Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy Since 1945
This edited volume performs two services. First, it challenges the argument of the historian John Mueller: the long peace among the great powers since 1945 and the limited character of the Korean War were caused by a general fear of major war, not of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Mueller's argument is not adequately addressed, since the necessary counterfactuals require a careful analysis of one war (Korea) and several crises, none of which any author here examines closely. But the book better handles its second task: assembling cutting-edge historical essays on how the leading statesmen of the Cold War's first half -- Truman, Stalin, Mao, Eisenhower, Dulles, Kennedy, Khrushchev, Churchill, de Gaulle, and Adenauer -- viewed nuclear weapons. This objective is admirably attained, even though the authors (with the exception of Philip Nash) examine attitudes more than particular events. But these leaders' attitudes did evolve, perhaps none more poignantly than Dwight Eisenhower's. Andrew Erdmann writes that as Eisenhower was leaving office, this torn man "simultaneously clung to nuclear weapons tighter than ever, while trying to push them away."
Related
The specter of weapons of mass destruction being used against America looms larger today than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. The World Trade Center bombing scarcely hints at the enormity of the danger. America is prepared only for conventional terrorism, not a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons catastrophe. With the right approach and organization, however, the United States can be ready. Herewith a plan to reorganize the U.S. government to ensure that it can handle the threats of the next century.
Ronald Reagan's dream never died; it only faded slightly. Star Wars is still with us in a scaled-back form. Although theater missile defenses -- popularized by the Gulf War's Patriots -- are now widely accepted, debate still rages over a nationwide system. Republicans worry about rogue states and terrorists with nukes, Democrats worry about angering Russia and violating treaty obligations, and neither side listens to the other. America is pouring billions of dollars into research and development, ignoring the fundamental flaws that missile defense has yet to overcome.
The Clinton administration supports crippling economic sanctions that punish the Iraqi people but seems ready to live with the demise of international inspections to monitor Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Washington has it exactly backward. It should offer Baghdad a blunt trade: lightened sanctions in return for renewed, intrusive arms inspections. The sweeping sanctions regime does nothing to advance U.S. interests, undermine Saddam, or contain Iraq. Leaving Saddam's arsenal unwatched is folly. Better to have arms inspections without sanctions than sanctions without arms inspections.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.