Nuclear Proliferation

In his statement to the North Atlantic Council, Dulles' states that nuclear weapons must be treated as being conventional weapons. His argument is that the defense of Europe against a potential Soviet invasion is only feasible through the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Soviet land forces because of the Soviet Union's superior numbers. Dulles states that the United States will use atomic weapons whenever it is to the military advantage of the US. He argues that such a stance is the only way to prevent aggression, to make the aggressor beleive he has nothing to gain by attacking.

This position is dangerous as it means the US would be the first to use nuclear weapons, resulting in an escalation of the situation and an almost certain retaliation. It would seem illogical to use nuclear weapons when retaliation would be the main result, but the very willingness to use nuclear weapons is what makes assured destruction work. In this sense, Dulles' logic is correct, the willingness to use nuclear weapons may have terrible results, but it also makes aggression less likely.

The effect nuclear weapons has had on the public perception towards war is quite large. Prime Minister Eden notes how the development of thermonuclear weapons and the growing awareness among the populace that any war in which nuclear weapons are used would be devastating is making people less likely to accept war or the maintenance of a large conventional military force. The terrible nature of nuclear weapons and the fact that they can be used as a substitution for conventional forces makes it possible to have a smaller military, and Eden predicts that this is what the public will demand.

Eden doesn't necessarily agree with this, but he does believe that the development of thermonuclear weapons has changed the dynamic in Europe and that a land invasion is no longer the greatest threat. This is a interesting idea, but I'm not sure how much history confirms it. In general, most populations are more reluctant to support a war or large conventional military forces, but I'm not sure how much of this is actually due to the development of nuclear weapons.

Mutually Assured Destruction

Bernard Brodie's argument on how the atomic bomb does not in fact make war impossible is quite interesting. He argues that an atomic bomb can be used without fear, when there no is chance of retaliation. Thus the more people that have the bomb, the less chance of aggression. This argument is not the one generally accepted today, where nuclear proliferation is something to be feared. In today's world we do not fear nuclear attacks from states so much as rogue groups, and the more states that have these weapons the more likely it is that one of these groups could get control of them.

Brodie's argument also assumes that leaders are rational people, which is not the case. In a world where everyone has nuclear weapons, the use of them would result in a deadly retaliation. A rational person would not authorize the use of the weapons in this scenario, but history is full of irrational decisions being made. Evidence suggests that the Cuban Missile Crisis may have come close triggering a nuclear war, despite the certainty of retaliation. The best way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons may be to lower the probability of them being used by have less nations have possession of them.

The logic behind the "Star Wars" and anti-ballistic missile system is to counter the threat of nuclear attacks from rogue states or groups, which are the threat today. However, the complex logic of nuclear deterrence still exists today, and the United States cannot build a AMB system without upsetting the nuclear "balance of power." Such a system could always be potential extended and expanded to be able to prevent nuclear attack from states with large arsenals. This could in theory make nuclear attack possible without retaliation. This could potentially trigger another arms race. Of course this is all moot because the AMB technology is still far from being able to accomplish anything significant. The AMB system may be more of a waste of money than anything at this time.

It is chilling how the consequences of a nuclear war were so coldly analyzed, particularly arguments such as Herman Kahn's. Kahn argues that the state of the country after a nuclear attack is not determined by the amount of people who died, but rather whether the "survivors envy the dead." However, he goes on to argue that studies indicate that a nuclear attack would not preclude happy and normal lives for the survivors.

The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of Nuclear Power

Breeder reactors produces more fissile material than it destroys and is also more efficient, able to extract more energy from uranium than a burner. Despite this, breeders are controversial. The CANDU system is the more rival to breeders, and it operates using less heavily enriched uranium and heavy water. Breeder reactors may be more efficient, but they also produce fissile material that can be used for nuclear weapons, this is why they are so controversial. There exists a fear that building breeder reactors will encourage nuclear proliferation.

It is interesting how the reading suggests there is a divide in how the problem of nuclear waste is perceived. Nuclear waste and what to do with it is in the eyes of politicians and the populace one of the more significant problems when dealing with nuclear energy. Yet the readings suggest that scientists are not as concerned with this. Radioactive materials produced by reactors are not large in volume. The same is true with regards to chances of a nuclear meltdown or contamination. The evidence suggests that the chances of this is minuscule, yet there is still widespread fear of nuclear energy plants.

The entire issue of nuclear energy is made so complicated and controversial because of the innate fear people have of all things nuclear. This of course is a large contrast to earlier in the 20th century when there was so much enthusiasm for the atomic age. The perception that nuclear reactors are dangerous is perhaps more important than just how dangerous they truly are. The fear of a meltdown or contamination makes the creation of nuclear energy plants so controversial, even if the chances of this actually happening are very remote.

The truth is that society has been unwilling to accept the dangers of nuclear energy regardless of how small the chance of a meltdown or contamination. People don't like to think in terms of probability when dealing with a nuclear disaster.