Stigmatization of the Nuclear Bomb: Drew Holm

The stigmatization of the nuclear bomb demonstrates the evolution of international relations from the time nuclear weapons were first developed to present day. The development of the bomb lies perfectly within the realm of political realism. It was developed in order to bring a swift end to the war, no matter how many civilian lives were lost, and it served as a way for the United States to demonstrate their power to the rest of the world. The development of the bomb was an amoral action, as it appears that the larger implications that might result from the use of such a destructive weapon were not deemed important. The ultimate decision to drop the bombs also represents amoral action. While the stated goal of the nuclear drops were defended as a moral action, they were also called immoral based on the fact that the targets were not Japan’s military, but instead Japanese civilians. The dropping of the bombs was also about cementing the United States as a global power. By ending the war quickly with mass amounts of destruction it was clear that the United States was one of the strongest states in the world. It was also done to prevent Japan from surrendering to the Soviet Union, something that would have made the USSR substantially stronger. According to realist theory, one of the most important goals in international relations is to act solely in your nation’s interests, making sure to accumulate more power than any other state. This was achieved as the bombings forced Japan to surrender to the United States instead of the Soviet Union. 

Only 5 years after WWII, the United States was embroiled in the Korean War. It was a proxy war between the United States and the USSR, and it ended in a stalemate, however even though realist theories of international relations argue that the United States act solely in its best interests to gain as much power as possible, the United States did not use its most powerful weapon. At this time, the Soviet Union did also have nuclear weapons, but if the United States acted immorally, and solely in the interest of gaining as much power as possible they would have dropped a nuclear weapon on their enemies, as would the Soviet Union. However, neither state did such a thing, representing a move away from the realist actions that ended the previous war. This also set a precedent of nonuse of nuclear weapons and helped to lead to the increasingly popular opinion that nuclear weapons should never be used first in a conflict. The following years represented a buildup of nuclear weapons by both the United States and the Soviet Union, and was filled with similar proxy wars and near conflicts as both sides attempted to gain as much power as possible. This led to the creation of international agreements and organizations like NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The development of NATO also went against realist ideals as while it did benefit and provide support to the United States, it benefited the smaller countries much more. This would challenge realist theories, as because the United States did not have the largest marginal benefit from NATO, it was allowing other countries to become stronger thus reducing the overall power of the US. These led to treaties like the NPT, which in theory placed restraints on the United State’s ability to continue to grow in strength.

The increasingly popular moral arguments against the use of nuclear weapons also proved to influence the United States’ actions. While at first the United States government attempted to convince the public that nuclear weapons were not weapons of mass destruction, it eventually became obvious that the domestic moral arguments against nuclear weapons tied the hands of the United States, in effect preventing them from using them first in a conflict. This demonstrates how morality can creep into politics and influence international relations. The United States’ actions following WWII represented a stepping away from realist ideas on international relations.