We still talk as though our original offer still stands. The truth of the matter is that even were the impossible to happen and Russia were to say to the world: “We have been mistaken. We accept the American and the majority plan in toto without any reservations,” we should be forced to say: “Sorry, it is too late, you have missed your chance. Your actions have made the plan unworkable, since it cannot possibly work in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and the constant threat of little wars!”
And even if wise diplomacy prevented us from saying it in such blunt language, and though we may still find it expedient to pay lip service to the majority plan, so that Russia could not use it in her propaganda war as evidence that we were insincere from the very beginning, we would have to wriggle to get out of the very serious predicament in which Russia’s acceptance would place us. And even if diplomacy dictated that we sign a convention with Russia to outlaw production and use of all atomic weapons, to destroy our stockpiles and hand over all our atomic plants to an international atomic authority, as our present plan calls for, there can be no question that such a convention could never muster the approval of even a majority of the Senate, and certainly not the required consent of two thirds of the Senate called for by the Constitution. What is more, such a rejection would have the overwhelming approval of American people, once the facts were made clear to them, and any administration daring to enter such a pact would be overwhelmingly defeated.
All this has been so evident for more than two years that it is remarkable that the Russians have failed so far to take advantage of our potential embarrassment and thus win one of their greatest victories on the propaganda front. In fact, their failure to do so, with the sure knowledge that they would risk nothing by accepting a plan that would most certainly be rejected by our own people, not only reveals lack of subtlety on their part, but appears on the surface as crass stupidity, the same type of stupidity displayed by Hitler, which appears to be an inevitable trait of all monolithic dictatorships that must lead to their ultimate undoing.
The time has come for us to stop talking about giving away our greatest weapons, the only ones, as President Truman and Winston Churchill have told us, that have kept the Red Army hordes from overrunning the free world. It is time for us to face reality and place the blame where it belongs. The evil does not lie in weapons per se. It lies in war itself. It is no evil to build and possess the most powerful weapons at our command with which to defend ourselves against a ruthless aggressor. On the contrary, it would be an evil thing to throw away the principal weapon standing between us and possible defeat. It is no evil to use a weapon to destroy your enemy just because your weapon happens to be the most powerful in existence. It is no greater evil to destroy thousands of your enemy in one great flash than to destroy them by goring them with bayonets. The real evildoer is the nation that starts an aggressive war. Those attacked have the right and duty to defend themselves by all means at their command.
Our confusion has been the result of our first use of the A-bomb to destroy a city with thousands of its civilian population. Let us admit that the mass bombing of large populated cities (which, by the way, was started by the Nazis) is wholly inexcusable with any kind of weapons, and that we should never resort to such strategic bombing again. That does not mean that we should renounce our right to use A-bombs to destroy an enemy’s armies, navies, and airfields, his transportation facilities and his oil wells—in a word, his capacity to make war against us. And as long as we use the A-bomb and the H-bomb only as weapons of tremendous power to destroy by blast and by fire, they are no different from ordinary blockbusters or incendiaries except that they concentrate their power in a small package. Is there any difference, morally speaking, between the use of thousands of blockbusters and tens of thousands of incendiaries and a weapon that concentrates all their power in one?
Probably the main reason for the confused thinking that has singled out atomic weapons as a greater evil than other weapons of mass destruction has been their radioactivity. But even the A-bombs exploded over Japan were purposely dropped from a height that carried most of the radioactivity away into the upper atmosphere. Nor will the H-bomb, as explained earlier, release great quantities of radioactivity unless it is purposely rigged to do so. We should, therefore, lose nothing and gain much if we renounced the use of A- and H-bombs as radioactive weapons except in retaliation against the use of such weapons on us or our allies. But to renounce their use altogether would be tantamount not only to physical but to spiritual suicide as well, for it would mean condoning the advance of the Red Army.
It has become customary to talk about Russia’s atom bomb as though she already was, or soon will be, on a par with us. It is true that eventually she will catch up with us in the development of a large stockpile of her own and in designing more efficient models. But that is only one side of the picture. As of 1950, and for at least until 1952, years that may well be crucial, our superiority in A-bombs will remain unchallenged, not only qualitatively but quantitatively. By that time we shall have greatly increased our lead by the possession of an effective stockpile of H-bombs. Since Russia cannot build H-bombs at the present stage without sacrificing quantities of plutonium she needs to build up her A-bomb stockpile, she will find herself compelled to build additional plutonium plants, which not only will greatly strain her resources but, more important from our point of view, will gain us additional time.
How many A-bombs can Russia make? Former Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson has told us that the A-bombs we dropped on Japan “were the only ones we had ready.” Counting the test bomb at Alamogordo, we had thus produced three bombs by mid-August 1945. This represented the total output of a two-billion-dollar plant, employing three major methods of production, after the plants had been in operation for an average of about six months. In other words, it took our two-billion-dollar plant about six months to produce three A-bombs—a rate of six A-bombs a year.
Now all the evidence at hand, as already pointed out, indicates that, instead of building three different types of plants for producing A-bomb materials, Russia is concentrating entirely on plutonium. Hence, if we assume that she built a plutonium plant equal in output to the total capacity of our wartime uranium and plutonium plants, and further assuming that her methods for producing plutonium are as efficient as ours, the best she could do at present would be at the rate of six plutonium bombs a year. At this rate she would have about eighteen by the middle of 1952. This would be a sizable stockpile for a nation in sole possession of such a weapon. But would any nation with such a stockpile dare challenge a nation with a stockpile many times bigger, consisting of bombs many times more powerful, and possessing a few hydrogen bombs to boot?
Russia will, no doubt, improve her production methods. But to improve them to the extent of producing, let us say, two bombs per month, she would have to step up her production by four hundred per cent. It is doubtful if such a step-up could be achieved in less than three years.