Phil Filippopoulos
Mr. Evans
U.S. History II
17 May 2004

	 "The atom offered each country's decision-makers many opportunities to indulge a yearning for power, relish a sense of achievement, proclaim a vision of the future, or to fear the unknown." These words by Peter Pringle and James Spigelman represent the feelings of many people in today's world. The invention of the atomic bomb in the forties set off a chain reaction that has resulted in an age of danger and fear. In 1945, there were 6 nuclear weapons in the world, all possessed by the United States. In 1995, there were over 43,000 nuclear arms accounted for, and as North Korea had shown three years earlier, many the world at large may not know of (CNN.com). There are, in general, three schools of thought on nuclear arms possession. The first, most straight-forward is that of nuclear arms being simply a weapon, to be used against enemy nations in the event of war, and thus are necessary. 

     A second policy is the keeping of nuclear arms as a means of defense; many argue that the threat of nuclear warfare is enough to deter other nations from attacking. Proponents of this theory believe that keeping a larger stockpile is necessary. In a case in which two countries with smaller nuclear capabilities go to war, the threat of a larger retaliation would prevent a quick first strike designed to wipe out the enemy’s arsenal quickly (Krauthammer). Many also believe that stockpiling nuclear weapons, and voicing a warning of usage, would prevent other types of threats, particularly those of biological weapons. There is a growing sentiment of dislike in many parts of the world for the U.S., and much of this is linked to terrorist organizations. Supporters of this idea feel that  the reducing of nuclear weapons, or a public “no-first-use” policy would eliminate the fear and open the country to more attacks (Gompert). A policy known as MAD, or mutual ability for destruction, introduced in the Cold War, rationalized that if two nuclear forces could both destroy each other considerably, neither would initiate war. For the inherent problems in this, one must look first to the past, and how the Bomb was first used and developed.

	World War II is considered, by many, the epitome of military action. Europe was set ablaze as the Axis marched across it, leaving behind a path of destruction. America’s involvement in the war was truly a turning point towards victory for the Allies, but fear of Hitler’s power still ran rampant. However, this fear eventually resulted in a military strike that silenced the whole world, and horrified both attacker and attacked, and the explosion reverberates even into today. It was, however, a chain reaction that caused this:

"Those who wanted to expand nuclear power proclaimed that they had no choice- especially during the early years. The American bomb project was launched by men who sincerely believed they were in a race with Hitler. When it became clear that Hitler was not building a bomb, the Americans found a new target in the Japanese and convinced themselves there was no alternative to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Four years later, when the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb, the Americans felt they had to build an H-bomb to stay ahead in the arms race. The alternative-to renew the search for ways of limiting the arms race- was subsumed by the transitory fears and enthusiasm for bigger and better bombs." (Pringle, Spigelman xi)

	This expresses the main concern of those opposed to the continued development and housing of nuclear weapons. In an age where destruction is only a command away, nations very quickly become intimidated by superior military technology, and thus develop their own. In the Cold War, the USA and USSR were in a constant race to improve nuclear technology, with liberal usage of spying, espionage, and secrecy for both sides. By 1965, the U.S. had more than 31,000 nuclear weapons, more than 5,000 times what it had only twenty years earlier. The Soviet Union had 6,000 weapons. The race for nuclear superiority lead to the development of more than enough weapons to effectively wipe out any enemy. The Soviets, in 1961, detonated a nuclear device with the force of “58 megatons, the equivalent of more than 50 million tons of TNT, or more than all the explosives used during World War II” (CNN.com). This, undoubtedly, has incredible destructive force. The nuclear arms race also cost the U.S. $5.5 trillion, a considerable sum to spend on weapons to not use.

 	The constant fear of attack adds fuel to the fire in two ways. Firstly, it creates a need in the country's mind to keep improving its nuclear capabilities to keep up. Secondly, the government can easily use the possibility of other countries having larger amounts of weapons to justify its own military actions, such as the recent search for WMD in Iraq. Though it is yet unknown whether WMD exist in Iraq, we have gone to war on a partial basis of their existence. In India and Pakistan, the very real threat of nuclear war has citizens in a constant state of fear. Neither country is willing to back down, and a war could very easily erupt, creating a yet unfathomed level of destruction. 

	Many attempts at limiting nuclear arms development have taken place. However, these efforts are often not enough. North Korea, who only revealed itself to be a nuclear power a few years ago, has capabilities of striking the U.S. We have urged them to limit their nuclear arms, which go against the U.N.’s rules, however, one of their conditions was that the U.S. do the same. This presents an inherent flaw 

Works Cited

Gompert,   David G.  “Nuclear Deterrence Can Prevent Biological Warfare” Opposing Viewpoints <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=212&slb=SU&locID=sims65323&srchtp=basic&c=8&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Nuclear+Weapons%2522&docNum=X3010272225&fail=8192&bConts=8271>

Krauthammer, Charles “An Arsenal of Nuclear Weapons Prevents War” Opposing Viewpoints <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=212&slb=SU&locID=sims65323&srchtp=basic&c=1&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Nuclear+Weapons%2522&docNum=X3010237228&fail=8192&bConts=8271> 1999

CNN.com “Cold War Experience: The Bomb” CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/
Pringle, Peter and Spigelman, James The Nuclear Barons, Holt, Rinehhart and Winston, New York, 1981