Photo Courtesy of USA Postage Stamps

Atoms for Peace or for War?

                "Today we have learned in the agony of war that great power involves great responsibility."  - Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1945.

            In the 1940’s the United States invented, tested and exploded a new kind of weapon of mass destruction that had never been seen before. The Atomic Bomb. This bomb was so much larger than anything anyone had ever imagined. The United States spent the next 10 years using this weapon to hold over their enemies’ heads and to perhaps boss their way around the world. President Harry Truman and his successor Dwight Eisenhower were both big fans of using this weapon to get their way and as a persuasive tactic (Richard Nixon would later use similar tactics). According to the Oliver Stone, Peter Kusnick book The Untold History of the United States, the U.S.’s stockpile of atomic weapons went from 1,000 to 22,000 during the Eisenhower administration.  But Eisenhower had a greater purpose, perhaps one he didn’t even intend.

            In December of 1953, President Eisenhower delivered a most powerful speech concerning atomic energy. Atomic energy had much been a secret to the public since inception, but the President sort of came clean on the matter in this speech. The President spoke in sincere terms to the General Assembly that night: “I beg you to believe that the facts I shall reveal concerning the atomic power of the United States are not presented boastfully or truculently, or threateningly”. "Eisenhower Archives" He warned the Assembly that the nuclear arms race was completely out of hand and that it threatened the existence of mankind altogether. He called for an agreement between nations possessing nuclear weapons to stop making them and to use the technology for good.

            This speech was perhaps dishonest in its intentions at the time but has since proven to have worked well by allowing nuclear and atomic energy to be used as beneficial for the world instead of for its destruction. In all of the readings that may have shed Eisenhower in a negative light as a cold war proponent and someone willing to drop an atomic bomb on anyone he pleased, I invite them to take a look at one of Eisenhower’s more lasting accomplishments.

            There is a lot to argue on whether the actions President Eisenhower set into motion did more good than bad; perhaps more countries possess nuclear weapons today than would have if not for Eisenhower’s initiatives, but I argue that this was a bold visionary move, risky yes, but one that has done far more good than bad.

            Perhaps the best thing it did was give a name to a band formed by one of my favorite musicians, Thom Yorke.

Not Just A Running Mate

                 When most Americans go to the polls every fourth November to vote for their President, they usually think of how well he will do and whether he will work for them and whether he is honest and decent. They much less often think of how the man he chose to run with him will do should something happen to our elected leader. Sure, John McCain’s vice presidential selection of Sarah Palin may have been the final nail in his coffin, but most people believe there was no stopping the Obama train anyway. But what would have happened should McCain have won and then passed away?  President Palin? I don’t think anyone would have wanted that! But this is precisely what happened four times in the 20^th Century alone and nine times in our nation’s history. In all of these cases the men who were elected as Vice Presidents took over and became our President. Did we think of how this would affect our country? I think that in 2 of the cases in the 20^th century it greatly affected our country and the course of history. Both Harry S Truman and Lyndon B Johnson assumed office upon the death of our President and both made radical decisions to alter history and decide the lives of perhaps millions.

                After reading about the crooked placement of Truman as the Vice President to FDR in Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s book “The Untold History of the United States” and hearing former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara accounts in his movie “The Fog of War” and his book “In Retrospect” it seems that clearly a different course of history would have been taken. The popular man to run with Roosevelt in 1944 was Henry Wallace. While Wallace had an overwhelming majority of the vote from the Democratic National Committee, he was ousted by party bosses, presumably because of his anti-atomic bomb and Soviet sympathies. Had Wallace become president, would we have dropped atomic bombs on Japan and began a cold war against the Soviet Union?  I certainly think not. Wallace, in fact, ended up being fired and defamed by Truman because of his persistence to stop a nuclear arms race and conflict with Stalin and the Soviets.

                Robert McNamara has very telling quotes from President Kennedy in 1963 talking of Kennedy’s plans to withdraw all troops from Vietnam by 1965. It was only after Kennedy was assassinated that full scale war was imminent in Vietnam. McNamara, who was one of the closest to Kennedy during his presidency said this in his book “In Retrospect”; “I think it highly probable that, had President Kennedy lived, he would have pulled out of Vietnam.”

                As always, history can be and will always be debated, but there are at times too many reasons to think that the loss of our Presidents while in office have led to disastrous consequences if not poor leadership in its wake. Perhaps next time we go to vote for our President, we take a closer look at who may be running our nation in the case that something horrible should happen to the man or woman we pick to lead us.

Photos courtesy of University of Houston and Wellesley College