A few weeks ago, while most of us were enjoying our summers (or, like myself, celebrating passing Spanish), the world recognized the 59th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, which brought about the end of World War II. Though opinions vary on the necessity of incinerating the Japanese city, everyone can agree that it was a tragic event, whose effects are still being felt today. One of these effects was the ushering in of a new, and sometimes frightening age: an age of nuclear weapons and possible world annihilation.
Different people have reacted in different ways to this age. Some people understand the need to produce such horrible weapons. Some do not. Among the latter is the group that recently protested at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, calling for an end to weapons production.
These protesters were a diverse group. Some were UT students. Some were grandmothers. Some were religious folk. Some were from far away states like Michigan (Must be nice to be able to take off to a protest anytime one pleases. I wonder if any of these protesters have actual jobs). Some were aging hippies, left over from the Vietnam era. Most were ideological leftists. There is no doubt that many of these people were motivated by the purest of intentions. After all, who likes the idea of nuclear war? Indeed, most protesters claimed they came out to show their support for peace. Unfortunately, their goals would have the opposite effect if they ever convinced policy makers of the righteousness of their cause. Instead, unilateral disarmament would make nuclear war all the more likely.
During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union never had a direct military confrontation. Why? Because of what has come to be known as the doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD). Had either side initiated direct military conflict, the other side would have been forced to retaliate. The likely end result would have been nuclear war. Neither side wanted this, for obvious reasons. Thus, it was a great and effective deterrent. Wars in Korea and Vietnam were certainly tragic, of course, but how much worse would a war with the Soviet Union have been?
Now, let’s consider what would have happened had the U.S. had no nuclear weapons. We would have been totally unprotected. Do you think the Soviet Union would have thought twice about launching nuclear warheads our way? Do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis might have been very different, and far more tragic?
What about people like Kim Jong Il in North Korea, or the Mullahs in Iran, you ask? How can we insist that they not produce nuclear weapons when we ourselves are doing it? The problem with this question is that it presupposes that these people are fair-minded and reasonable. Overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. The truth is that the tyrants of the world are going to try to obtain weapons of mass destruction whether we have them for ourselves or not. Therefore, we must have them (and maintain a strong advantage over everyone else) in order to deter such crazies or, if need be, retaliate with them if, God forbid, they ever obtain them and use them against us.
It would be exceedingly naïve to suggest that if we scrapped our nuclear weapons programs, everyone else in the world would follow suit. In all likelihood, it would give them an even greater incentive to produce such weapons. There are plenty of rouge regimes and criminals factions that would love to take a shot at the United States. Being unprotected would make it all the easier for them.
If you doubt this, consider an analogy. If you placed a sign in your yard announcing that you were unarmed and that your doors were not locked, would it make robbery more or less likely? If you said more likely, pat yourself on the back. Destroying our nukes would have the exact same effect.
The world might be a better place if there were no nuclear weapons existed. It would also be a better place if no greedy people existed, if everyone ate balanced diets, and if there were no diseases. Sadly, none of this is possible. We must face reality, not romantic fantasies. The world is a tough place, and nations must be strong if they are to survive.
So before you fall prey to the emotional appeal that protestors like the ones in Oak Ridge purvey, stop and think about the consequences. Will protesting against bombs really serve the cause of peace? Chances are, it will have the exact opposite effect.
John Brown (www.johnnorrisbrown.com) is a senior in political science and history at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com. This column originally appeared in the August 24, 2004 edition of The Daily Beacon, entitled "Weapons necessary to survival," and is available here.