HISTORICAL CONTEXT: THE WWII ARMS RACE, THE MANHATTAN PROJECT & THE ATOMIC BOMB

When we consider the history of nuclear weapons, we typically think of the Manhattan Project – which was the unprecedented, top-secret World War II government program in which the United States rushed to develop and deploy the world’s first atomic weapons before Nazi Germany. However, the Manhattan project was actually in part driven by the arms race that had already taken shape since WWI and was further consolidated in WWII, only that in the WWII period, this manifested also as the race to build atomic weapons. In fact, the Manhattan Project took place against the backdrop of scientists in Germany having discovered fission in December 1938. Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard realised that nuclear chain reactions could be used to create new and extremely powerful atomic weapons. Then, in August 1939, Szilard wrote a letter for Albert Einstein to sign and send to President Franklin D. Roosevelt warning that an “extremely powerful bomb” might be constructed. Fearing ongoing research and development by Nazi Germany, Roosevelt formed the Advisory Committee on Uranium, which met for the first time on October 21, 1939.

The United States then formally entered World War II after Imperial Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. With the US now at war, the Advisory Committee on Uranium concluded that an atomic bomb could be designed, built, and used in time to influence the outcome of the war. To accomplish this task, the Army Corps of Engineers established the Manhattan Engineer District, headed by Brigadier General Leslie Groves, in Manhattan, New York. This focused effort is what became known as the Manhattan Project, and it combined military, scientific, and industrial resources.

Now, the responsibility of bringing the bombs developed in the Manhattan Project into existence fell J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was a theoretical physicist and professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley – he essentially became involved early in the scientific research that ultimately led to the Manhattan Project. Under Oppenheimer’s direction, Manhattan Project workers constructed a plutonium bomb. The plutonium bomb relied upon the implosion of the reactive plutonium rather than on the piercing of the plutonium with a bullet, which was common in gun-method bombs and which worked better with uranium – which was an unprecedented method at the time. And it was due to the unprecedented nature of such a bomb, that Oppenheimer advised that a test was necessary.

Which then led to what we now know as the “Trinity Test” on July 16th 1945. And here is the portion that I think sticks out in the history of nuclear weapons. First, was the experience of what happens to the surrounding areas when a nuclear bomb detonates, in that the flash from the bomb was so bright that it temporarily blinded observers standing 10,000 yards away. In addition, the heat from the bomb was so intense that it evaporated the steel tower, left a crater five feet deep by 30 feet wide, and melted the sand in the area, creating a mildly radioactive green glass called “trinitite.” Then secondly, what also sticks out in this portion of history is the recognition of the ethical or moral boundary that was crossed, because upon witnessing the blast, Oppenheimer famously uttered a line, stating that (quote) “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

THE IMPACT OF THE USE OF THE ATOMIC BOMBS IN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI

Well, while Robert Oppenheimer thought he saw the worst of nuclear bombs, Japan was a far more devastating story – which took place just a few weeks after the “Trinity Test”. At 08h15 on the morning of the 6th August in 1945, the Japanese city of Hiroshima was devastated by the first atomic bomb to be used as a weapon of war. The bomb, nicknamed `Little Boy’, was dropped from the USAAF B29 bomber `Enola Gay’ and exploded some 1,800 feet above the city. Delivering the equivalent of around 12.5 kilotons of TNT, the bomb reduced 5 square miles of the city centre to ashes and caused the deaths of an estimated 120,000 people within the first four days following the blast. Many were instantly vaporised by the explosion, others died afterwards from the effects of burns and radiation.

Then, three days later, just after 11 on the morning of 9th August, a second atomic bomb nicknamed `Fat Man’ exploded above the city of Nagasaki. Although it was even more powerful than `Little Boy’, the destruction caused by this bomb was less than at Hiroshima due to the nature of the terrain. And this is because the original target had been the city of Kokura, but the B29 carrying the bomb had been diverted to Nagasaki because of heavy cloud cover – and so, Nagasaki was a “Plan B- bombing”. Nonetheless, over 2 square miles of the city were pulverised and 73,000 people were killed.

Now, when you look into this portion of history, what you tend to find are consequentialist arguments that try to justify one of the most morally bankrupt actions in human history – where certain historians and politicians say the two atomic explosions had the effects desired by the Allied Powers, in that these detonations were pivotal in ending WWII. This is often said in reference to the fact that on the 10th of August the Japanese government indicated its readiness to accept defeat, subject to certain conditions; on 14th August it finally accepted the demand for unconditional surrender, and the following day was declared `Victory over Japan’ Day, although it was not until 2nd September that the final Japanese surrender was signed, but (ultimately) thereby bringing the Second World War to a formal close.

But, here is the question: Why had the Allied powers considered it necessary to inflict such unprecedented destruction on Japanese civilians in order to bring the war to an end? And the answer lies at the Potsdam Conference (which took place on the 17th July – 2nd August 1945) at which the Allied powers formulated their terms for ending the war with Japan, which centred on that country’s acceptance of unconditional surrender, as had been the case with Nazi Germany in May. However, the allied powers were also aware that whilst the Japanese Emperor Hirohito desired an end to hostilities, and would probably accept the unconditional capitulation demanded, the `hawks’ of the Japanese military and civilian leadership were totally opposed to such a humiliating condition and were ready to fight to the finish – whatever that might look like. And so, this was seen as a justification for using nuclear weapons.

This is ridiculous because it was categorically an incommensurate or disproportionate response, which was supposed to be a consideration seeing that the so-called just war theory was formed in the 13th century and had already been used to govern interstate war fare ever since! But, the reason for this disproportionality stems from the fact that Japan was not using nuclear weapons, and so it was not a case of using weapons that are commensurate with the war effort of Japan, RATHER; it was a case of destroying Japan with a weapon of far greater destructive yield. Furthermore, with the detonation of the atomic bombs, the allied powers were not directing the fight to the military or government, but had made civilians a necessary casualty.

The second reason why the justification from the allied powers does not stand, is that the detonation of the nuclear weapons was not necessary, because the Soviets joining the allied powers in fighting Japan was already enough of a deterrence for Japan which could not survive the war effort from all those countries! And the Allied Powers knew this, which is why it was initially claimed that the atomic weapon was just a threat to encourage diplomacy. And I believe this is crucial to highlight because it offers an apt refutation to the claimed necessity of nations having nuclear weapons today as a means of deterrence. In essence, it is clear from this history that a diplomatic end to the fighting with Japan was possible, because they could not sustain the fighting, and so the use of the nuclear weapon had no comparative advantage to ending the war – highlighting that diplomacy always ends wars anyways, and so we might as well prioritise it. Secondly, even if certain sects in the military were adamant on fighting till the end, bombing areas that resulted in mass civilian casualties is still morally reprehensible.

HOW MUCH MORE POWERFUL ARE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TODAY?

So, that is Japan – looking at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And as bad as they were, this does not compare to what nuclear weapons look like today. You’d recall that I mentioned earlier that from these 2 detonations in Japan arose many questions concerning the morality surrounding nations having such weapons, and the general direction that was taken (like most in the post WWII era), was the formation of restrictions that strategically omit the victors of WWII – being the allied powers. That is why the US, Russia, China, France and the UK have nuclear weapons.

Secondly, nuclear non-proliferation efforts, while seemingly aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons, have contributed to the development of more advanced and powerful weapons by fostering a climate of secrecy and technological competition among the states that possess them. This is to say that while non-proliferation treaties like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons aim to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, they can also incentivise existing nuclear-weapon states to refine their arsenals, focusing on quality over quantity to maintain deterrence. For instance, when discussions on limiting the number of nuclear warheads nations could possess took place, countries found a loophole, where they abided by the number restriction, by developing a smaller number nuclear warheads that, however, had the explosive yield of say 5 nuclear warheads in one; or the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles that carry around 10 nuclear warheads.

Now, generally, nuclear weapons produce enormous explosive energy. Their significance may best be appreciated by the coining of the words kiloton (1,000 tons) and megaton (1,000,000 tons) to describe their blast energy in equivalent weights of the conventional chemical explosive TNT. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945, containing only about 64 kg (140 pounds) of highly enriched uranium, released energy equaling about 15 kilotons of chemical explosive. That blast immediately produced a strong shock wave, enormous amounts of heat, and lethal ionizing radiation. Convection currents created by the explosion drew dust and other debris into the air, creating the mushroom-shaped cloud that has since become the virtual signature of a nuclear explosion. In addition, radioactive debris was carried by winds high into the atmosphere, later to settle to Earth as radioactive fallout. The enormous toll in destruction, death, injury, and sickness produced by the explosions at Hiroshima and, three days later, at Nagasaki was on a scale never before produced by any single weapon.

However, the nuclear weapons today are vastly more destructive than those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The weapons deployed today have yields thousands of times greater than the atomic bombs used in World War II. For instance, one US nuclear submarine alone carries warheads with seven times the total destructive power of all the bombs dropped in WWII! Another example is the Tsar Bomba, where in 1961, the Soviets built this bomb, which was so powerful that it was 3,800 times more destructive than Hiroshima. And so, the scientist who built it was so horrified by his creation that he spent the rest of his life trying to stop nuclear weapons. And as you can see on screen the destructive capacity is magnitude above what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which (despite their horrible destructive capacity) appear miniscule in comparison to Tsar Bomba.

CONSIDER THE INVERSE: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN VOLATILE ACTRESS POSSESS THIS WEAPON?

Then another issue that always emanates with nuclear weapons is what happens when countries disregard non-proliferation treaties and ideologies, and decide to pursue the construction of nuclear weapons? For example, North Korea became a party to this treaty in 1985 as a non-nuclear weapon state. However, in 2003, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT, citing concerns about its security and the lack of progress in denuclearisation negotiations. North Korea’s withdrawal was disputed, with some arguing that it remains bound by its obligations under the treaty; it even led to international condemnation and the imposition of sanctions by the UN Security Council. BUT, North Korea has since conducted six nuclear tests between 2006 and 2017, demonstrating its capability to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. In fact, it is estimated to have a stockpile of approximately 50 nuclear weapons and the fissile material for an additional 70-90 weapons.

Similarly, In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test: a subterranean explosion of a nuclear device (not weapon). India declared it to be a “peaceful” test, but it announced to the world that India had the scientific know-how to build a bomb; but today has an arsenal that carries weapons with estimated average yields ranging from 10 to 40 kilotons, though exact yields are unknown. This then prompted Pakistan to develop their own, claiming that India’s possession of nuclear weapons was a threat. This justification of possession of nuclear weapons in the name of national security has thus become the basis upon which nations pursue the developments of nuclear weapons.

Parallel to this arose the question of why some countries can and others should not have nuclear weapons. And it is certainly a valid question because it speaks to hegemonic tones in international treaties and organisations formed after WWII, but there are also valid answers to this question like in the case of Iran, and how it is notorious for sponsoring terror in the middle east, and thus nations like the US and Israel wanting to curb its ability to inflict harm.

But, here is the point: the existence of nuclear weapons in a few nations will also create a justification for their pursuit in others – because all nations can play the national security card. And herein lies the irony of non-proliferation efforts. While some nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons, others will see a need to possess them as well. But secondly, non-proliferation efforts are hinged on the presumption of western superiority. For example, the 2024 NATO Summit Declaration condemns the “all-domain threat Russia poses to NATO” by “rebuilding and expanding its military capabilities.” It criticises Russia, saying it “has increased its reliance on nuclear weapon systems and continued to diversify its nuclear forces, including by developing novel nuclear systems.” Similarly, it says that China “continues to rapidly expand and diversify its nuclear arsenal with more warheads and a larger number of sophisticated delivery systems” and urges China “to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions.”

And yet, there was no sense of hypocrisy in condemning Russia and China for diversifying and developing their nuclear arsenals, while boasting that “NATO remains committed to taking all necessary steps to ensure the credibility, effectiveness, safety, and security of the Alliance’s nuclear deterrence mission, including by modernising its nuclear capabilities.” The United States alone was spending $1.7 trillion on modernising its nuclear weapons.

Also as far as some countries being allegedly more rational than others in considerations about who should have nuclear weapons, I’d like to point out that the US policy on Russia and the Ukraine conflict under the Biden administration brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war. So, rationality is not a by-product of western governance – which is why I would argue nuclear weapons are dangerous in anyone’s hand if we are being frank.

WHY SHOULD NATIONS HAVE POWER TO DESTROY A WORLD THEY DID NOT CREATE?

But, I do not even think that hypocrisy is the biggest consideration, when it comes to the possession of nuclear weapons. I think it is more concerning that nations today – in fact, just the US and Russia alone – have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire planet. Let that sink in. Just 2 nations have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world. And adding all nations with nuclear weapons, the numbers even become redundant. So, here is the question that I think matters most: Why should nations have power to destroy a world they did not create? I think it is diabolical and testament of the fact that there truly are inventors of evil things, because God gave men charge to tend to the garden, and not to devise ways of obliterating it, or rending it to radioactive waste.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso