Nuclear Weapons and the United States

Nuclear weapons are instruments of pure evil. A nuclear explosion, either by design or accident, would kill massive numbers of people, create international chaos, and cripple the world economy. Nuclear weapons are devoid of the slightest shred of moral legitimacy. Prominent jurists consider their use illegal in any possible circumstance. The nuclear weapons states are deliberately undermining the rule of law in maintaining them. Because the nuclear weapons States have decisively shown that they consider nuclear weapons permanent instruments in their military doctrine, the Holy See has withdrawn the limited acceptance it gave to nuclear weapons during the Cold War. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, nuclear weapons are evil and immoral and must be eliminated as a precondition to obtaining peace.  - Nuclear Weapons and Morality: An Unequivocal Position

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another.  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

Many people have experienced some kind of natural disaster in their lifetime, a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, volcano eruption, tsunami and so on.  Even if one hasn’t experienced it personally, everyone has certainly seen the effects.  While these events can cause enormous destruction and release vast amounts of energy, how do they compare to the level of destruction resulting from the detonation of one or several nuclear weapons?   Well the video accompanying this article shows the results of  a single Hydrogen Bomb detonation so take look and you can judge that for yourself.

Some background information, the United States conducted its first nuclear test on July 16, 1945 at the Trinity Test site in New Mexico.  The device used in this test was the product of the Manhattan Project, the classified project the U.S. conducted during World War Two to produce a nuclear weapon.  Albert Einstein sent a letter to Franklin Roosevelt informing the president that Germany was undertaking research to develop such a weapon and that if they were successful in producing one, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party would undoubtedly use it and conceivably terminate the Second World War on their own terms.  It is good to have a president who is intelligent and can understand and act when presented with the kind of information Einstein’s letter contained.

As everyone knows, the United States is the only country to use nuclear weapons during a war.  Two weapons produced by the Manhattan Project were deployed against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they are generally regarded as the events that ended the Second World War.  It is still debated whether their use was justified and necessary.  Looking at it in hindsight, it seems like there should have been another option besides using a nuclear weapon on a civilian population.  One of my college classmates who was an American of Japanese ancestry showed me a Japanese magazine with pictures of the effects of the weapons on people.  After seeing the photographs, my opinion changed.  No one knew what the long term effects of radiation would be.  There should have been another way.

Nuclear scientists knew that even a more destructive weapon could be created; it was called the Super Bomb and is now commonly known as a Hydrogen or Thermonuclear weapon.   The United States tested its first fusion device on November 1, 1952; it was significantly more destructive than the fission devices used against Japan.  The Soviet Union developed its own fission and fusion weapons not long after the United States.  In 1966 the United States had 32,193 deployable nuclear warheads.  In the following decades this number was reduced as weapons became smaller and more efficient and targeting capabilities became more precise.  By the early 1980s both the United States and the Soviet Union had over 20,000 nuclear weapons each; about half of these were called Strategic and the remainder tactical.  It is highly likely that another war in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact at this time would have resulted in tactical weapons being used and Europe as we now know it would no longer exist. 

However it is doubtful that such a “theater” war could be confined and in all likelihood strategic weapons would have been deployed by the United States and the Soviet Union, in which case most of the Northern Hemisphere as we now know it would no longer exist.

So where are we now?  The cold war ended, the Berlin Wall was torn down and the Soviet Union no longer exists.  One might ask, are nuclear weapons still around?   Yes they are, the United States still has 4,075 active and deployed nuclear weapons and could reconstruct thousands more that have been deconstructed by agreement with the Soviet Union in various START treaty arrangements.

During the Bush administration the United States started the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  Options on using them were also expanded.  The “Bush Doctrine” you may recall essentially stated that the United States would use preemptive war whenever it considered it necessary to protect National Security.  It was conceivable under this “Doctrine” that nuclear weapons could be used against non-nuclear states.   This is discussed in some detail in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.  Another interesting development in this same timeframe was the idea that the United States may have acquired a condition of Nuclear Primacy.

Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.

Well you can find more information about this on the Internet and find for yourself how this condition was viewed by the Bush Administration and discover what its impact was on strategy and tactics regarding preemptive war. I’m not going into detail about what either a single or multiple nuclear weapon(s) would do to a population center; this again is something anyone can research on their own.  I can recommend a place to begin.

The real issue though is what will the relationship between nuclear weapons and the United States in the future.  During the recent presidential campaign, both candidates supported reduction in the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal. According to a campaign statement by President Obama:

Here's what I'll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We'll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert...[and] we'll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.

Senator McCain’s position was similar and one should expect their cooperation in the years ahead in achieving this goal.  Is this really acceptable however?  What is the world really like today?

Here are some numbers:

Nuclear-Weapon States:

The nuclear-weapon states (NWS) are the five states—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States—officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons by the NPT. Although the treaty legitimizes these states’ nuclear arsenals, it also establishes that they are not supposed to build and maintain such weapons in perpetuity. Article VI of the treaty holds that each state-party is to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” In 2000, the five NWS committed themselves to an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” But for now, the five continue to retain the bulk of their nuclear forces. Because of the secretive nature with which most governments treat information about their nuclear arsenals, the figures below are best estimates of each nuclear-weapon state’s nuclear holdings, including both strategic warheads and lower-yield devices referred to as tactical weapons:

China: 100-200 warheads.
France: Approximately 350 strategic warheads.
Russia: 4,237 strategic warheads[1], approximately 2,000-3,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000-10,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.
United Kingdom: Less than 160 deployed strategic warheads.
United States: 5,914 strategic warheads[1], approximately 1,000 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 3,000 reserve strategic and tactical warheads.

---

Defacto Nuclear-Weapon States:

Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons. Claiming its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, India first tested a nuclear explosive device in 1974. That test spurred Pakistan to ramp up work on its secret nuclear weapons program. India and Pakistan both publicly demonstrated their nuclear weapon capabilities with a round of tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998. Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons, and states it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms. The following arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—that each of the states is estimated to have produced. Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons. India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.

India: Up to 100 nuclear warheads.
Israel: Between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads.
Pakistan: Up to 60 nuclear warheads.

---

States of Immediate Proliferation Concern:

Iran is pursuing an uranium enrichment program and other projects that could provide it with the capability to produce bomb-grade fissile material and develop nuclear weapons within the next several years. In contrast, North Korea has the material to produce a small number of nuclear weapons, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and tested a nuclear device. Uncertainty persists about how many additional nuclear devices North Korea has assembled beyond the device tested in 2006. In September 2005, Pyongyang “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.”

Iran: No known weapons or sufficient fissile material stockpiles to build weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the institution charged with verifying that states are not illicitly building nuclear weapons, concluded in 2003 that Iran had undertaken covert nuclear activities to establish the capacity to indigenously produce fissile material. The IAEA is continuing its investigation and monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear program.

North Korea:  Has separated enough plutonium for up to 12 nuclear warheads.

Syria: U.S. officials sometimes name Syria as covertly seeking nuclear weapons. Syria has forsworn nuclear weapons as a state-party to the NPT and its nuclear research reactor is subject to IAEA monitoring. In September 2007, Israel conducted an airstrike on what unnamed officials and some analysts allege may have been the construction site of a nuclear research reactor similar to North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor. In addition, according to a 2004 declassified intelligence report to Congress, “Pakistani investigators in late January 2004 said they had ‘confirmation’ of an IAEA allegation that [Abdul Qadeer] Khan offered nuclear technology and hardware to Syria, according to Pakistani press, and we are concerned that expertise or technology could have been transferred. We continue to monitor Syrian nuclear intentions with concern.”

Iran, Syria and North Korea are considered to be on the verge of becoming Defacto-Nuclear-Weapon States and should be of concern.  It should also be noted that the United States is the only Nuclear-Weapon State that is developing a new generation of nuclear weapon delivery systems.  Moreover the United States is the only country on the planet with the industrial capacity for doing so.  To put it all in context, between 1940 and 1996, it is a minimal estimate that the United States spent  $5.8 Trillion on its nuclear weapons programs

If you are concerned about this issue, you should so state to your elected representatives in the U.S. Congress.  If you know your zip code and are at all familiar with the Internet, you can go to this URL and make your feelings known to the people who are paid by the American taxpayers to represent you.   Make sure your money isn't being wasted or, more importantly, make an effort  to insure that your life isn't treated in a whimsical  manner.

Because with Nuclear Weapons, one can't actually think in terms of anyone using them. The point is that these things have no real value as "weapons."  They have no military value, if ONE is used somewhere/anywhere it is a crime against humanity of incomparable magnitude.  Whatever "cause" it was used in the name of would be instantly condemned by the whole world.  There aren't enough burn trauma hospital beds in the entire United States that could handle the 3rd degree burn causalities from one bomb on one city.  There is no historical parallel.

Two countries both had over 20,000 of them and their leaders had specific plans on using them.  The United States in the early 1960s.  The Soviet Union seriously thought NATO was going to attack them in the 1980s.  See the 1983 Soviet War Scare.

The United States and Russia still have far too many, thousands too many.  And the United States is developing a new generation of delivery systems.  I really don't know why except it is good for business in the defense industry. 

People in India and Pakistan are happy that their countries now have nuclear weapons.  They would be better off not having them.  And that is the point.  They don't protect you. They are use or lose weapons. So quite the opposite, instead of providing protection they simply put you at far greater risk.

McGeorge Bundy, adviser to US presidents Kennedy and Johnson said:

In the real world of real political leaders, a decision that would bring even one hydrogen bomb on one city of one's own country would be recognized in advance as a catastrophic blunder; ten bombs on ten cities would be a disaster beyond history; and a hundred bombs on a hundred cities are unthinkable.

I think "why" the United States developed the atomic bomb is interesting only for historical purposes.  The real issue is the arms race than ensued after World War II ended.  Neither Germany nor Japan were ever close to developing a nuclear weapon.  

Moreover there are examples where one side (USA/USSR) thought the other had launched an attack and was about to retaliate but cooler heads prevailed and a counterstrike was averted. However as long as thousands of nuclear weapons are on a quick response status, the world is in danger.  So in addition to reducing the total number of active weapons the United States and Russia now have, if those they do have deployed were removed from a rapid counterstrike status the world would be much safer. 

It has also been speculated that the atomic bomb the United States used on the Japanese city of Nagasaki was intended not only to force Japan to surrender but also to provide a message to Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union.  I find this a weak argument.  For one, Stalin already knew what the United States had developed even before the Hiroshima bomb.  And using a nuclear weapon on the Japanese city of Nagasaki to provide a "message" to the Soviet Union is to me somewhat unbelievable. 

Again I hope people are not missing my intentions in presenting this.  My feelings are much more in line with the American Catholic Bishops in their statement on nuclear weapons.