A “nuclear-free world” (part 1)

In a recent speech, President Obama called on European nations to support nuclear non-proliferation treaties and asked them to begin to reduce the number of nuclear missiles in existence. Obama also asked other nations, such as Russia and China, to stop building nuclear weapons and start disarming them instead. Obama is clearly trying to reach what he calls a “nuclear-free world”—a future where no nations possess nuclear weapons. Today, I would like to explore this idea of a world without nuclear arms.

Before I discuss Obama’s vision of a nuclear-free world, I would like to talk about a similar topic: how would history have progressed if nuclear weapons had never been invented? I believe that the course of history would be radically different, as certain nations—especially the US—have used nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to attain their status as a world power.

Firstly, WWII would have ended very differently. The US would have had to launch a full-scale invasion of Japan (probably in 1946, which was Truman’s original plan), which would have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. Japan would have been completely shattered, and the US would be significantly weakened as well. This would mean that the Soviet Union would be just as powerful—if not more powerful—than the US. They would also be far less influenced by US intimidation because the US would not possess the atomic bomb, the use of which on Japan worried the Soviet Union. 

The Cold War would still have occurred because of the ideological differences between the US and USSR, but the way it would be fought would be very different from what actually happened. For example, Europe might have fallen to the Soviets because the US probably wouldn’t have the money to execute the Marshall Plan. Also, the Cold War’s “proxy wars,” the Korean War and the Vietnam War, may have been fought differently because there would be less fear of the US and USSR engaging in direct warfare (because neither possessed nuclear weapons). However, I find it unlikely that a full-scale conventional war would erupt between the two powers. If such a war did occur, though, the results would be catastrophic and unpredictable.

The 1960’s and 1970’s would probably be about the same—the Cold War would continue, the anti-war movement in the US would be stunted by a conservative President, the civil rights movement would finally achieve results. Sometime in the 1980’s or 1990’s the Soviet Union would collapse.

Overall, the world would be similar on the surface but different on deeper levels. The Cold War would bring with it a different mentality, not one of fear but of intense nationalism, similar to the national pride felt during WWII. The US would have a smaller role in world affairs, as the negative economic results of an extended WWII would weaken the country somewhat. Additionally, wars between smaller countries (and even possibly larger ones, such as China) might occur as late as the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s, because no nation has nuclear weapons, which often deter war from occurring. In general, the world would not be a better place—and certainly not a utopian one—without nuclear weapons. Instead, because of nuclear deterrence, there would probably be more people killed in war had the atomic bomb never been invented. 

Later today I will discuss what President Obama means by the term “nuclear-free world.”