Sixty six years ago today, the Japanese city of Nagasaki experienced the repugnant power of the world's second atomic weapon strike. The United States, in an effort to bring WWII to a sudden and definitive end, had dropped the world's first nuclear weapon, "Little Boy", on the industrial city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The attack on Hiroshima was quickly followed up by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb over Nagasaki on August 9th. Japan surrendered to the United States on August 15th. Although the two bombings killed at least 225,000 people, they may have actually saved a lot of lives. As ironic and dark as that sounds, it is estimated that about 250,000 American soldiers, along with a whopping 1,000,000 Japanese civilians, would've been killed if the war had ended with an all out invasion of Japan. This was and still is one of the primary arguments given in order to justify the world's only two nuclear attacks thus far.
Although nukes may have "saved the day" in WWII, they have since become the world's greatest source of apocalyptic fear, overzealous intimidation, and monetary waste. The scientists and military personnel who secretly worked on the Manhattan Project immediately realized the implications of the technology that they had developed soon after the world's first atomic weapon was tested in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. Robert Oppenheimer, often cited as the "father of the atomic bomb", expressed deep concerns with the horrific weapon he had helped create. In the years after WWII, Oppenheimer said that most of the people working on the Manhattan Project realized that once the technology to build "The Bomb" was given to other nations, the then unfathomable danger of mankind bringing about its own annihilation would become a distinct possibility. During a television interview in 1965, he sadly quoted Hindu scripture, saying that "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds". The renowned physicist Albert Einstein, who also played a role in the Manhattan Project, weighed in on the implications of a nuclear-armed planet as well, saying " I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be be fought with sticks and stones."
However, the vision of a nuclear holocaust did not deter anybody from moving forward with the project. During a 1954 Congressional hearing, Oppenheimer said that "When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb."
In other words, build a nuke first, ask questions later.
Perhaps more questions should have been asked during those early days of atomic weaponry, because ever since then the threat of a nuclear attack has hung over the heads of every man, woman, and child on the planet. That threat has evolved over time, starting off as the possibility of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, and ending with concerns that fanatical terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda could potentially acquire a nuclear weapon.
The careless overproduction of nuclear weapons, coupled with the dispersal of nuclear secrets across the globe, are the two main reasons why nuclear attacks have been an area of concern for the last 50 years. Currently, there are an estimated 23,375 active nuclear weapons spread across 14 nations. Only 5 of those nations (U.S., Russia, Great Britian, France, and China) are authorized to develop nuclear weapons according to the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty , but that policy has been brazenly ignored by rouge nations who have acquired nuclear capabilities. As of today, the radicalized, unstable nation of Pakistan has approximately 100 nuclear warheads. North Korea, which has threatened to nuke South Korea and the United States on several occasions, has approximately 10 nukes. Other radical nations, such as Iran and Syria, are believed to be in the beginning stages of developing nuclear weapons too, a move that could very well throw the Middle East into complete and utter chaos (as if it isn't bad enough already). By taking a "loosey goosey" approach to transferring and protecting nuclear secrets, we have allowed for some of the world's most unstable madmen to acquire the deadliest weapon mankind has ever known. As long as somebody like Kim Jong Il has nukes, we will always have something to worry about.
However, the world's current nuclear instability cannot be solely blamed on jihadists and psychopathic jackasses. The United States and the former Soviet Union must shoulder a lot of the blame as well. Thanks to the bombast and fear mongering that dominated the arms race era, both nations ended up producing a grossly excessive amount of nuclear weaponry, weaponry that was never used for anything except testing. According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), between the years of 1945-1990 the U.S. produced 70,000 nuclear weapons. Those 70,000 weapons were broken up into as many as 65 different configurations, including artillery shells and landmines.
Yes, there was such a thing as nuclear landmines. If that isn't a strong testament to the nonsensical level of nuclear armament that the U.S. underwent in the Cold War era, I don't know what is.
With so many of these Cold War era nukes still around, is is extremely hard to keep track of all of them. In Russia, they may very well have failed to do just that. Alexander Lebed, an ex-Soviet Union official, claimed in a 1997 interview with 60 Minutes that after the Soviet Union collapsed, the newly created Russian state lost track of around 100 suitcase nukes, mini nuclear devices that could be easily transported from place to place. Lebed said that they simply disappeared without a trace, and nobody in the Russian government is aware of their location today. Russian officials, including Vladimir Putin, have strongly refuted these claims. Some officials have gone as far as denying that suitcase nukes ever existed, even though there is ample photographic and documental evidence that proves otherwise.
So as you can see, the world's asinine surplus of nuclear weapons is a strong source of danger and concern. But danger and concern is not the primary problem with nuclear weaponry, because thankfully none of the "doomsday" possibilities centered around nukes have ever become a reality. What has become a reality, though, is the disgusting and exorbitant monetary costs that are required to maintain these weapons of mass destruction, the vast majority of which sit idly for decades until they are decommissioned. Let's take a look at the numbers, provided on the NTI's website. Between the years of 1940-1996, the United States spent approximately $5.8 trillion dollars on its nuclear weapons program. And that is a very conservative estimate, because a great amount of nuclear spending data is classified. In those 56 years, the $5.8 trillion spent on nuclear weapons made up 29% of total military spending. Furthermore, that impressive budgetary price tag of $5.8 trillion means that our nuclear weapons program has been the 3rd most funded program in the last fifty years, only being bested by Social Security ($7.9 trillion) and Non-Nuclear National Defense ($13.2 trillion).
Let that sink in.
At a time when politicians have been talking about making cuts to every program except National Defense, it has been the single largest cash cow the U.S. government funds. And about 1/3 of that money has been spent on a dangerous,wasteful nuclear program that has never seen any real action in the post-WWII world.
A deeper breakdown of how the $5.8 trillion itself has been spent reveals even more waste. Only 7% of that money (about $430 billion) has been spent on actually building and testing nuclear weaponry. The bulk of it has been spent on outfitting planes, missiles, boats, and submarines with the equipment necessary to fire or launch a nuclear weapon (56%, or $3.2 trillion) That means that we have not only wasted money on building thousands of nuclear weapons, we have also wasted it by "pimping" our already existing military equipment so that it can launch nuclear weapons, weapons that in all likelihood will never be launched. The rest of the "nuclear budget" is devoted to funding operating stations and nuclear defense systems.
Even our government has acknowledged our nuclear-spending recklessness from time to time. After the Cold War ended, the U.S. and Russia began to sharply cut the number of active nukes that they had. This disarmament has brought the total number of active U.S. nukes down to around 2,000 or so. However, disarmament has high costs too. According to another set of statistics provided by the NTI, the U.S. will spend around $320 billion in the coming years on dismantling nukes and safely disposing of radioactive materials. An additional $20 billion will be spent on dismantling outdated nuclear weapon systems.
So, that is where the nation, and our world, stands today. Sixty six years ago a cataclysmic new weapon was unleashed in order to make life safer. Ever since then, it has done nothing but make the world more frightening on several levels.
A weapon that once only belonged to a few brilliant minds with a decent intention has today fallen into the hands of maniacs, mullahs, and Maoists.
A weapon that was built in order to end a bloody war has sparked fears of far more deadly conflicts in the future.
A weapon that was built in small amounts in the 1940's has since been grossly stockpiled and overproduced by an ever growing number of nations.
A weapon that rules over all other weapons has been better funded and cared for then the old woman who needs medication, the schoolboy who lacks an engaged educational system, the soldier who goes without proper equipment, the sick who need healing, the unemployed who need caring.
Thus is the sad, inexplicable state of affairs in our Atomic Age.
No comments:
Post a Comment