By Jason Vaughn, Eurasia Contributor
Ever since the ideas of Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, and J. Robert Oppenheimer first coalesced into the founding of the Manhattan Project and the building of the first atomic bomb, there has been much worry as to the use of the weapon and the repercussions of nuclear war on humanity. The experience of the Cold War and then beyond, where this powerful (but not—it must be said—unique, considering the power of chemical and germ warfare) “ultimate” weapon has brought fear to all who know its consequences.
Many individuals and groups today still strive to fundamentally eliminate this tool of destruction, and they watch in horror as the weapon and related technologies have spread beyond the original five “founders” (the U.S., Russia, China, France, and Britain) to such places as (secretly) Israel, (arguably) North Korea, and (verifiably) India and Pakistan. The question is—as we watch Pakistan and India trade allegations following the Mumbai bombings—does such a project, forwarding not only a decrease in nuclear armaments as the five original designers have done, but a complete disarmament has any chance of success?
All indications point to the futility of this exercise.
Nuclear weapons do not, as the five original powers know quite well imply the actual use of them, in present or in future. Some have argued that the only reason there has not been a World War III is because of the fear of the use of these weapons. While not absolutely true, as both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were willing to initiate proxy wars (the Arab-Israeli wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, numerous unheralded wars in Africa, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan) and also go forward with direct confrontation if necessary, the two superpowers were also fully conscious of the complete destruction of the two world wars and were not easily willing to have a third.
However, there is an important factor to be considered in this equation: the amount of prestige and leverage involved with the possession of these weapons, even though it would be unthinkable to actually use them. Whereas biological and chemical weapons have a stigma attached to them, being perceived as “dirty,” there is always the allure and perceived power of having the weapons that can cause the biggest explosion.
Even now, Russia and the U.S. have made every effort to develop weapons that can cause super-large explosions without the unattractive consequences of radiation-production caused by the nuclear bomb. In its wars in Chechnya, Russia has used what it calls the “Father of all Bombs,” a fuel-air-type weapon that can cause an immense explosion and which can only be dropped out of the biggest Russian cargo planes. These explosions can literally suck the air out of bunkers, tunnels, and reinforced troop positions within a broad area, causing death by asphyxiation plus a blast yield that is equal to the smallest nuclear bombs.
This Russian development has been in response to the development of the so-called “Massive Ordinance Air Blast,” (MOAB) or “Mother of All Bombs” on the American side. These types of non-nuclear weapons, called thermobaric weapons, are ultimately built to create psychological fear in the enemy, as they have limited use within heavily-populated non-military areas.
However, not all countries have the technology to build thermobaric weapons (although some such explosions can be created by default, using hydrogen gas or other additives, which can operate on a thermobaric principle). These countries feel the need to build nuclear weapons in order to be members of the club that can cause the biggest bang, but with the unfortunate addition of the radioactive by-product. The need is the same; it is to create psychological fear in the opponent and to make the enemy question the desire to use the largest weapons themselves.
Against this need to inspire awe and fear in their opponents, there is a substantive portion of the world’s population who desire to see an end to the possession of nuclear weapons on the planet. Many of them cite the danger of simply having these armaments. Everyone agrees that millions of people would die if ever they were used.
Also, there is the danger of terrorists getting their hands on such weapons, and every single weapon ever built has to be accounted for at all times, in all environments, in the sea, on land, and in space. Can any country that possesses such weapons competently and absolutely guarantee that they have control on them from now until eternity, wherever they might be stored? Probably such a guarantee, as the anti-nuclear activist will argue, is impossible to make.
Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to think that the prestige of having the capability of causing big explosions, and causing psychological fear in opponents, will ever go away. The belief that nuclear weapons can “guarantee” a country’s safety is hard to dissuade by any so-called global or regional power.
The one use of nuclear weapons in history was indeed on the basis that the United States had this weapon in 1945 and Japan did not. The Empire of Japan would possibly still exist if it also had the bomb in 1945. Would America still have countenanced invasion of the Japanese islands had it been under the spectre of a Japanese defensive nuclear attack? Or perhaps the Japanese Empire would have still been wiped out, as America had long-range capable use of the bomb, whereas Japan probably would have not.
Nevertheless, in that last moment, does a “power,” global, regional, or otherwise, “need” the bomb? Few other weapons can inspire the fear that the nuclear bomb can (although thermobaric weapons come close). Arguably, it is human nature to have the biggest of everything, even bombs that threaten its very existence. How then, if the anti-nuclear people want to be successful, can they oppose human nature?
