Carroll

“Transition to a Nuclear State”

Patrick Carroll

The Catholic University of America

Political Science Senior Paper

March 19, 2015

1

Carroll

The global community has evolved throughout the years since the invention of the first

nuclear fission weapons. This impact can be seen in warfare, national security, and politics

which in turn influenced public opinion. The events that ended WWII as well as the events of the

Cold War created a growing new field known as nuclear warfare. Nuclear warfare, mainly the

threat of nuclear warfare, would go on to impact the political landscape of the 1950s until the

modern era not only for the United States and the Soviet Union, but for the rest of the world as

well. Communism was on the rise in the Soviet Union and so was the fear of communism in the

United States. It was a time where the free world was in a constant battle against the oppression

of communism. In order to accurately claim what the United States should do in regards to their

future strategy for nuclear defense or deterrence, it is important to look at significant events of

nuclear development throughout the years. This report will examine various case studies of how

nuclear weaponry had an impact on American politics and explain what led the U.S. to where

they are now. By analyzing these events, one can see that the militaristic threats that once

instilled fear within the American citizen have changed to a new type of threat which has

different needs in terms of national defense.

Without a doubt, the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was

an extremely controversial event in the history of mankind. It was an event that struck fear

worldwide. Since the time that the first two infamous bombs were dropped that year on Japan,

various developments have been made in regards to nuclear technology. This report will analyze

the progression of global thought and how it has changed in respects to nuclear weaponry over

the course of the past century. It will furthermore demonstrate how nuclear weapons were able to

make a large political influence in this era. Ultimately it will argue that the threat of an

international nuclear war has greatly decreased since the end of the Cold War and that the most

2

Carroll

critical threat that the United States faces is that of smaller scale bombs acquired by terrorist cells

throughout the world. This is why it is essential for the United States to monitor the development

of nuclear weaponry throughout the world, and attempt to hinder the development in certain high

threat areas.

This is a very important and essential topic for individuals to understand because nuclear

weapons have had a large influence on American politics since their creation. Nuclear weapons

retain the ability to alter the world in just a matter of minutes, and a few examples of this will be

analyzed in this paper. The majority of the citizens in the United States, as well as various other

countries around the world lived during an era where the threat of mass destruction was highly

probable. During this time it was not uncommon to see horrific propaganda and scare tactics

being used by both the United States and the Soviet Union that had a lasting impact on politics.

The citizens of the United States continued their daily activities holding the knowledge that at

any moment they could be alerted of incoming nuclear warfare that possessed the ability to wipe

out an entire city in which they dwelled. This is a horrifying epiphany, and luckily is not one that

the citizens of the United States have to worry about as much today.

In order to fully understand the development of the nuclear age, it is necessary to look at

the history of nuclear weaponry and its advancements leading up to present day. To start from

the beginning, the nuclear fission bomb was one of the most revolutionary weapons developed in

the 20th century, and arguably of all time. It was a weapon that possessed the ability to wreak

utter destruction on any target it hit. Aside from the destruction it caused, it also instilled fear

into people around the globe. The development of the first nuclear fusion bomb took many years

to theorize and create. The process of creating nuclear fission bombs in the United States was

known as The Manhattan Project. The scientists involved with the Manhattan Project,

3

Carroll

specifically Joseph Rotblat, had quite the moral conscience when developing these weapons. He

knew the power that they could hold, and in turn led to his resignation from the Manhattan

Project in 1945.1 Rotblat, a scientists who was on the forefront of nuclear technology did not

believe that nuclear weapons should be used against any country other than Nazi Germany,

which he saw as an atrocity that needed to be stopped. This is an important case to note because

it shows from the beginning that specialists knew just how devastating the bomb’s capabilities

were. Scientists involved with the Manhattan project were very split in regards to whether or not

the bomb served a realistic military purpose based on personal moral dilemmas.2 This is still a

debate that is widely recognized in the modern era.

The first nuclear fusion bomb test took place in Alamogordo, New Mexico; the code

name for this test was ‘Trinity’. “It was not until mid-1945, with the New Mexico test of the first

bomb, that the full enormity of atomic power could be properly appreciated.”3 Although few

people were present in the hours of the first nuclear testing, it was without a doubt the most

powerful bomb that the world had ever possessed. Henry Stimson, a spokesman for the

Republican Party was quoted saying: “The US was near to completing the most terrible weapon

ever known in human history, one bomb which could destroy a whole city”4 This was the

beginning of the nuclear age, a time where the full extent of nuclear weaponry’s power and the

destruction still remained unknown to the general public. There was much fear and uncertainty in

the development of this bomb because no one truly could predict how devastating its effects

would be, both short term and long. It was a very scandalous and controversial weapon, but some

1 Veys, Lucy. "Joseph Rotblat: Moral Dilemmas and the Manhattan Project. “Physics in Perspective 15.4 (2013): 451-69. Web. 10 Apr. 20152 Ibid. 3 Freedman, Lawrence. The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981.4 Scott D. Sagan, “Nuclear Alerts and Crisis Management,” in Nuclear Diplomacy and Crisis Management (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990), 15..

4

Carroll

feared that the Nazi’s were attempting to create the weapon on their own, and that the war

needed to be brought to an end in a very timely fashion. This was the weapon that had the

capability of ensuring a victory, as long as the United States was the sole possessor of the

technology.

Just months after the Trinity testing, these nuclear weapons were used in an act of war.

On August 6th, 1945 the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima causing the deaths of

roughly 90,000-100,000 people.5 For the first time, the world watched in horror as they saw the

true destruction caused by these new and powerful bombs. As previously stated, this was not the

first detonation of a nuclear weapon, but it was the first time it was used against a populated area

and as a means of warfare. Now the whole world was able to see the immediate devastation these

weapons were capable of delivering. Despite Japan seeing and suffering the massive casualties

and financial losses, they refused to adhere to the United States’ terms of surrender. Just three

days after the complete destruction of Hiroshima, the United States dropped another nuclear

bomb on the city of Nagasaki. The losses in Nagasaki are estimated to be 120,000-130,000

lives.6 After seeing that there was no hope left in defeating such a powerful weapon, as well as

facing various other imposing conditions of the war, Japan had no choice but to surrender on

August 15th, 1945. It should be noted that the bomb is the sole contributor in forcing the Japanese

Empire to surrender. They were also being invaded by Russia, which they had not anticipated to

deal with for a number of months. This event marked the end of the pacific front, a major victory

for the United States in WWII. This case is very important to study because it shows the

destruction and devastation that this bomb brings to society. It destroyed two cities, as well as an

5 Sagan, “Nuclear Alerts and Crisis Management,” 17.6 Ibid.

5

Carroll

entire country’s morale with just two bombs. This is when the world begins to fathom the real

power that these weapons bring to the table.

During the time that the first two bombs were dropped, the United States was the only

country in the world to possess such nuclear weaponry. Regardless of the fact that the United

States knew they had the technology for atomic weaponry, and believed they would be the only

ones that possessed it for a long time, they maintained a somewhat docile approach in regards to

their nuclear military strategy. One of the main reasons that they had a quiet approach during this

time was because they suffered vast military cuts. Although they had the only nuclear weapons

in the world, their stockpile was practically non-existent in the earlier years. This left them in a

somewhat vulnerable state, especially after recovering from the losses suffered in World War II.

This is not to say that the United States did not want to use their edge over other militaries while

they still possessed an advantage. It was no secret that the United States was the sole dominator

in nuclear weaponry at this time and they were not hesitant to let the world know. An example of

this can be seen in referencing a statement made by General Leslie Groves. “We would not

permit any foreign power with which we are not firmly allied…to make or possess atomic

weapons. If such a country started to make atomic weapons we would destroy its capacity to

make them.”7 Groves was the man in charge of overseeing the Manhattan Project, and believed

by various politicians to be one of the main reasons that the United States was able to

successfully develop nuclear technology before any other nation.8 It is essential to note that the

United States did not want any foreign powers that posed a threat to possess nuclear weaponry.

They were willing to make empty threats in order to deter any nations from developing these

7 Marc Trachtenberg, “A ‘Wasting Asset’,” in Nuclear Diplomacy and Crisis Management, ed. Sean M. Lynn Jones, Steven E. Miller, and Stephen Van Evera (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990), 69.8 Ibid.

6

Carroll

weapons in order to help maintain a monopoly on this technology. A monopoly on a weapon of

this caliber ensured the safety of America. The United States hoped that no one would dare to

face the threat of a nuclear strike after having seen the damage it did to the cities of Hiroshima

and Nagasaki.

On August 29th of 1949 the Soviet Union held their first successful test by deploying the

atomic weapon First Lighting.9 This test frightened the United States, and ultimately fueled the

nuclear arms race known as the Cold War. The United States truly believed after the defeat of the

Axis powers in WWII, that they would have maintained their monopoly on nuclear technology

for a number of years. With the United States in shock that the Soviet Union obtained nuclear

technology in such a short time, they began to feel insecure about the safety of the nation. That

same insecurity sparked the largest nuclear arms race the world has ever seen even to this day.

The arms race would go on to last nearly half a century, without either side ever firing a nuclear

missile at one another. It was a true race of which nation held technological superiority in

regards to nuclear weaponry, mixed with scare tactics and seemingly empty threats. It is

astonishing that one of the scariest periods in American history took place simply because the

United States did not want to be seen as inferior to the Soviet Union, in terms of a nuclear

arsenal. It should be noted that this is largely because of the war against communism, and the

capitalistic society of the U.S. did not want to lose an arms race to the communist nation ruled by

the infamous Joseph Stalin.

With the Cold War just beginning, and the arms race continuing between the Soviet

Union and the United States, tensions were high amongst both nations. During this time, the

Korean War was beginning. The Korean War was an important time for the United States to

9 “The Soveit Atomic Bomb: 1939-1949,” The Soviet Nuclear Weapons Program (1997), accessed November 20 2014, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html.

7

Carroll

show strength in the war against communism. It was a time where they wanted to flex their

muscles, and show the world that they were the superpower of the free world. With the threat of

a potentially massive new world war imminent, in 1951 the Truman administration decided to

send B-29s carrying an arsenal of atomic weapons with their fissionable cores across the

Pacific10 One time that nuclear weaponry was put into play and attempted deterrence took place

was in April of 1951. The circumstances for this nuclear intervention were much more serious,

as the Chinese were gathering to launch what would be the largest ground offensive of the

Korean War. Truman tried to keep it a secret that he would be sending nuclear weapons abroad

for the first time since 1945, but failed. The next day, Truman delivered a carefully worded

speech calling for a resolution in Korea and that the escalation of the war was not necessary.

During the speech Truman made sure to make no mention of his sending of nuclear forces

towards Korea. Unfortunately his speech was unsuccessful in calling for peace, and was

followed by a ground offensive larger than any to date, launched by China.11 This is a very

important case to study because it is the first time that the idea of nuclear deterrence is put into

play, and it fails. The concept of deterrence is the idea that one will not attack in fear of the

retaliation it will bring. In regards to nuclear deterrence, this would mean a nuclear strike

brought down upon whatever country was the aggressor. This shows that nuclear deterrence is

not always an effective means of defense, but it should not necessarily be ruled out as a

completely ineffective strategy.

In 1953 a new outlook of massive retaliation was developed and became the new

response to meet the Soviet threat. This new policy was drafted by the Eisenhower

10 Roger Dingman, “Atomic Diplomacy During the Korean War,” in Nuclear Diplomacy and Crisis Management (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990), 136.11 Dingman, “Atomic Diplomacy During the Korean War,” 136.

8

Carroll

administration and was known as NSC-162/2.12 The basic plan for massive retaliation called for

three essential things in order to develop and maintain the threat of massive retaliation. These

three things consisted of: 1.) A strong military posture, with the capability of inflicting massive

retaliatory damage by offensive striking power; 2.) U.S. and Allied forces in readiness to move

rapidly initially to counter aggression by the Soviets; 3.) A mobilization base and its protection

against crippling damage in order to insure victory in the event of general war.13 The basic idea

behind this plan was that if any communist country were to attack a country of the free world,

than the United States would retaliate appropriately. This policy suggested that the United States

would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against their enemies. This is important because

the United States knew the power of the weapons they possessed. They knew that no country

really wanted to face the damages that came along with a nuclear war. This was a large piece of

American nuclear politics. The United States wanted to make the idea of attacking the free world

so unthinkable due to the repercussions it would yield. It is also crucial to understand that this

policy was implemented just days before another extremely important development in nuclear

weapons occurred.

The significant occurrence, just referenced, that took place in 1953 was the development

of fusion technology. “On November 1, three days before Eisenhower was elected President, the

United States tested the first thermonuclear device-called ‘Mike’- at Eniwetok in the Marshall

Islands.”14 This weapon yielded 10.4 million tons of TNT, which was about a thousand times

stronger than Little Boy, which was the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It was categorized as a

weapon that was beyond any and all military objectives. Another name known for this weapon is

12 Lawrence Freedman, “Massive Retaliation,” in The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (Palgrave MacMillan, 2003), 77.13 Freedman, “Massive Retaliation,” 77.14 Newhouse, John. War and peace in the nuclear age. New York: Knopf:, 1988.

9

Carroll

the hydrogen bomb. This name stems from the fact that the explosion is created from the fusion

of two hydrogen isotopes. It is no coincidence that NSC-162/2 was released just before the

completion of these new fusion weapons. The United States knew that this weapon was a major

game changer in the nuclear arms race. Nuclear fusion weapons are arguably the biggest

development in technology since the start of the arms race. However, despite the fusion bombs

being much stronger than the fissionable core weapons, this development was not as impactful as

the first fission type weapons. This is because they were never used on a civilian population, and

remained a weapon used primarily to strike fear into its opponents. Nuclear fusion bombs were

also weapons so powerful that they offered very little strategic value to the military because they

would destroy absolutely everything.

“By the mid-1950s it had already become habitual to put the word ‘win’ in quotation

marks when using it to discuss a potential nuclear war.”15 The mass development of nuclear

weaponry by both the Soviet Union and the United States had begun to insure that even the

‘winner’ of a nuclear war would suffer massive damages. This was a scary thought for the

citizens of the world, because there could truly be no ‘winner’ of a nuclear war, only death and

bloodshed could come from such large offensive and retaliatory strikes. This is when nuclear

strategists began to suggest a “limited war”, which would only target small goals in order to

avoid starting a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union.16 Both

sides had to tread very lightly. Neither side wanted to come across as weak to its citizens or their

opponents, but at the same time neither side truly wanted to face the repercussions that were

ensured to come with a nuclear war.

15 Freedman, “The Importance of Being First,” 117.16 Freedman, ”Limited Objectives,” 89.

10

Carroll

There was a new addition to the war in 1957 when the Soviets launched their first Inter

Continental Ballistics Missile.17 These new rockets allowed nuclear missiles to be launched from

long distances. With the development of these ICBMs, the Soviets now had the ability to strike

American homeland without using bombers. This was the first time that the United States fell

behind in the arms race, and the people of the United States began to panic. Although the gap

between the two was minuscule, this event was still a major part of the Cold War and it became

known as the missile gap. However, despite the United States media using the terminology

missile gap, it is actually an event considered by many to be nonexistent. The reason the missile

gap is considered to be nonexistent is because the democratic contenders at this time took

advantage of this situation and used the media to make it look like a republican weakness, when

it really was not. The democrats of this time wanted the citizens of the United States to believe

that if there was not a governmental policy change that the United States would inevitably fall

behind the Soviets in the arms race. The more serious issue at this time that the United States

was facing was their lack of intelligence on the Soviets, because the once prominent U-2 planes

no longer sufficed. Despite the gaps existence, the fear of a missile gap was brought to an end

shortly after the creation of the United States first ICBM. The missile gap was an important

event in the Cold War because it truly demonstrated how much the American people valued

being ahead of the Soviets. Even though research has shown that the missile gap was not actually

a threat that put the United States below the Soviets in the arms race, it does show how nuclear

weaponry was successfully able to manipulate American politics and thus public opinion. This is

not the only example of this occurring in the Cold War. Media and politicians used these

weapons in order to reach political goals of the time.

17 Freedman , “Sputniks and the Soviet Threat,” 131.

11

Carroll

Another example of nuclear weapons directly impacting American politics takes place

during the presidential election of 1964. The election was between newly established

conservative Barry Goldwater and incumbent Lyndon Baines Johnson. The event that occurred

became known as the Daisy ad. Not only was it the first attack ad used in a major political

election, it also featured the fear of a nuclear war. Johnson and the National Democratic

Committee released this ad that suggested that Goldwater was too militant and insinuated that

perhaps his election could lead to a nuclear war. The advertisement was only ran once, but it was

considered to be one of the most successful political ads of all time.18 The ad featured a little girl

in a daisy field picking the petals off of a daisy while counting down from ten. When the

counting reached zero, a zoom out shot appeared of a nuclear mushroom cloud.19 This

advertisement struck fear into many Americans, and persuaded them from voting for Goldwater

who was known for his military career. This shows a direct impact of the fear that coincides with

nuclear weapons on American politics, and was again used as a tool against republicans who are

often generalized as being more likely to engage in war. It can be assumed that this ad helped

lead LBJ to the biggest marginal victory of any presidential campaign in the history of the United

States. It is also a very relevant example because it shows just how great of a fear a nuclear war

was to the American people. Politicians knew that the American population wanted to avoid a

war as much as possible, especially a large scale nuclear war that was looking ever so promising

during this time.

With ICBMS in full development, and the Cold War still causing a lot of tension between

the United States and the Soviet Union, the idea of arms control came into the discussion.

However, “Despite the effort put into demonstrating how arms control ought to be quite

18 Teinowitz, I. (2000). GOP blasts Gore in parody of '64 anti-Goldwater spot. Advertising Age, 71(45), 70. 19 Ibid.

12

Carroll

congenial to the military mind as a natural complement to national military policy, it remained

essentially a civilian concept”.20 At this time neither the United States nor the Soviet Union were

willing to negotiate arms treaties, and the nuclear weaponry race continued to progress. This

shows the stubbornness of both sides in their struggle to establish themselves as the global

superpower of the time. The United States did not want to look weak in compromising with a

communist nation, and the Soviets did not want to budge either. To remain nuclear superior

meant so much to both of these powerful nations that they were willing to continue advancement

of nuclear weaponry and continue to have fear among their citizens.

Throughout the Cold War there were many instances where a full scale nuclear war

appeared to be inevitable. One major example of this occurred in December of 1960. At this time

Fidel Castro, the Prime Minister of Cuba, openly aligned Cuba as an ally of the Soviet Union.

This was perhaps the most intense episode of the entire Cold War, it became known as the Cuban

Missile Crisis. After seeing nuclear deterrence fail in the Korean War, politicians began to doubt

the political influence of nuclear superiority. Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State under Kennedy,

made the claim: “The simple fact is that nuclear power does not translate into usable political

influence.”21 This shows the doubt that nuclear supremacy matters when it comes to the ability

to persuade other countries. Politicians were beginning to question all of the money spent in

order to gain an advantage in a war that could not even be won. This is a major turning point in

nuclear politics. It is the time where one can see that these massive stockpiles of nuclear

warheads were not really necessary, and some believed that they actually posed a greater threat

to the country that possessed them.

20 Freedman, “Arms Control,” 188.21 Marc Trachtenberg, “The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” in Nuclear Diplomacy and Crisis Management (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1990), 256.

13

Carroll

During the Cuban missile crisis, Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense at the time,

argued that nuclear weaponry “serves no military purpose whatsoever. They are totally useless

except only to deter one’s opponent from using them.”22 After one of many confrontations that

occurred between Khrushchev and Kennedy throughout the Cold War, some of which nearly

lead to a full-scale nuclear war, the confrontation was resolved in June of 1961. On October 28th

of 1962 Khrushchev promised to withdraw all weaponry from Cuba and in return the United

States agreed to remove all nuclear weaponry from Turkey.23 Nuclear weapons simply played a

role of deterrence in this situation, and nuclear superiority did not give a distinct political or

militaristic advantage. This is a situation where nuclear deterrence was successful, contrary to

the example earlier referenced that took place under the Truman administration during the

Korean War, which is why nuclear deterrence cannot be entirely ruled out as a tactic. This time

the threat of a nuclear war was too much of a burden for both sides, and an agreement was

reached between the two nations. This is the beginning of compromise in the Cold War.

Although the war itself was far from over, both sides begin to rationalize the dangers that these

weapons present to their countries.

Another instance where nuclear war was almost sparked during the Cold War occurred

due to a crash at Thule Air Base, now known as Pituffik Airport, in Greenland. The Cuban

Missile Crisis had occurred 5 years prior, and things were far from over between the Soviets and

Americans. On the day of January 21st, a B-52 was flying a “Chrome Dome” mission near Thule

airbase in a Danish controlled area of Greenland. These “Chrome Dome” missions were

practiced to ensure that in the event of a nuclear war with the Soviets, that the United States

would have nuclear weapons in the air that would improve their ability to strike the soviets

22 Trachtenberg, “The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” 258.23 Ibid.

14

Carroll

without fear of their missiles being destroyed.24 Another thing that these B-52’s were responsible

for was surveillance of Thule air force base. In the event of broken communication between the

Americans and Thule, the crew of the B-52 was responsible for determining whether or not the

break in communication was caused by an attack or a glitch in the system. This was essential

because at Thule, there was an early stage BMEWS, which stands for Ballistic Missile Early

Warning System.25

During the mission in 1968, there was a cabin fire that occurred, which forced all crew

members to bail from their stations. This resulted in the crashing of the B-52 into the North Star

Bay.26 Of the seven total crew members, six of them were able to escape successfully while the

other unfortunately perished in the fire. When the crash occurred, there was a massive explosion,

resulting in the contamination of the snow and ice in the area, which the United States was

responsible for its removal. Prior to the event Robert McNamara, the secretary of defense at the

time, had proposed the removal of the B-52 program as it was outdated and costly. However

SAC and the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that the program was still necessary due to the

uncertainty of the conflict.

This explosion could have sparked an inadvertent, and unintentional full scale nuclear

war between the United States and the Soviet Union. As previously stated, one of the purposes of

the base at Thule was to monitor if there was an incidence of broken communication between

Thule and the United States due to a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. The B-52 crashed

seven miles offshore from the base and the bombs were detonated. Luckily, the fissionable cores

were not detonated during the explosion.

24 Olesen, T. B. "Tango for Thule." Journal of Cold War Studies 13, no. 2, 116.25 "Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) (U)." BMEWS (U). http://fas.org/spp/military/program/nssrm/initiatives/bmews.htm (accessed October 27, 2014).26 Olesen, T. B. "Tango for Thule." Journal of Cold War Studies 13, no. 2, 116.

15

Carroll

The three methods of communication at the BMEWS, between the United States and

Thule were direct radio communication, a bomb alarm, and a radio from the B-52 pilots.27 These

three methods of communication would have been destroyed if the plane had crashed closer to

the base and all communication to the United States would have ceased to exist had the plane

crashed on base. With no communication at the base from the detonation, theoretically the

United States would have assumed that their enemies in The Cold War, the Soviet Union, had

made an attack on the base. This is Scott Sagan’s thinking, because the end result of the crash

would have been the same as if the Soviets had launched a nuclear attack themselves. Sagan

believes that the United States had redundant warning systems that were not up to standard. With

no communications from both the B-52 as well as Thule, the United States potentially could have

launched a nuclear counterstrike bringing the Soviets and the United States into a full scale

nuclear war. The reason that this is important is that it shows that communication is key when it

comes to situations such as this. This ties in to the Cuban Missile Crisis because it illustrates the

importance of communication between the Soviets and the United States.

One development made by the Soviets that tremendously influenced the United States’

nuclear policy was that of the SS-20 Saber.28 The SS-20 Saber was an intermediate ranged

nuclear ballistic missile which was used by the Soviet Union from 1976 until 1988, which was a

time close to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Before discussing the impact of the weapon, it is important that one has a basic

understanding of the missile and its capabilities. According to the National Air and Space

Museum, the SS-20 Saber was known as the Pioneer in the Soviet Union.29 The missile was 16.5

27 Ibid. 28 "Missile, Surface-to-Surface, SS-20 "Pioneer"" Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum Home Page. Accessed November 3, 2014. 29 Ibid.

16

Carroll

meters tall and had the capability of carrying three separate nuclear warheads, each of which was

able to have a distinct and particular target. It had a range of roughly 4500 miles, and was the

first Soviet missile to use solid fuel rather than a form of liquid fuel. This was an important

advancement because it meant that the Soviet’s would be able to launch the missile immediately

rather than having to spend many hours pumping liquid fuel. This was an advancement, but yet

these missiles were still considered to be intermediate ranged, which poses the question: Why

medium range ballistic missiles rather than long ranged?

In 1972 the first nuclear Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, also known as SALT I, took

place. During these talks between the Soviet Union and the United States, there were established

limits imposed on the development of long ranged ICBMs. “Meeting in mid-December 1979 in

Brussels, NATO’s governing body, the North Atlantic Council, decided on a dual program of

new weapons deployments emphasizing European-oriented long-range theater nuclear forces and

continuing security negotiations.”30 Many believe that because there were numerical limits

imposed on these long ranged missiles that the Soviets focused on implementing a very advanced

intermediate ranged missile. This was obviously not the ideal outcome of a nuclear arms

reduction treaty. The SS-20 became the standardized missile for the Soviets for over a decade.

Throughout the course of that time, they made several improvements in range, accuracy, and

warhead capacity. This shows the accomplishments between the United States and the Soviet

Union in their ability to negotiate with one another. Although the SALT treaties did not

completely lead to nuclear disarmament like many had hoped for, they were a step in the right

direction to deescalate the conflict.

30 Mark Brent and William H. Kincade Arms Control Today, Vol. 10, No. 2 (February, 1980), pp. 1-2, 7-10

17

Carroll

Since the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States

has not faced a large-scale nuclear attack to date, and has not perceived any country as a threat.

This is partially due to the fact that many late industrialized nations do not have the capacity to

create nuclear weaponry. It is now fair to say that the times have changed and that the United

States is not in any immediate danger of a massive nuclear attack from a major global power.

There are threats that are currently developing their nuclear programs such as North Korea, and

this is something that the United States needs to closely monitor. Although the United States

should begin to dissolve some of its nuclear forces due to the new political landscape since the

dissolution of the Soviet Union, it should not destroy all of them. Some of these developing

nations may soon pose a threat to the United States, and the best decision would be for them to

be well prepared for when that day comes. While the threat may not be present in the immediate

future, it is quite possible for the threat to emerge again at some point in time. For the time being

there is no need for the United States to have an arsenal of tens of thousands of nuclear

warheads, as it would only take a few hundred to ensure mutually assured destruction thus there

is no need for stock piling.

In the modern era, the United States and their allies face a much different threat,

primarily small terrorist groups or smaller scale attacks from radicals. This is why the United

States should invest in an effective nuclear defense system rather than just relying on deterrence.

The probability of deterring a small terrorist group or in irrational leader is small, but with a

decent nuclear defense system throughout the country it would be much easier to shoot a single

missile out of the sky, rendering these small scale attacks to be useless and ineffective. These

programs would also be more cost effective compared to stock piling weapons in hopes of

deterrence.

18

Carroll

The United States currently has a very small nationwide nuclear missile defense system.

This is a mistake. Although many that are against a national missile defense complain “that the

benefits of national missile defense are uncertain and the costs are steep”31, they are primarily

worried about attacks simply from large-scale nuclear super powers. Although the prices of a

nation missile defense system are quite heavy, it would be a wise investment to protect the

country. The cost of Los Angeles, a possible target for a North Korean nuclear attack, has a net

worth of billions of dollars. If this nuclear missile defense system were to stop just one nuclear

missile from hitting a high valued target, the investment would pay for itself.

As technology in other countries continues to develop, there is always a threat of nuclear

weaponry being spread to places that pose a threat to the United States. This is why it is essential

for the United States to be constantly monitoring and moderating the proliferation of nuclear

weapons. Although, as previously stated, the United States does not face a direct threat of a full-

scale nuclear war at this time; it is important that they know everyone who has access to this

technology. It is too destructive to let it fall into the wrong hands. As more countries develop

their nuclear arsenals, the United States is at greater risk that one of their enemies will acquire a

nuclear weapon and use as a means of deterrence or as warfare. If proliferation can be

maintained, the United States would be able to more effectively defend itself from the threat of

both large scale and small scale nuclear attacks. This is not only just in the sole interest of the

United States. Many nations face the risk of a terrorist attack so this monitoring of weaponry

should be a global effort.

The development of nuclear warfare by the United States, with regards to Hiroshima and

Nagasaki, lead to the killing of a million people in Japan and the end of the Pacific front of

31 Lindsay, James M., and Michael E. O'Hanlon. Defending America: The Case for Limited National Missile Defense. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2001. Print.

19

Carroll

WWII. After WWII, the arms race for nuclear weaponry began between the United States and

The Soviet Union. Due to this period in history, many Americans were afraid of the Red Scare

which deepened a desire to be considered the superior global power. It was a time of

communism against the free world, in a war dominated by nuclear politics. The arms race never

resulted in attacks but cost the United States and Soviet Union a hefty price and instilled a fear

within the people about what a nuclear war would mean for survival. This fear was seen in the

presidential election of 1964 between Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson which resulted in the

largest landslide victory in terms of votes in America’s history. The Cold War impacted the

United States and the world in terms of looking at the fear to wipe out an entire region by brute

force as well as many impacts on political policy and elections. It is undeterminable what a

world would look like without the development of these weapons, but this report provided

evidence that proved that nuclear weapons had an impact on American politics and the way this

country developed into a modern state.

To conclude, the days of nuclear deterrence are no longer valid in this exact point in time

because primary threats to the United States are radical groups who would not be persuaded by

deterrence due to militaristic ideology. Although deterrence has proved useful in the past and

certainly should not be forgotten as a nuclear strategy; it would be wise to conclude that the

United States no longer has a need for tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. The fact of the

matter is that nuclear strategy has changed as threats have changed, and a terrorist group or

irrational government does not fear the retaliatory strike that the United States currently relies on

as its form of defense. It is time for the government to invest in a stronger nationwide missile

defense system, as well as attempt to prevent nuclear proliferation. It only takes one shot down

20

Carroll

nuke to save the United States potentially billions of dollars in damages and colossal amounts of

civilian casualties.

21