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.

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.