Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy During the Cold War

Memorandum

Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy During the Cold War

To: President Harry S. Truman

CC: Professor Shirk

From: Victoria Hassan

Date: July 30, 1945

Subject: Alternatives to the Use of Atomic Weaponry in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Recently, there has been much discussion about the utilization of nuclear weapons in Japan -- specifically dropping atomic bombs upon the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reasoning behind the use of atomic bombs on these two Japanese cities seems to be in order to quickly end the war in Japan without putting American lives at risk. The second reason behind the potential use of atomic bombs in Japan seems to be in order to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that the United States possesses a new nuclear weapon of mass destruction. In turn, this would demonstrate the utmost power of the United States and possibly inflict fear in the Soviet Union. However, there are other potentially more effective and less destructive ways to complete these two objectives. Before discussing alternatives to the utilization of nuclear weapons in Japan, it must be made clear that it is quite possible that by dropping atomic bombs in Japan, the United States will in turn become a target for mass destruction. In other words, a nuclear “arms race” will likely ensue as a result of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A nuclear arms race is the notion that if it is known that one country possesses nuclear weapons, other countries will begin to build up their own collection of nuclear weapons to demonstrate their own nuclear power and to provide protection for themselves. Arms races often lead to the idea of “mutually assured destruction.” However, the notion of mutually assured destruction and its protection against the actual utilization of nuclear weapons is only effective if one country does not initiate the use of nuclear weapons. Thus, by bombing the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States provides an incentive for Japan and the Soviet Union to build up their own nuclear weaponry and launch a counterattack against the United States.
Solution 1: Demonstration of Nuclear Power
With that being said, it is quite clear that the decision to drop the newly assembled atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could potentially also be the decision to put American lives and the fate of the world at risk. Therefore, there must be alternative solutions to this dilemma in order to quickly end the war in Japan while also instilling fear in the Soviet Union to stop the spread of Communism. One potential alternative to the utilization of nuclear weapons is the notion of demonstration of nuclear power, rather than unleashing nuclear weapons of mass destruction upon largely inhabited cities. Though this would still have negative impacts on the environment, no lives would be put in danger and it would have a less negative impact on U.S. foreign relations with other nations. Additionally, it would display to Japan, the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world that the United States possesses nuclear power, which would likely inflict fear upon these nations and hopefully result in a swift end to the war. It is quite possible that a demonstration of nuclear power rather than a direct nuclear attack upon a largely populated region would still effectively end the war in Japan without putting American lives -- or lives in general -- at risk, while also demonstrating U.S. possession of nuclear power to the Soviet Union and other nations. Though the demonstration of nuclear weaponry still has the potential to provoke a nuclear arms race, the notion of mutually assured destruction will likely deter the Soviet Union, Japan, and other nations from utilizing nuclear weapons, knowing the mass destruction that they can cause.

Solution 2: Proposal to End the War in Japan
Additionally, there is another effective alternative to the United States dropping nuclear bombs upon the largely populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which would not involve mass destruction or crimes against humanity. This alternative is the United States government must continue to urge a proposal to end the war, while also making it known that the U.S. possesses nuclear weapons. In order to ensure that there are no more casualties, the only way to do so is to peacefully end to the war. The utilization of nuclear weapons of mass destruction will certainly increase the number of casualties, while also potentially provoking a nuclear arms race that will likely lead to many more casualties. Though this suggestion might not bring the war in Japan to an end as quickly as nuclear attacks might, it might be the beginning of another -- and much greater -- war of mass destruction. It is crucial to consider this alternative. It would allow for a peaceful transition from war to a much less disastrous post-war period. Furthermore, neither a nuclear arms race nor the fear of mutually assured destruction would be as much of a concern as it would be if the United States decides to unleash its newly constructed nuclear weapons of mass destruction in Japan. It must be taken into consideration that by unleashing these weapons in a largely inhabited area will certainly lead to unimaginable damage due to long-lasting effects of nuclear radiation. Not only would this result in less casualties overall, it will essentially allow for a much more amicable relationship between Japan, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Which, in turn, would allow for negotiations among these nations to be carried out more amicably.
Overall, while considering the utilization of nuclear bombs on the largely populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is crucial to consider these two alternatives that could prove to be substantially more effective. Straying away from nuclear attacks upon inhabited areas and focusing more on a nuclear demonstration within an uninhabited region or developing proposals to end the war are apt to effectively accomplish the two goals of the United States: swiftly ending the war in Japan with as few casualties as possible and revealing U.S. possession of nuclear power to the Soviet Union.

Comments

  1. UnknownFebruary 12, 2018 at 3:06 PM

    I thought that your memo was very thought out, detailed, and well-written. I found your ideas regarding the nuclear bombs to be interesting. The question of whether we should have dropped them is still prevalent today. There were, however, a few questions that I had regarding your memo. I am not aware as to whether other countries had nuclear technology or capabilities at the time that we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and am therefore unclear as to whether the threat of nuclear war was actually a threat at the time. I do believe that some show of military might was necessary in order to end the war, and that Japan was not just going to give in to talks of peace. Therefore, I am quite fond of your idea of demonstrating our nuclear might on small, less popularized areas of Japan in an attempt to urge them into peace talks while killing significantly less people. Perhaps this would have worked. Perhaps only one city needed to be bombed for the war to end, not two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownFebruary 18, 2018 at 8:08 PM

      Thank you so much for your feedback, Rachael! To answer your question regarding other countries possessing nuclear weapons -- I am also unsure as to whether or not the U.S. was the only country at the time to possess nuclear weapons. However, the point I was trying to make was that even by utilizing nuclear weapons in a demonstration, it is very likely to spark the beginning of a nuclear arms race. In other words, once other countries are aware that the U.S. possesses nuclear power, they are likely to begin creating their own nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves. Additionally, I definitely agree with you that if military force was necessary to end the war, then a much less populated area of Japan might have been a less disastrous decision.

      Delete
  2. UnknownFebruary 27, 2018 at 7:50 AM

    Hi Victoria, I think your blog post is very concise, informative and well-organized. I agree that the alternative of nuclear power demonstration is better than the nuclear attack option. I believe that it was a mistake and a tragedy that the atomic bombs were used. By dropping the bombs, the United States signalled to the world that it considered nuclear weapons to be legitimate weapons of war, leading to nuclear proliferation. However, you can also argue that atomic bomb was the best choice available to force the Japanese to surrender, as Japan's situation had been ongoing for a long time. Statistics has shown that over 200,000 people were killed in total by the atomic bomb, while it is estimated that up to 500,000 Japanese people died or disappeared in Soviet captivity. Therefore, it is argued that had the war continued, that number would have been much higher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownMarch 3, 2018 at 2:25 PM

      Thank you for your feedback! I definitely agree with you that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was extremely tragic and a mistake. This is exactly why I argued for the utilization of a nuclear demonstration or further negotiations to end the war in Japan and to save as many lives as possible. As you mentioned in your comment, I do understand that dropping nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been the only effective option in order to end the war without an even larger number of lives lost or individuals injured. However, I believe that there could have been other, less disastrous, options for ending the war in Japan while also ensuring that the least number of people would be put in danger. Thus, I do believe that a nuclear demonstration in a less populated area of Japan could have been the best option in this situation.

      Delete
  3. UnknownMarch 15, 2018 at 12:15 PM

    This memo did a great job in giving other alternatives to dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I find your second solution to be interesting because I would not have thought of this myself, although I'm not sure if this would have had any effect on Japan. only showing its destructive power in an uninhabited place might not have has as much of a psychological effect on Japanese leaders had they not had seen the destruction on the mainland. I do think that we still might have still had to invade the mainland just because our refusal to use it on them might have been mistaken as a weakness of the U.S. to them. I do know that dropping or not dropping the bombs would not have m]had much effect because I have read some things that suggested that the Soviet Union had spies in the U.S. so they already knew about U.S. nuclear capabilities. Overall, your memorandum was very interesting to read, and I have wondered myself if there were any other options the that could have been explored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownMarch 26, 2018 at 9:19 AM

      Thank you for your insight! I definitely understand how dropping the nuclear bombs on the largely populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a much more psychological and powerfully persuasive impact on the Japanese and the Soviets. With that being said, I do think that the dropping of the nuclear bombs was successful at ending the war and doing so without risking as many American lives. However, I do feel as though other options could have been considered in order to ensure that the least possible lives were lost, or even risked. Additionally, if the Soviets did know about the nuclear capabilities of the United States then I’m not so sure of how effective or persuasive a nuclear demonstration would have been if they were already aware of our capabilities. Thus, I believe that peaceful negotiations should have been considered more deeply in order protect as many lives as possible.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

U.S Foreign Policy towards Middle East

After World War II, the overriding concern of American foreign policy was finding a new way to check Soviet expansion and influence throughout the world. The Middle East, specifically, was a vulnerable target for the U.S. and Soviet Union after British and French colonialism. That said, US foreign policy towards the Middle East was not completely linear during the past century. Instead, it can be divided into two periods — during the Cold War and after the Cold War. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was mostly a reaction to Soviet strength, position, and action. [1] After the Cold War, the Middle East — being considered as part of the Third World, was to be “exploited” for the needs of the industrial societies and to “fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market.”[2] In other words, peace and oil have been the main focus of US foreign policy in the Middle East after the Cold War.  During the Cold War, the Soviet goal was to achieve strategic pari...
Read more

Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement

TO: President Donald Trump FROM: Matt Fitzgerald DATE: April 29, 2018 SUBJECT: Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement Introduction Climate change has been increasingly affecting Earth ever since the industrial revolution. Earth has been becoming warmer every month. Sea levels have been rising, and coastlines have been disappearing. Something needs to be done so that the effects of climate change do not become permanent. There have been many failed global attempts to decrease our carbon emissions, and many countries including the three largest polluters, the U.S., China, and India are reluctant to do so. Only one attempt looks promising to help start the trend towards using green energy. The Paris Accords might not be perfect, but it is a good start to the world using green energy. Option 1 Pulling out of the Accords will be a reckless long-term decision. The U.S. needs to be the leader of the free world. The U.S. is the largest polluter in terms of population. W...
Read more

Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea

Memorandum Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea To: President Donald Trump CC: Professor Shirk From: Foreign Policy Analyst, Victoria Hassan Subject: The North Korean Nuclear Arsenal Dilemma Issue: If not already, North Korea is very close to achieving nuclear armed international ballistic missile capability that is capable of reaching the United States and other regions of North America. Even to experts, North Korea’s motive and intentions for building up a nuclear arsenal have been quite unclear and unpredictable. Recently, there has been much debate as to whether or not the United States should take military action regarding North Korea’s reluctance to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula. However, U.S. military action and complete U.S.  inaction are not the only options for dealing with North Korea. Option 1: Trump-Kim Summit Peaceful Negotiations Avoiding military action and possibly the use of nuclear weapons agai...
Read more