Bedtime stories about Armageddon: The lessons of the Cold War about nuclear weapons

“I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture … ‘And I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.”

– Julius Robert Oppenheimer, speaking of the “Trinity” explosion (1945), the first nuclear detonation

The Americans were the first to acquire (and later use) nuclear weapons

In July 1945, the world's first nuclear detonation went off in the American state of New Mexico. The explosion was in the desert near Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range. (This area is now part of White Sands Missile Range.) This was near the end of World War II, and the Cold War had not yet begun at this time. But it would have massive importance in the coming struggle with Soviet Russia. In August 1945, the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which would have an even greater effect on the coming conflict. The frightening effects of these two bombs would haunt the world throughout the Cold War, as a chilling warning of what would happen if they were on the receiving end of a nuclear attack. Indeed, the nuclear weapons first introduced in 1945 were the most important aspect of the global confrontation now known as the “Cold War.” It is the biggest reason why the two major superpowers – which were the United States and the Soviet Union – did not directly engage each other in open conflict on a battlefield, except on a few rare occasions (which I will not elaborate on here).

“Trinity” explosion - New Mexico, United States (16 July 1945)

Why is it called the “Cold War,” when there were so many “hot wars” within it?

The reason that we call it the “Cold War” is that most of the time, the conflict did not involve actual shooting; which would be more characteristic of a “hot war.” Instead, it was usually just a “cold war” with the threat of a nuclear holocaust – although there were some notable exceptions where actual shooting occurred. (Such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan; which were all part of the larger “Cold War.”) This post will not attempt to cover these “hot wars” within the Cold War, and it will not attempt anything like an overview of this massive worldwide conflict. Rather, it will focus on the most important aspect of it, which is nuclear weapons. (Although if you're interested in the other parts of the Cold War, I cover some of them elsewhere on this blog here, for anyone that is interested.) Despite the problems caused by nuclear weapons since their first introduction in 1945, it is well that the Americans (and the free world generally) got this technology before the Nazis or the communists did, sine the prospect of these regimes getting the bomb first would have been chilling indeed. (And the Nazis almost did get it before the Americans did.)

Hiroshima explosion (left) and Nagasaki explosion (right), 6 and 9 August 1945

During the Cold War, at least six nations exploded nuclear weapons (and at least two since then)

After the American detonations of 1945, the Soviet Union became the second nation to acquire the atomic bomb; and exploded their first in 1949. Only four other states are known to have likewise detonated nuclear weapons during the Cold War era, and thus joined the “nuclear club” at the time of their first explosions. Specifically, the United Kingdom joined the club in 1952, France joined it in 1960, China joined in 1964, and India joined in 1974. Israel almost certainly acquired functional nuclear weapons in 1966, although they are not known to have actually detonated any. At the time that I write this, two other states have actually detonated nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, which were Pakistan in 1998 and North Korea in 2006. Unfortunately, others may follow in the coming years – including some less stable states, if we are not careful. This, in fact, may already have happened with North Korea, if I may be so bold. The words of a philosopher from 300 years ago could be seen as an accurate description of this twentieth-century conflict, and an eerie one at that. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that "persons of sovereign authority [or in this case, nations] ... [are] in the state and posture of gladiators; having their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their [nations]; and continual spies on their neighbors; which is a posture of war." (Source: "Leviathan," Chapter XIII, the subsection entitled "The incommodities of such a war") Thus, in many important ways, Thomas Hobbes' timeless quotation is an apt description of the Cold War.

Soviets' first nuclear detonation, 29 August 1949

Mutual Assured Destruction was the greatest fear of those who lived through the Cold War

It was common during the Cold War to speak of a “Mutual Assured Destruction,” the idea that no one would be likely to start a nuclear war if it assured their own destruction. The “mutual” part was thrown in, because it was believed by both sides that they would both be annihilated equally. To make matters worse for the Americans, they then believed that there was an actual “missile gap” against them, where the Russians had more missiles than they did. But as spy plane missions later confirmed, it actually turned out that this “missile gap” was in the Americans' favor (and fortunately so). Nonetheless, schoolchildren in America (and other places) were taught to take cover under their desks in the 1950's and 1960's, in the event of a nuclear explosion. These “duck and cover” drills, as they are now known, are an enduring image of the fears of the Cold War. Unfortunately, these benefits may have been more psychological than anything else. To be fair, the people far removed from priority target areas might have been able to survive in this way, given favorable conditions. But those in the priority target areas were almost guaranteed to die in such an apocalyptic scenario. Perhaps because of these things, it was common for the media of this time to depict close brushes with nuclear war, or the post-apocalyptic conditions that would follow such a nuclear exchange. Sometimes, they even depicted the nuclear exchange itself – a frightening scenario, in their time and ours.

Poster for “Duck and Cover” (featuring Bert the Turtle), 1952

Negotiations between the two sides produced test ban treaties and arms control agreements

In uninhabited areas of the globe, both sides exploded nuclear weapons in highly public tests. These tests were done mainly to demonstrate their own power, but they eventually produced more positive results as well. Specifically, they both agreed to ban the testing of nuclear weapons on the Earth (and in space); and the treaties have since been observed faithfully by every nation that signed them. Other nations were another matter, but some have since joined the treaties after this time. Another common fear of this time was that a nuclear exchange might begin accidentally, if an unintended explosion were ever interpreted as an attack. The proliferation of nuclear weapons was believed (perhaps rightly) to make this possibility more likely. Perhaps because of this, there were major arms control agreements between the two sides at various points during the Cold War; where they each agreed to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. So long as the other side did the same, they were both willing to do so. There were thus rounds of Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, which are known by the acronym “SALT.” These “Strategic Arms Limitation Talks” all happened during Leonid Brezhnev's rule in the Soviet Union. But in the American political calendar, these talks began during the administration of President Richard Nixon; and continued on during the administrations of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Richard Nixon's diplomacy produced the SALT I Treaty in 1972, and Jimmy Carter's diplomacy produced the SALT II Treaty in 1979. Between their administrations, Gerald Ford's diplomacy also produced the Vladivostok Summit Meeting on Arms Control in 1974. I might also note that Gerald Ford helped to found the “Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe” in 1973. Some work on arms control has since come from this organization, with varying degrees of success. I will not go into the later diplomacy of the Ronald Reagan era here, since I cover it in another post about the results of his “Star Wars” program. (More on that subject here.)

Gerald Ford and Leonid Brezhnev sign Joint Communiqué at Vladivostok, 1974

Comments on the “nuclear freeze” movements in the United States (and other places)

But some comments on another aspect of the Reagan era may be warranted here. During his administration in the 1980's, there was a major “Nuclear Freeze” campaign in the United States (and some other places). Some elements of this campaign persist today, I should acknowledge here, but it was particularly strong during the 1980's. The movement was essentially a “Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race” (in the words of their famous slogan), and it gained grassroots support in some quarters. Some even campaigned against peaceful uses of nuclear power for similar reasons. But the main goal of this movement was essentially to have a “world without nuclear weapons,” and they assumed that this goal was actually possible to achieve. If the achievement of this goal were indeed possible for us, it would be a happy day for the world. The problem is that these visions seem to ignore crucial realities, such as the psychology of brutal dictators who will stop at nothing to augment (and maintain) their own power. As long as it is in their interest to do so, they will continue to pursue nuclear weapons. As long as they continue to pursue them, they will continue (at times) to obtain them. And as long as they continue to obtain them, they will continue to use the clout that they convey to threaten the free world. They will be able to do so with complete impunity, unless opposed by equal (or superior) arsenals from those with nobler ambitions. As long as we continue to live in this kind of a world, it will be counter-productive to discard our own nuclear weapons; because it will play into the hands of brutal tyrants with expansionist intent. Therefore, we must continue to maintain our nuclear weapons; and reduce them only when we are sure that the other side will do the same – and can verify that this is actually, in fact, being done. The logic of military realities makes this an ongoing necessity for the free world, and it is unlikely that this necessity will be removed anytime soon.

Protest against peaceful uses of nuclear power in Pennsylvania (1979), following the Three Mile Island nuclear accident

Nuclear weapons have the potential to prevent a nuclear war …

If the Nazis had gained the atomic bomb first (and they almost succeeded in doing so in the 1940's), one shudders at what they would have done with it. Before the last year of the war, there were no nuclear weapons in existence yet; and it might have been tempting to let this situation continue (at least for a while). But from the moment that these things became a real possibility for the Nazis, the idea of a Nazi monopoly over the technology became a very real threat. The only way for the Americans to stop this monopoly from happening was to pursue the technology themselves, even if it meant a sooner end to the “happy days” without nuclear weapons (happy days which were bound to end soon anyway). The only real question at this time was whether the first people to obtain them would use them to preserve freedom … or to destroy it. The American monopoly didn't last for long, unfortunately, and some brutal dictators still got the technology anyway (like Stalin and Mao Zedong). But the threat of American retaliation prevented these dictators from attacking their neighbors with it. These dictators were rational enough to know that nuclear aggression of this kind was not in their best interest. Others may not be so rational – like North Korea, if I may be so bold here. In some cases, it seems that the only way to prevent them from using nuclear weapons is to prevent them from obtaining these weapons in the first place.

“Ivy Mike” (USA), the first test of a full-scale thermonuclear device – Enewetak Atoll, Pacific, 1 November 1952

We should prevent nuclear proliferation among tyrants, and protect peace through strength

For some brutal tyrannies, this is no longer possible; and may never be possible again. The only way to stop these regimes now is through the threat of retaliation. But where possible, the stopping (or at least the slowing) of nuclear proliferation is an ongoing priority for the free world. The lessons of the Cold War may be that peace requires strength; and that the achievement of true arms control is made possible by a strong bargaining position for the free world in these negotiations. These things are the path to peace, “among ourselves and with all nations.”

“He who ignores the lessons of history is doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana

If you liked this post, you might also like:

A review of CNN's “Cold War” series

Spying during the Cold War was a risky business

The Cuban Missile Crisis: A comparison of two movies

“Able Archer 83”: A close brush with nuclear war during the Cold War

Reagan and “Star Wars”: How the Cold War ended

Part of a series about

The Cold War

Berlin Blockade 1948-1949
Marshall Plan 1948-1951
Korean War 1950-1953
McCarthyism 1947-1956 (see “Espionage” post)
Cuban Revolution 1953-1959
Bay of Pigs 1961
Building of the Berlin Wall 1961-1962 (see “Eastern Europe” post)
Cuban Missile Crisis 1962
Nixon’s visit to China 1972
Vietnam War 1955-1975
Angolan Civil War 1975-2002
Soviet war in Afghanistan 1979-1989
“Able Archer 83” 1983
Reagan’s “Star Wars” program 1983-1993
Fall of the Berlin Wall 1989 (see “Star Wars” post)
Dissolution of the Soviet Union 1990-1991 (see “Star Wars” post)

Latin America in the Cold War

Eastern Europe in the Cold War
North Africa and the Middle East in the Cold War

South Asia and Indonesia in the Cold War
Nuclear weapons (1945 – the present)

Espionage (throughout the Cold War)
Space race (most of the Cold War)
Overview of the Cold War