Living with Nuclear Annihilation or Terrorism

The rise of the Soviet Union (USSR) as a new world superpower brought tension between the USSR and the United States. Although the 1950’s was generally nonviolent, confined to only minor conflicts, there was a threatening, looming tension between the two world superpowers. The tension reached its peak when the US completed its first successful hydrogen bomb test. A second, more powerful bomb was successfully detonated in 1954 by the US. Public fallout shelters were established in major cities, and bomb drills were practiced as frequently as fire drills today. The nuclear war that Lord of the Flies suggested was not out of the realm of possibility at its time of publication

The filmmakers’ main ideas are that the government misled and lied to the people of the U.S. so that they would believe that the atomic bomb would have no effect on their health and security, that we should question if the government should have lied to the American people, and to make us question whether or not the citizens of the U.S. would continue to be as naive as the people of the 1950’s.

The movies WarGames and Dr. Strangelove (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) provide incredibly interesting narratives that provide two different narratives regarding public perception of the cold war and nuclear weapons. WarGames made the statement that tensions during the Cold War were so high that a teenager playing a videogame could set off a nuclear war, while Dr. Strangelove simply ridiculed the attitudes of those involved in the Cold War and mocked those who took it seriously, under the pretense that mutually assured destruction would prevent any real war from breaking out (and as a plot device to depict irony). In reality, the American public was in constant fear of the outbreak of war during the period of time in

The Cold War, which was considered the “years of maximum danger,” lasted from 1949-1962. This period brought an increasing sense of danger to America because the Soviet Union came into possession of an atomic bomb in 1949; an idea many Americans thought to be impossible unless the Soviet Union had a spy in the United States, which they did. Because the Soviet Union had an atomic bomb, a nuclear war became a reality. In Kenneth Rose’s “One Nation Underground” he told of rising issues associated with the Cold War and the threat of nuclear bombings. The Cold War, in conjunction with the inventions of (total destructive) bombs, generated new dangers, fears, and morality issues among Americans, which led to further increased fears.

Starting in the 1949 with the explosion of an atomic bomb(RDS-1) in Russia and ending with the dissolvement of the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race was an extremely tense few decades that forever changed the United States in many ways. The Arms Race is exactly what it sounds like; a race to amass more advance weapons. During these four decades, the Nuclear Arms Race affected Americans socially through instilling a variety of emotions ranging from fear, to awe of the power of the nuclear weapons, economically through enlarging governmental role within the economy and mostly importantly, the political impacts were more involvement required by the U.S government in world affairs and as a force against Russia.

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

Eerily, it seems that during the Cold War and the War on Terror, many of the feelings that citizens felt were the same, but what America called the enemy was different. Following the September 11th attacks, there was a feeling of paranoia felt throughout America similar to the paranoia felt during the Cold War. Americans did not feel safe, and an attack could come at any time. The fight on the home front looked different during the Cold War and the War on Terrorism. During the Cold War there was more of a correlation between fighting Communism, and buying consumer goods. During the war on terrorism Americans were asked to give up some of their rights in order to maintain their safety.

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

This sense of paranoia that can also be accredited to the culture or nuclear preparedness. Families were advised to build fallout shelters and in schools children were told to duck and cover in the case of nuclear disaster. This sense that nuclear annihilation could happen at any moment was well established in American culture.

As a nation, America was not ready to handle, morally or emotionally, the reality of living in a nuclear age. In an attempt to soothe the uneasy minds of the public, the government made speeches and rolled out campaigns, which included the “duck and cover” drills and building of fall-out shelters. However, there was confusion from the very people in the government who were sending out the message to the public. While they wanted to remind the Americans to stop worrying unnecessarily about the atomic bomb, they nevertheless wanted the public to remain alert and vigilant, and to always be in anticipation of a nuclear attack. This resulted in extremely vague statements that did not give the Americans a sense of ease. For instance, in a film created to educate the public about how to respond to an atomic emergency, they were told: “we do this not to worry you or frighten you” but that they still had to “know what to do in case an emergency happens.” The responses of the Americans were, inevitably, equally ambivalent; while they found comfort in statements such as “there is no danger” and that “risk is part of the pattern of daily routine”, which served to almost trivialize the matter, they found themselves constantly fearing and anticipating a possible nuclear

The first use of nuclear weaponry in warfare occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the United States dropped the atomic bomb known as “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan. The result was devastating, demonstrating the true power of nuclear warfare. Since the incident, the world has been left fearing the possible calamity of another nuclear war. Joseph Siracusa’s Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction explains aspects of nuclear weaponry from simply what a nuclear weapon is, to the growing fear from nuclear warfare advancements in an age of terrorism. The book furthered my education on nuclear weapons and the effect they place on society, physically and mentally.

The end of World War II was not just the end of a war, but also the beginning of a tense and dynamic period that affected society on all levels. This “postwar” period, as it became known, shaped the world, as we know it today; likewise, the period was shaped itself both by the war that had preceded it, and the powerful forces that surrounded it. As the energy of fundamentally different ideologies, Communism and Democracy collided with advances in science such as the nuclear bomb, a dangerous environment ensued that created an atmosphere of paranoia throughout the world and especially, within America.

Ever since World War two we have feared destruction and what could be the aftermath of nuclear bombs. We had a whole era in history to dedicate being terrified of weapons of mass destruction. We had bomb drills, duck and cover drills. The United States had TV drills if an attack were to happen on United States soil. For many Americans this was not hysteria, but a reality that could happen.

On September 11, 2001, four planes were highjacked and deliberately flown into the twin towers, the pentagon, and one crashed in Pennsylvania. This killed nearly 3000 people and injured many more. This major event caused every person to get increasingly more invested in patriotism, leading to an increasing support for war. Propaganda gets used to appeal to people’s emotions in order to gain the support of the country to enter into wars. Many media outlets will lead a hatred filled attack, which will cause more people to become increasingly committed and supportive on an attack against the enemy and that victory against the people who attacked America. Patriotism became

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)