The Search for Security in the Age of the Bomb

ON THE night of July 27, 1943, thousands of firebombs pummeled Hamburg, Germany. The result was something new to warfare: a vast, consuming inferno, a fire storm. Rising currents of air caused hurricane-force winds to feed the fire from all sides, sucking people into the flames. The heat was intense. Air-raid shelters became ovens, baking and shriveling those huddled within. Other people were bogged down in molten asphalt. Over 40,000 perished, more than 20 times the number killed in an ordinary bombing raid.

Two years later, on the other side of the globe, another fire storm consumed Hiroshima, Japan. This time the conflagration was lit by a single plane that dropped only one bomb.

The bomb, an atom bomb, was dubbed Little Boy. But its effect was anything but little. It was horrendous. It blinded with brilliant light. It killed and maimed by fire and heat and blast wave. It poisoned by deadly radiation.

Three days later, another bomb, named Fat Man, obliterated half of Nagasaki. A ridge that runs through the center of this hilly city protected the other half.

The Nuclear Arsenal Today

Today, there are about 50,000 of these weapons of mass destruction in existence. Consider:

◻ If the two superpowers used a mere 5 percent of their strategic nuclear weapons against each other’s cities, within minutes 200 million people would die, four times the number slain in World War II. The huge number of wounded survivors could expect little or no care from overburdened medical centers.

◻ Just one U.S. Trident submarine is equipped with enough nuclear missiles to blast 192 separate targets. Each of those explosions would be eight times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.a

◻ The world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons has 2,600 times more explosive power than the combined munitions used in World War II.

Such statistics are mind-boggling, and they underscore the magnitude of the problem.

A West African proverb says: “When elephants fight, the grass too will suffer.” Likewise, the consequences of a nuclear war would not affect merely the combatants. In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs magazine, scientist Carl Sagan said that a nuclear war “would imperil every survivor on the planet. There is a real danger of the extinction of humanity.”

[Footnotes]

[Diagram on page 3]

(For fully formatted text, see publication.)

Today’s nuclear stockpile has 2,600 times the explosive power used in World War II

16,000 million tons

6 million tons

The Ultimate Weapon and the Race for Security

“A WEAPON of unparalleled power is being created which will completely change all future conditions of warfare . . . Unless, indeed some agreement about the control of the use of the new active materials can be obtained in due time, any temporary advantage, however great, may be outweighed by a perpetual menace to human society.”​—Danish nuclear physicist Niels Bohr. Written in 1944.

A United Nations study states: “There is . . . no target strong enough to resist the intense effects of nuclear weapons, no effective defence against a determined attack . . . In this sense, mankind is faced with the absolute weapon.”

Men quickly realized that not only could cities be blotted out within a few seconds but the devastation could be accomplished with relative ease​—there would be no need to defeat an army first. With nuclear weapons a country’s population could be annihilated and its economy utterly destroyed within a day, without a single skirmish.

The realization that there was no effective defense against atomic weapons led to the concept of nuclear deterrence. In November 1945, U.S. Army Air Forces commanding general Henry H. Arnold stated in a report to the secretary of war: “Real security against atomic weapons in the visible future will rest on our ability to take immediate offensive action with overwhelming force. It must be apparent to a potential aggressor that an attack on the United States would be immediately followed by an immensely devastating air-atomic attack on him.”

Many do not agree that such deterrence provides real security. Robert J. Oppenheimer, the brilliant physicist who led in the development of the atom bomb, likened opposing nuclear powers to “two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other, but only at the risk of his own life.” More recently, President Ronald Reagan said that U.S./​Soviet posture was like two people holding pistols at each other’s heads.

Attempt to Internationalize the Atom

In June 1946 the United States presented a plan to the newly formed United Nations organization. The plan called for the creation of an international agency that would have authority to control and inspect all atomic-energy activities worldwide. After such an agency was established, the United States would hand over its atomic secrets, scrap its existing atom bombs, and not make any more.

The Soviet Union asserted that atomic weapons should be done away with first. Once that was done, then control and inspection arrangements could be worked out. The issue became deadlocked, and in the cold-war years that followed, hope of UN control of atomic weapons perished.

The Arms Race: Action and Reaction

In 1949 the Soviets exploded their first atom bomb. Suspicion and distrust deepened between East and West, and the arms race began in real earnest. The U.S. response to the Soviet bomb was the development of a vastly more powerful weapon, the hydrogen bomb. The first one tested (in 1952) was about 800 times more powerful than the early atom bombs. After only nine months, the Soviets had successfully developed their own hydrogen bomb.

Next came the ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile). The Soviet Union was first with this in 1957. Now a nuclear strike could be accomplished in minutes rather than hours. The United States rushed to catch up and by the following year had added the ICBM to its arsenal.

In the meantime other countries worked on and tested atom bombs of their own. In turn, the United Kingdom, France, and others became nuclear powers.

The action-reaction syndrome continued unabated in the 1960’s. Both the United States and the Soviet Union experimented with antiballistic missiles. Both learned how to fire missiles from submarines. Both developed multiple warheads.

The race continued into the 1970’s with the significant development of MIRV (multiple independently-targeted reentry vehicle). One missile could now carry many warheads, each of which could be directed to a separate target. For example, the modern American MX, or Peacekeeper, missile carries ten such warheads; so does the Soviet SS-18. Each missile, therefore, can destroy ten cities.

Missiles were becoming more accurate too, and this, along with the development of MIRVs, led to renewed fears. Instead of targeting cities, opposing missile bases and military installations could be and were targeted many times over by MIRVs. Some now speculated that nuclear war might be winnable. A powerful first strike might eliminate the capacity or will of the adversary to strike back.

Each side felt compelled to counter such a threat by ensuring its ability to retaliate even if the other successfully hit first with a surprise attack. Without the ability to strike back, it was reasoned, there would be little to deter enemy aggression; indeed, aggression might prove to be irresistibly tempting. So​—more weapons.

Now well into the 1980’s, the arms race continues at breakneck speed. A recent addition to the gallery of arms is the neutron bomb​—a small hydrogen bomb designed to kill people with radiation but to leave buildings and vehicles intact. Another is the cruise missile​—able to skim through the air just above the trees (and below enemy radar) to deliver a nuclear punch with accuracy to a target 1,500 miles (2,400 km) away. The latest entry, popularly called Star Wars, adds outer space to the battlefield.

Attempts at Arms Control

Though the history of weapons development may suggest that the nuclear arms race has continued with absolutely no restraint, a number of agreements have been reached. Some of these limit testing or establish ceilings on certain weapons systems, while others inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons to nonnuclear states.

These agreements have been reached only through painstaking, time-consuming efforts. And no agreement has significantly reduced existing weapons.

At the core of the problem is this: The superpowers deeply distrust and fear each other. Ironically, the insecurity that results merely generates a demand for more weapons. More weapons, in turn, make each side appear increasingly sinister and menacing to the other; hence, people feel less secure than ever.

[Blurb on page 5]

“When elephants fight, the grass too will suffer”

[Diagram on page 5]

(For fully formatted text, see publication.)

One MX missile has the power of 300 Hiroshima bombs, enough to destroy an area of 240 square miles

MANHATTAN

Hiroshima blast

MX missile blast

The Bomb and Man’s Future

THE elusive search for security in the nuclear age has resulted in the stockpiling of thousands and thousands of weapons of mass destruction.

Informed people recognize that the nations have steeled themselves actually to use their weapons if provoked. Indeed, willingness to unleash them is at the very core of deterrence. General B. L. Davis, commander of the United States Strategic Air Command, wrote recently: “In the final analysis, our ability to maintain credible deterrence is a function of two interdependent factors. First, we must have​—and potential adversaries must understand that we have—​the capability to deny them their goals at any level of conflict. Second, we must have​—and adversaries must perceive that we have—​the will as a nation to exercise that capability in defense of our national interests.” (Italics ours.)​—Air Force Magazine, July 1985.

Nuclear weapons haven’t been used in anger in 40 years, but past restraint gives no guarantees for the future. Recent national polls indicate that 68 percent of the American people believe that nuclear weapons will eventually be used if the arms race continues.

Such anxiety is felt throughout the world. Consider what an 18-year-old student in Sierra Leone wrote: “A nuclear war will affect each and every human being on this planet . . . Thus even people in Africa need to feel alarm although they are far away from the territory of the superpowers. . . . By and large, people deal with the threat of global holocaust by means of what researchers call ‘psychic shutdown,’ i.e., refusal to think about it at all. As world tensions increase, however, it becomes increasingly harder to perform this feat of emotional gymnastics and simply ignore the threat.”

Other Threats to Security

But apart from the obvious threat of deliberate war between the superpowers, mankind’s security is menaced in other ways. One danger is that ever more countries will obtain nuclear weapons. In addition to the five nations positively known to have them already, there are at least six other countries that either already have or are close to possessing atom bombs of their own. By the end of the century, experts believe, 20 or more nations will have the bomb.

Another danger is that a terrorist organization will obtain one of these weapons. Just think what a terrorist could do with an atom bomb! Why, an entire city could be held for ransom!

How could such a group acquire a nuclear bomb? In one of two ways. They could steal one​—remember, there are 50,000 to choose from! They could also make one. The technology of atom-bomb building is no longer secret. And plutonium, the basic ingredient needed, is becoming increasingly plentiful. In fact, it is estimated that by the year 2000 there will be enough plutonium produced through civilian nuclear programs alone to make 750,000 Nagasaki-size bombs per year!

Added to these threats to security are the possibilities of accident, miscalculation, or systems failure.

Human Solutions

Scientists, scholars, generals, and politicians have written extensively about this subject. Increasingly they view the nuclear arms race as costly, futile, and extremely dangerous. They propose various solutions. Some call for complete disarmament. Others want a freeze on weapons production. Still others suggest a ‘star wars’ defense. Last January the two heads of the superpowers offered encouraging statements. Mikhail Gorbachev proposed a step-by-step process to rid the earth of nuclear weapons by the year 2000. Ronald Reagan said he was grateful for the offer. A serious peace plan or a propaganda ploy? All these proposals have one thing in common​—they all point to some human solution.

This raises a fundamental question: Is it realistic to put our confidence in humans to bring about freedom from the peril of nuclear war, since humans are the very ones who created the peril in the first place? Men have demonstrated awesome genius in the mastery of computerized weapons of death and destruction, but have they mastered their own nature? This generation has seen two brutal world wars, the scope and destruction of which dwarfed any previous war in the history of mankind. And in the 40 years since World War II, some 150 smaller wars have been fought; 30 million people have perished in them.

God’s Solution

Little wonder the Bible says: “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.” Jehovah has purposed a solution of his own to the nuclear dilemma. Unlike those of man, his solution will result in the elimination of warfare completely and forever.​—Psalm 46:9; 146:3.

That solution rests in God’s Kingdom, a world government that will bring lasting security to lovers of peace everywhere. Three million people in over 200 lands of the earth recognize that this Kingdom will soon assert its authority on the earth, ending forever the prospect of a nuclear holocaust. These people are Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In submission to the righteous laws of that Kingdom, they are fulfilling the prophecy at Micah 4:3, which says: “And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. They will not lift up sword, nation against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.” One fourth of the world’s scientists are engaged in defense-related pursuits. None of them are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some 70 million people are directly engaged in military-related occupations. Not one is a witness of Jehovah.

But far from being merely passive observers of the nuclear predicament, the Witnesses lovingly teach people what God will do to remedy the situation. The facts are in your own copy of the Bible. To get help to understand these things, contact Jehovah’s Witnesses in your community. They will be glad to assist you.