Abstract
The revolution in physics in the early twentieth century was utilized before its mid-point to develop revolutionary weapons of extraordinary power, following a path that has been repeated again and again in history with other scientific advances. The peaceful and military uses of the atom were seen as “Siamese twins” or as “Janus headed,” which meant that not only the proliferation threat emanating from dedicated weapon programs in states, but also that of the misuse of civil programs by states, needed to be addressed. Nuclear science and technology was developed in wartime for military purposes, but since the dawn of the nuclear age, its civil possibilities were foreseen, and its dual nature was present in policy makers’ and academics’ minds. The dual-use nature of the technology, and the high technological hurdles to its development at the outset of the nuclear age led to predominantly supply-side approaches such as export controls to deal with the risks of proliferation. While this focus has persisted, it has evolved over the decades in response to experience and today is complemented by growing attention to the demand side. From this perspective, the history of nuclear energy, the past history and current and future prospects of nuclear proliferation and the development of the nonproliferation regime, can be seen as elements of a race between nuclear technology diffusion on the one hand and technological and institutional efforts to combat proliferation on the other. This paper explores the military influences that shaped the earliest applications of nuclear science and technology, the promise of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes that highlighted the dual nature of the atom and the long standing efforts and debates over the control of this revolutionary science and technology.
The views expressed are the author’s own and not those of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of Energy or any other agency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In the 1940s, the threat was seen to emanate from states. Over the intervening decades, the threat has evolved and today covers a wide range of possibilities. Proliferation and terrorism could involve state or nonstate actors, or state support of nonstate actors. The threat could take a variety of forms. Nuclear proliferation can involve everything from the establishment of a virtual capability to produce weapon-usable materials to a full-blown weapon program. Nuclear and radiological terrorism can range from the threat or use of a nuclear weapon to the dispersal of radiological material and attacks or sabotage against nuclear facilities or transport. Not only are there different forms of proliferation and terrorism, but each differs in terms of enabling and other factors such as the materials and facilities involved, the technological sophistication required of the state or nonstate actors, their strategies, motivations and intentions, etc., and, most notably, the probability and the consequence of successful execution.
- 2.
- 3.
Sidney Drell has wondered what might have occurred had fission been identified in 1934 rather than 1938.
- 4.
For details on these programs, See Pilat (2007).
- 5.
This perception is largely based on the spread of centrifuge enrichment technology by the A.Q. Khan network and, to the extent it may represent an overreaction, may be reconsidered in the future.
- 6.
For a wide-ranging debate over the fate of the international nuclear order and the NPT regime, see the essays in International Affairs 83, (3, May 2007): 427–574.
- 7.
See ElBaradei (2003). See also the report of experts that followed up the original ElBaradei proposal, Multilateral approaches to the Fuel Cycle, Expert Group Report submitted to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued as INFCIRC/640 at www.iaea.org Accessed Feb. 2014.
References
Atomic Archive. (1940, March). The Frisch-Perls memorandum. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Begin/FrischPeierls.shtml. Accessed February, 2014.
Baruch, B. (1946, June 14). Statement of United States policy, presented to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.
Bundy, M. G. (1990). Danger and survival: Choices about the bomb in the first fifty years. New York: Vintage Books.
Cohen, A. (1998). Israel and the bomb. New York: Columbia University Press.
Einstein, A. (1939, August 2). Letter to president Franklin D. Roosevelt. http://research.archives.gov/description/593374
Eisenhower, D. D. (1953, December 8). Address by Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, to the 470th Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. http://www.iaea.org/About/atomsforpeace_speech.html. Accessed February, 2014.
ElBaradei, M. (2003, October 18). Toward a safer world. The Economist.
Fermi, E. (1934). Radioattività indotta da bombardamento di neutron. La Ricerca scientifica, 1(5), 283.
Fermi, E. et al. (1934). Artificial radioactivity produced by neutron bombardment. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 146(857), 48–500
Gowing, M., & Arnold, L. (1974). Independence and deterrence: Britain and atomic energy, 1945–1952 (Vol. 2). London: The Macmillan Press.
Hewlett, R. G., & Anderson, O. E. (1962). The new world, 1939-1946. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hewlett, R. G., & Duncan, F. (1969). Atomic shield, 1947-1952. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hewlett, R. G., & Holl, J. M. (1989). Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961: Eisenhower and the atomic energy commission. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Holloway, D. (1994). Stalin and the bomb: the soviet union and atomic energy 1939-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (n.d). Multilateral approaches to the Fuel Cycle, Expert Group Report submitted to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued as INFCIRC/640 at http://www.iaea.org
International Control of Atomic Energy. (1946, March 16). Report prepared for the secretary of state’s committee on atomic energy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Lewis, J., & Xue, L. (1988). China builds the bomb. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lovelock, J. (2004, May 24). Nuclear power is the only green solution. The Independent. http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm. Accessed February, 2014.
Markey, E. J. (1982). Nuclear peril: The politics of proliferation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Moore, P. (2008, April 12). Nuclear power: Massachusetts is facing up to carbon choices. Patriot Ledger. http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x1403477302. Accessed February, 2014.
Nader, R. (2007, September 11). Nuclear power is not the answer. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/11/3761/. Accessed February, 2014.
Newhouse, J. (1989). War and peace in the nuclear age. New York: Knopf.
Perkovich, G. (2001). India’s nuclear bomb: The impact on global proliferation, updated with a new afterword. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pilat, J. (Ed.). (2007). Atoms for peace: A future after fifty years? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pilat, J. F., & Budlong-Sylvester, K. W. (2010, July 11–15): The role of proliferation resistance in addressing non-state actors. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting. Baltimore, MD: INMM.
Report of the Nuclear Energy Policy Subgroup. (1977). Nuclear power: issues and choices. Sponsored by the Ford Foundation, Administered by the MITRE Corporation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Rhodes, R. (1986). The making of the atomic bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Scheinman, L. (1965). Atomic energy policy in france under the fourth republic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schroeer, D. (1984). Science, technology and the arms race. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Szilard, L. (1978). Letter from Leo Szilard to Sir Hugo Hirst, March 17, 1934. In: S.R. Weart, & G. W. Szilard. Leo Szilard: His version of the facts selected recollections and correspondence (pp. 38–40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wells, H. G. (2014). The world set free. San Bernadino, CA: n. p.
Wohlstetter A, et al. (1976). Moving toward life in a nuclear armed crowd?. Report to the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Los Angeles, CA: Pan Heuristics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pilat, J.F. (2014). Nuclear Science and Technology: The Race Between Weapons and Controls. In: Mayer, M., Carpes, M., Knoblich, R. (eds) The Global Politics of Science and Technology - Vol. 1. Global Power Shift. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55007-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55007-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-55006-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-55007-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)