# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Cold War

Not long after World War II ended in 1945, new hostilities emerged between the United States and the Soviet Union. Known as the Cold War, this conflict began as a struggle for control over the conquered areas of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s and continued into the early 1990s. Initially, only the United States possessed atomic weapons, but in 1949 the Soviet Union exploded an atomic bomb and the arms race began. Both countries continued building more and bigger bombs. In 1952, the United States tested a new and more powerful weapon: the hydrogen bomb. The Soviet Union followed with its own version in 1953.

Einstein watched with growing dismay as the two superpowers seemed to move closer and closer to nuclear war. Convinced that the only way to prevent the annihilation of humankind was to prevent all future wars, Einstein spoke out more fervently than ever in favor of international cooperation and disarmament.

A New Conflict

In the last decade of his life, Einstein dedicated himself to the cause of nuclear disarmament. "The war is won," he said in December 1945, "but the peace is not." The development of the atomic bomb and the subsequent arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union ushered in a new conflict: the Cold War. Einstein feared this battle would end with the destruction of civilization.

But Einstein never gave up his fight for peace. In the years between 1945 and 1955, Einstein was at his most active politically, frequently speaking and writing about his desire for peace through international cooperation and elimination of all nuclear weapons. Einstein was not alone in promoting these ideas-quite a number of leading scientists of the time shared his views-but international fame made Einstein one of the most effective representatives of the cause. Yet even Einstein could not reverse the political tide: The Cold War lasted for more than four decades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not long after World War II ended in 1945, new hostilities emerged between the United States and the Soviet Union. Known as the Cold War, this conflict began as a struggle for control over the conquered areas of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s and continued into the early 1990s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear Weapons and the Escalation of the Cold War, 1945-1962 | Department of History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Nuclear Weapons and the Escalation of the Cold War, 1945-1962," in Odd Arne Westad and Melvin Leffler, eds., The Cambridge History of the Cold War, vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, 2010) 376-397.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stringer/Reuters

The U.S. top nuclear weapons commander revealed Friday that he would not want to see the world ban nuclear weapons.

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, head of the U.S. Strategic Command and the nation's nuclear arsenal, told journalists at the annual meeting of the Military Reporters and Editors Association that such weapons of mass destruction actually made the world safer by discouraging military conflicts among nuclear-armed states. He criticized a proposed resolution being debated at the U.N. General Assembly that would call for a universal ban on nuclear weapons, saying that the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads estimated to exist around the world acted as a deterrent.

"Can I imagine a world without nuclear weapons? Yes, I can. That's a world I didn't like," Hyten said, according to Politico.

Hyten said that the conflicts of the post-nuclear age did not compare to the massive international conflicts of the first half of the 20th century including World War I, in which about 17 million people were killed, and World War II, in which around 80 million people died. Many of the powers involved in these conflicts now have nuclear arms and the world has not seen a global conflict on such a scale since. Hyten said all the wars since "don't even come close," according to Politico. "As horrible as the world is today-and it is nasty-it is not anywhere near like that."

51

50

While most nations have kept their nuclear arsenals confidential, analysts have estimated that nine nations currently possess nuclear weapons. These nations, in order of stockpile, are Russia, the U.S., France, China, the U.K., India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The latter four have not signed or have withdrawn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, raising international concerns about their potential nuclear arsenals.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

The two largest nuclear powers, Russia and the U.S., signed a landmark treaty known as START in the final days of the Soviet Union in 1991, pledging to reduce and limit their nuclear arms stockpiles. This agreement was renewed by former President Barack Obama in 2010. Since taking office, President Donald Trump has said he would advocate for more nuclear weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin also supported expanding his own nuclear arsenal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top U.S. nuclear weapons commander says nukes are good for the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. top nuclear weapons commander revealed Friday that he would not want to see the world ban nuclear weapons. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, head of the U.S. Strategic Command and the nation's nuclear arsenal, told journalists at the annual meeting of the Military Reporters and Editors Association that such weapons of mass destruction actually made the world safer by discouraging military conflicts among nuclear-armed states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States tries hard to keep nuclear weapons away from countries it considers foes. Given how close the world came to nuclear armageddon during the Cold War, and recent threats from so-called "rogue states" like North Korea, it may seem like an essential goal. But America's strategy for thwarting nuclear proliferation may be reaching a point where the costs outweigh the benefits.

The first nuclear bomb was exploded the same year as the invention of the microwave. Nuclear technology is no longer new, and therefore more difficult to keep from spreading. (Imagine trying to keep microwave technology under wraps all these years.) Developing a nuclear bomb from scratch, however, is much more costly than reverse engineering a microwave.

But snuffing out a country's nuclear capabilities is perhaps even more costly. It requires crippling a country's economy so its government can't invest in nuclear research (of course, its innocent citizens bear the brunt of that burden). It requires destroying factories and laboratories with aggressive bombing or cyber-sabotage campaigns. And it can even require kidnapping or killing scientists and engineers who conduct nuclear research.

Iran, for example, is seeking nuclear technology while coldly aware of the United States' military superiority. Likewise, the rest of the world is aware of America's massive nuclear arsenal-and of the fact that it's capable of annihilating any country on Earth at a moment's notice.

This kind of behavior toward other countries, needless to say, won't engender kindness and cooperation. North Korea knows that developing a small nuclear arsenal has made the U.S. much more hesitant to invade its borders. It's a lesson Pyongyang learned recently from countries without nuclear weapons-Iraq, Libya, Syria-that were subsequently invaded by the U.S. So it makes perfect sense that America's enemies would be scrambling to develop nuclear weapons-not so they can fire them, but so they can also enjoy the benefits of deterrence.

So the question becomes: How often is the U.S. willing to wage preventive wars, and with how many countries does it really want this kind of relationship?

This isn't to suggest that, for instance, a nuclear-capable Iran makes the world safer for the U.S., but it has to be viewed in the context of relative military power. For instance, take a look below at the sheer number of U.S. military bases that surround Iran.

Barry Posen, Director of MIT's Security Studies Program, says the U.S. has its guns pointed at aspiring nuclear weapons states in a way that makes them feel even less secure.

So then, what should be America's main objective when enemy states develop nuclear weapons? Posen told Big Think that the US should make sure those states hold onto them:

"I worry about not nuclear weapons in the hands of states, but nuclear weapons that are not in the hands of states. I worry about nuclear weapons that are lost, nuclear weapons that are stolen, nuclear weapons that are poorly aligned, nuclear weapons that are sold off the back of trucks."

These concerns are valid. In U.S. military history alone, there have been 32 nuclear weapons accidents, referred to as "Broken Arrows." Several are still missing to this today. Outside of the U.S., most of the fear about "loose nukes" has been focused on Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"There have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials," notes an article from the Council on Foreign Relations. "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported more than a hundred nuclear smuggling incidents since 1993, eighteen of which involved highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient in an atomic bomb and the most dangerous product on the nuclear black market."

Mark 17 bomb, one of which was accidentally dropped by the U.S. in 1957.
It's rational for countries to want to develop nuclear weapons, and because the technology to do so is rather old and no longer a mystery, it's increasingly difficult to stop nuclear proliferation. It seems inevitable.

This is why Posen argues that the best way for the U.S. to prevent nuclear attacks isn't to wage preventative wars that result in the economic and physical suffering of innocent civilians. Rather, it's to ensure that nuclear weapons stay in the hands of countries and not radical groups. After all, nuclear deterrence loses its power in situations where nukes are wielded by organizations without defined borders.

"...what we want to do is make sure that nuclear weapons that are in the hands of states remain in the hands of states," Posen says. "Any state that has nuclear weapons, we should be talking to them about best practices to ensure that nobody sells, nobody steals, nobody loses, nobody breaks. This requires a lot of application, a lot of organization. "

barry-posen-america-is-preventing-nuclear-attacks-in-all-the-wrong-ways

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the World May Be Safer with More Nuclear Weapons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States tries hard to keep nuclear weapons away from countries it considers foes. Given how close the world came to nuclear armageddon during the Cold War, and recent threats from so-called "rogue states" like North Korea, it may seem like an essential goal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Safety of Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Terrifying True Scale of Nuclear Weapons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nuclear weapons have come a long way and come in all types of different sizes. Some are relatively small while others are enormous, so big they boggle the mind at what they can be capable of.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do Nuclear Weapons make the world a Safer Place?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do Nuclear Weapons make the world a Safer Place?

# data[].attributes.body
I would say having nuclear weapons does make the world a safer place. My reasoning behind it is because there have been advances in nuclear weapon development, no one wants to really use it because of the devastation it’ll cause. One of the documents that I read gave the perspective of a Hiroshima survivor and she talked about how the blast destroyed the town and caused building to collapse. She also talked about the people suffering from the blast and how she herself was left deformed from it. Stories like that make people look at those bombs in a different way knowing that they cause a lot of damage and now in present day nuclear bombs have been developed to be way more destructive than the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

# data[].attributes.body
General Knowledge on nuclear energy and weapons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear weapon | History, Facts, Types, Countries, Blast Radius, & Effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
nuclear weapon, device designed to release energy in an explosive manner as a result of nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, or a combination of the two processes. Fission weapons are commonly referred to as atomic bombs. Fusion weapons are also referred to as thermonuclear bombs or, more commonly, hyd…

# data[].attributes.body
Story from woman who survived Hiroshima