bombs were used in warfare for the only such occurrence in history. There has been significant debate concerning the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. Significant evidence points to the fact that the use of these weapons on Japan brought about a quicker and less costly end to World War II. Alternatives to the use of atomic bombs on Japanese cities, such as atomic bomb demonstrations, are often invoked by the critics of President Truman’s “unethical” decision.
The likelihood of demonstrations bringing about an unconditional surrender seems dubious at best, due to the fact that Japan already knew of the bombs’ existence (from the ultimatum issued at the Potsdam Conference). In fact, Japan had its own (though very unsuccessful) program to build a nuclear weapon. The Japanese already knew what the bomb was capable of, and if this knowledge wasn’t enough to bring them to terms, it seems unlikely that a demonstration would have.
If the purpose of avoiding the use of atomic bombs was to save lives, the alternative of increased strategic bombing would have accomplished the opposite. America’s aerial bombardment of Japan during World War II resulted in the deaths of around half a million civilians, as well as the destruction of anywhere from 12% to 99% of 67 different Japanese cities. Furthermore, there is no indication that this tactic, which had been going on since 1944, would have brought about a Japanese surrender.
An Allied invasion of Japan would have ended with many more lives lost than the atomic bombs due to extreme Japanese resistance. The ferocity and desperation with which the Japanese Military and civilians would have countered an invasion cannot be overstated. Evidence of the likelihood of this level of resistance in any invasion of the Japanese home islands can be seen from the fighting that happened earlier in 1945, notably at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. If American fatalities per square mile in an invasion of Japan had been just 5% of the corresponding losses at Okinawa, they would have reached 297,000 (along with an untold number of Japanese civilians and soldiers).
Presumably, the purpose of avoiding the use of nuclear weapons would’ve been to preserve lives; like the other alternatives, Operation Downfall (the codename of the invasion) could not have successfully fulfilled this goal. Considering the circumstances, the use of nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities was the quickest and least deadly way to end World War II.
Building on this, we must next examine the Cold War, in which the United States (backed by the West) faced off against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (with its client states in the East). Both of these superpowers were armed with nuclear arsenals measuring into the tens of thousands. The push of a wrong button or the rise in politics of a nuclear extremist could have resulted in the complete and thorough destruction of humanity.
However, evidence supports the idea that the presence of nuclear weapons prevented major conventional wars. Student researcher Bleddyn E. Bowen examines the outcome of “A Cold War without Nuclear Weapons” in his essay of the same name, suggesting that in such a scenario, a Third World War would’ve been much more likely to occur. In order to come to this conclusion, he contrasts the philosophies of non-nuclear (conventional) and nuclear warfare. Bowen notes that the former “could be winnable in the eyes of the opposing sides, and the states could be more willing to test their opponent’s strategies and military technologies.”
To put this into effect, one could paint the picture of a likely conventional war scenario just after the conclusion of the Second World War. The Soviet Union probably would’ve relied on its superior numbers to overrun Western Europe, while the United States and its Allies could have mobilized their stronger economies and employed strategic bombing to defeat their communist adversary. As seen, both sides would have had their strengths and weaknesses, as well as strategies to perfect. This is what makes conventional wars winnable, which is why they’ve been waged for thousands of years.
To put this into effect, one could paint the picture of a likely conventional war scenario just after the conclusion of the Second World War. The Soviet Union probably would’ve relied on its superior numbers to overrun Western Europe, while the United States and its Allies could have mobilized their stronger economies and employed strategic bombing to defeat their communist adversary. As seen, both sides would have had their strengths and weaknesses, as well as strategies to perfect. This is what makes conventional wars winnable, which is why they’ve been waged for thousands of years.
On the other hand, nuclear warfare is not winnable. As of yet, no adequate defense has been designed by any nation against thousands of incoming nuclear warheads. The doctrine of Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD) is based on “the irrationality of a suicidal war”. It was this idea that held the United States and the Soviet Union back during the Cold War years. Any direct conventional war would almost certainly escalate into a nuclear war, and as neither side could have emerged victorious in such a conflict, it was seen as illogical to pursue. In any confrontation, a country is much more likely to be deterred by threats of complete annihilation than by weak statements or economic sanctions.
The historical and current situation in South Asia also supports the idea that nuclear weapons prevent major conventional wars. India and Pakistan are two rival neighbors who have been waging their own cold war since the late 1940s. These two countries fought direct wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971. In the 1970s, India developed its own nuclear weapons, resulting in Pakistan doing the same by 1999. Since then, the two nations have had near-war moments, such as that in 2002, when an attack on the Indian Parliament resulted in a military buildup and a nuclear crisis. They’ve also been engaged in minor and indirect warfare, notably in the disputed region of Kashmir. However, there have been no more direct Indo-Pakistani wars. This is due to the so-called stability-instability paradox, when nuclear weapons decrease the chance of major conventional wars but increase the risk for small-scale conflicts.
The idea helps explain why the United States and the Soviet Union never directly fought each other, but instead clashed through proxy wars in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia. While these wars were destructive and resulted in enormous suffering, a full-scale conventional Third World War between two modern superpowers would have likely resulted in far more severe loss of life and destruction in the short-term. This isn’t to mention the long-term problems that often result from major conventional wars; many of the above-mentioned conflicts were caused by the First and Second World Wars.
The existence of nuclear weapons has consistently saved lives and served as a deterrent to massive conventional wars. That is why they are essential; if our purpose is to promote stability and preserve life, the United States must continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal.
The opposing side of this argument does have serious legitimate concerns. Nuclear weapons must be used responsibly, and they need to be regulated and limited to decrease the possibility of a nuclear war, whether accidental or not. At the same time, it is imperative that we continue to store, deploy, and test these weapons with respect to the environment. Efforts by the United States and the Soviet Union (later Russia) to sharply reduce the number of deployed and active warheads have had the positive effect of decreasing economic costs and limiting the impact of a potential nuclear war.
However, we still live in an increasingly dangerous world. Rising powers such as Russia and China are actively upgrading and expanding their nuclear arsenals, and they have no indication of depriving themselves of the deterrent. At the same time, rogue states, notably Iran and North Korea, are unpredictable and could sell or use nuclear weapons to threaten not only their neighbors, but the United States as well. Because of this, it is essential that we here in the West give up our perfect world mentality and accept that this is not reality. If our government achieved unilateral nuclear disarmament, foreign powers will be able to either use blackmail to force the United States to accept certain agreements, or launch a first-strike without fear of retaliation. Such a situation would be even worse than multilateral global disarmament. Nuclear weapons level the playing field; Russia, China, and other countries understand this, which is why they will not yield their weapons in the foreseeable future.
Perhaps, if we as humans ever lose our tendencies of resorting to violence to solve problems, the abolition of nuclear weapons would have a positive effect. Until then however, they are our best option for maintaining global security, limiting the scope of conflicts, and preserving human life.
