How Ike Can Help Obama’s No Nukes QuestNews Abroad
Early into President Dwight Eisenhower’s first term, the Soviet Union set off a hydrogen bomb--one far more powerful than the atomic bomb. Ike sought diplomatic initiatives as a way of controlling the new nuclear threat and reducing the chance of war.
In May, 1955 President Eisenhower and his national security team assembled for a critical meeting about the Cold War arms race with the Soviet Union.
Harold Stassen, the president’s new disarmament advisor, reported that within several years the Soviets could have “the power to destroy effectively the United States through a surprise attack."
Eisenhower’s reaction at this meeting? Doodling. Yes, that’s right -- doodling. But according to Stassen, this meant he had the president’s attention.
That summer at the Geneva Conference, Eisenhower would unveil his “open skies for peace” plan to the Soviets. U.S. planes would be allowed to fly over the Soviet Union and in return Soviet planes could undertake missions over American soil.
The idea was to promote openness by assuring the other country that no surprise attack preparations were taking place. Key agreements on disarmament would hopefully follow. As Ike said, “what I propose, I assure you, would be but a beginning.”
A Cincinnati Post editorial called open skies a potential “bridge to peace.” This was a far cheerier headline than one the Post had printed weeks before about a civil defense drill for nuclear attack. Harold Stassen, at the UN on October 7, 1955, even talked about extending Ike’s plan to include more nations.
The open skies proposal helped bring about a “spirit of Geneva” that offered at least a slight break from Cold War tensions. However, the plan was not accepted by the Soviet Union and that seemed the end of it.
In 1989 President George H. Bush brought back Ike’s initiative and within 3 years the Open Skies Treaty was signed that today includes 34 nations.
Remember Sarah Palin in the 2008 presidential campaign talking about Russian planes flying into U.S. airspace? Well, it’s true under the Open Skies Treaty, although in a peaceful way. It is now quite routine for Russian planes to fly over the U.S. and vice versa.
Today, President Obama should try to expand the “open skies” concept to areas with nuclear tensions, including the India-Pakistan border and on the Korean peninsula. This type of confidence building step can help set the stage for nuclear disarmament.
India and Pakistan are two neighbors armed with nuclear weapons and who share a history of conflict and tensions. In 2001, two retired air marshals, Mohammed Arshad Chaudhry (Pakistan) and K.C. Cariappa (India), called for a step-by step approach to develop “open skies” inspections between the two nuclear-armed rivals. They recommended “an experimental flight in a selected sector.”
The two air marshals also warned of the danger that exists between India and Pakistan where, “even a minor confrontation could get out of hand and engulf the region, and perhaps even the world in a nuclear holocaust.”
For North and South Korea, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the Center for Security Studies have advocated a trial open skies flight. This can be a step toward enhancing military cooperation between the Koreas and establishing inspections routines needed for nuclear disarmament.
Another initiative started by Ike, a treaty ending nuclear weapons testing, will also prove valuable to Obama’s no nukes quest. But the U.S. and eight other nations have still not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The U.S. Senate voted against the treaty in 1999.
The CTBT relies on its global monitoring system to detect nuclear explosions. This is critical because a nation could try to cheat the treaty and conduct nuclear explosions in secret. The detection of nuclear tests has been so thoroughly studied that it has included, of all things, nuclear bombs being set off in Mississipi during the 1960s. These were two underground nuclear blasts near the town of Hattiesburg as part of Project Vela, which was set in motion by the Eisenhower administration. The purpose of the Mississippi blasts and others in Vela was to increase the U.S. capability of detecting underground nuclear tests.
Dr. James Killian, Eisenhower’s science advisor, wrote in his 1977 memoir that Project Vela “has made the detection of underground nuclear tests and earthquakes more powerful… The Vela program led to the establishment of many high quality seismic stations in friendly countries around the world.”
Another key point made by Killian and others with regard to evasive nuclear tests is the lengths a country would have to go to carry it out. Burying an underground nuclear test is extremely expensive and challenging.
The test ban treaty is critical for realigning foreign policy priorities away from expensive nuclear weapons spending. It would be foolish to waste vital resources on new nuclear weapons and testing when it could be better spent on initiatives to fight hunger and build peace in the developing world.
Ike believed that nuclear weapons were the only thing that could destroy the United States. His open skies and test ban initiatives were to put brakes on the arms race and pave the way toward nuclear disarmament. President Obama is now the leader facing the nuclear menace. He can wisely build upon Ike’s effforts in seeking to control the nuclear threat that looms over the world.
comments powered by Disqus
Arnold Shcherban - 10/29/2009
There are only two countries in the world, at the least one of which is going to actually use nuclear weapons FIRST in the foreseeable future: USA and Israel.
(One of those has already done so in the past.)
But it always will be Iran or North Korea or other state accused of preparing to do so and being severely punished for that,... since might is right.
Arnold Shcherban - 10/29/2009
The types who frequently employ "pipe dream" legend are the ones who at its respective time denied every possibility that later became a certainty, i.e. actuality.
This type of thinking, called ahistorical and/or apocalyptic, is especially dominant among religious and ideological fanatics, which traditionally are claimed to be "enemies of freedom"...
We have been told that communists never ever change but they not only did change but denounce their own system and ideology. We also have been told that Russian nuclear surprise attack is imminent and unavoidable - the logical conclusion
from the communist inborn aggressiveness and disregard to human life. We have been warned about doom and gloom following the realization of the "domino theory", about "deadly threat" Castro's Cuba, Lybian terrorists, Grenadian Marxists, Panamian and Columbian drugdealers, Hussein's Iraq and many others, in their turn. Nothing of which haven't realized. So what are those apocalyptic professes were made for?
The explanation as simple as profound
(since well-grounded in facts): to justify what have been invariably realized - the US permanent
imperialistic aggression around the world.
That's the divine truth about and behind so-called pipe dreams and their opponents.
Vernon Clayson - 10/26/2009
Perhaps things are more complicated but Eisenhower knew war, our current president knows community organizing. Where is the man that knows war and foreign politics and has the courage to confront our enemies both literally and figuratively? A world of peace with common interests and free of WMD is a pipe dream. Eisenhower dealt with the giants of the 20th century, our current president deals with petty and peculiar tyrants, he can only wish to be considered on the same level. Eisenhower saw a need for interstate highways, Obama sees a need to promote himself and vague issues with daily speeches and comments. Mark Twain said big rivers need big men, in the same vein big countries need big men but where are they?
J R Willis - 10/26/2009
The Earth has turned about the Sun many times since the 1950's, and, well, things are a bit more complicated now.
Reviving a 40-year-old strategy is a bit dangerous, if not stupid, especially one that failed. The "skies" are only part of the problem, the "knowledge" is the the other portion.
What sense does it make to give up a weapon when every thug on the planet is actively seeking to aquire the same? And, in some cases, for the express purpose of delivering it (radio-actively) to free nations?
Vernon Clayson - 10/26/2009
Hogwash, first things first, Obama needs to focus on Afghanistan, fight a war or get out, before he concerns himself with nuclear disarmament. Why worry about nuclear devices when the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, etal, are killing people, including our military, with crude explosives. Make them pay dearly for that. perhaps they will think twice before bringing on nuclear war.
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- One of the last remaining Nazis goes on trial in Germany
- Inside story finally told of the young US diplomat who cracked the case of the murder of 4 nuns in El Salvador in 1980
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges
- English professor uses literature to help cure historical amnesia
- WSJ features an article by a conservative calling for the abolition of Black History Month
- Mary Beard, herself a bestselling author, wonders why more women historians aren't