Nuclear Weapons, Nonproliferation, and the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates
Page August 30th, 2007
It was July 16, 1945. At 5:29:45 AM, the quiet southern New Mexico desert morning was shattered by an explosion, the effects of which were felt as far north as Albuquerque. It was the famous Trinity nuclear weapon test, the brainchild of the Manhattan Project, born of the concern that Nazi Germany was developing a similar weapon.
However, Germany wasn’t on anyone’s mind that morning, as World War II had ended in Europe two months earlier. The war still raged in the Pacific theater; after the successful test of “the gadget” in New Mexico, Manhattan Project Metallurgical Laboratory scientist Leo Szilard, and 69 of his colleagues sent a petition to President Truman expressing their opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. The petition warned of triggering an arms race, with dire international consequences:
The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.
If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States — singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.
The rest is history. The scientists’ warning went unheeded; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, and the nuclear genie was unleashed.
Sixty-two years later, the Cold War may be over, but the threat of nuclear proliferation is still very real. Examples include North Korea’s (attempted) nuclear test last year; the Bush administration essentially ignoring international law in its deal to transfer nuclear technology to India, while looking the other way as Pakistan develops a new plutonium production reactor; both the US and Russia still have thousands of nuclear warheads on hair-trigger status.
Suffice it to say, as head of one of the most powerful nations on the planet, the next US president will have to deal with all manner of nuclear proliferation issues, both at home and abroad.
The guys over at the Nukes of Hazard blog are part of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C., and have been providing exceptional analysis and coverage of nuclear proliferation issues, with respect to general foreign policy, Congressional action, and of course the current presidential campaigns.
Earlier this month, their sister organization, the Council for a Livable World (started by Leo Szilard in 1962) released the results of a questionnaire submitted to all of the presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican. It asked seven critical questions on national security; six of these related to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation. None of the Republican candidates responded; all of the Democratic candidates responded except Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.