Nuclear Testing

       Since World War Two, the concept of nuclear warfare, and whether or not its use is justified in the midst of a war, has been up for much debate. This stems from when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, completely devastating Japan. Since then there have been many worldwide conferences and treaties written, all in an effort to effectively prohibit the use of nuclear weapons. In Jeffrey Sasha Davis’s Representing Place: "Deserted Isles" and the Reproduction of Bikini Atoll, he goes over the history of the United States’s treatment of the reef, and whether it’s fair to displace a people solely for nuclear testing. But in Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press’s The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent, they argue that in both the past and the present, the United States’s success relies on having a nuclear arsenal ready at all times. Looking back at American history, especially in regards to the ways smaller nations have been treated, it is safe to say that the United States has abused its power. But there are certain circumstances that when handled properly, it is justifiable and necessary for the U.S. to take action. And though controversial, the testing and availability of nuclear weapons must be allowed, as nations should be prepared for any event or threat that may arise. (too broad??)

       Davis’s Representing Place: "Deserted Isles" and the Reproduction of Bikini Atoll defends the native Bikinians, and argues against the United States taking them out of the Bikini Atoll to use for nuclear testing. The Bikini Atoll is a ring-shaped coral reef within the Marshall Islands, about 2500 miles west of Hawaii. For many years the atoll was seen as tropical paradise, and though it was small, it was one of the most beautiful places on earth. But when the United States noticed large amounts of radioactive contamination in previously bombed areas, such as Japan and even their own New Mexico, they knew it was in their best interest to test their nukes somewhere else. After deciding on the isolated islands of Bikini Atoll to be their target, the United States started spreading false information on the atoll and their native Bikinians, stating that the islands were unhealthy, and that the natives needed to be taken out. In the end (should i say in the end here), “the imagined cultural inferiority of the Bikinians and their supposed weak attachment to Bikini were used by the U.S. military as legitimization for their removal from their atoll. It is here that we see another place-myth emerge regarding Bikini … Bikini was represented as a marginalized place” (Davis 614-615). Davis asserts that the United States success in removing the natives from their land was completely unjust, as their basis was founded in lies. He believes that there were better ways to test nuclear weapons, especially ones that did not involve displacing people from their home. In fact, “there was widespread disapproval in the United States over using Bikini as an atomic test site as well as lamentation on the part of Americans on Bikini that the atoll was going to be damaged by testing” (Davis 615). Davis is not alone here; during the 1940’s and 50’s when these bombings were taken place, most of the U.S. population was against destroying an innocent islands. However, the United States was so skilled in creating their own story, that there was nothing anyone else could do. Davis, like many others, weren’t necessarily against the United States testing their bombs and making sure they were ready; they just had reservations over unjustly removing people from their homeland, and rendering it useless and uninhabitable. If the U.S. deemed that necessary for testing their nuclear bombs, then they just shouldn’t be doing it to begin with, even if the goal was to protect all Americans. Furthermore, “in any contest over place, to say that your view of place is right and another group’s view of a place is wrong is only the start” of signs that your nation relies on exploitation to be successful (Davis 622). This couldn't be more true for the United States, because spreading of false representations and beliefs is what got the Bikini Atoll destroyed in the first place. In the end, Davis believes that if a nation has to take drastic, and sometimes destructive, measures to achieve its goal, it shouldn't be done at all. (too wordy??)

       Contrarily, Lieber and Press’s The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent discusses the need for continued nuclear testing in the 21st century, especially through the lens of America during the 1900’s. In the past couple decades, we have seen a strong deterrence in the use of nuclear weapons within conflicts. But with more worldwide disputes popping up, it puts strong nations, like the United States, in a difficult spot. While the idea of every country putting away their nuclear armaments sound great, Lieber and Press demonstrate that that is just not possible. If the United States were to go to war, their, “adversaries would have powerful incentives to brandish or use nuclear weapons because their lives, their families, and the survival of their regimes would be at stake” (Lieber and Press 40). Lieber and Press believe that countries like the U.S. should be prepared for the worst. They must realize that other countries are fighting for their lives and future, and will try to defend themselves, and do what it takes to win the war, at any cost. So, the United States must act the same way. But after World War Two, nations didn’t just create and test nuclear weapons to strictly use on their opponents. A big part of having, “nuclear forces [was] to deter nuclear attacks on the United States and its allies” (Lieber and Press 41). A big reason for testing nukes was simply to show the rest of the world that they were armed and dangerous; they didn’t want any other countries to mess (better word??) with them. And especially during the Cold War with the arms race was in full effect, both the United States and Soviet Union knew they had to stay on top of their games, which meant constantly pumping out more and more effective weapons. Because that’s what the Cold War really boiled down too; the U.S. and U.S.S.R. worked on their nuclear ordnance so they were prepared for any catastrophic event, but were both reluctant to actually use them on each other. And that meant improving their weaponry at any cost, because they understood the importance of this conflict and what it could’ve meant for the future. And by the end of the war, Lieber and Press explain that this worked, as, “nuclear weapons helped keep the peace in Europe throughout the Cold War, preventing the bitter dispute from engulfing the continent in another catastrophic conflict” (Lieber and Press 39). While it took much work and sacrifice to develop and test their nuclear arms, it seemed to be worth it within the scope of the Cold War. There have been solid arguments against the use and practice of nuclear bombs, but in the bigger picture of world peace and order, it is something all nations must consider.

       Lieber and Press highlight a multitude of good points that can be looked at when reviewing the arguments of Davis. In Davis’s novel, he illustrates the hardships of the native Bikinians, and the cruelness of the United States government to remove them from their land for the use of nuclear testing. Though never directly stated, he criticizes America’s actions, and paints the U.S. as this cruel, selfish nation that has no regard for its actions, so long as they are the ones benefiting. But Lieber and Press combat this idea, and try to convince the reader that the United States had no choice but to have their nuclear arsenal ready. And as we’ve come to learn, the only way to achieve this was to test out and assess their bombs, and obviously bombing the atoll came with this. Davis’s argument fails to think about or come up with any alternative ways that the United States could have tested out their nukes; he just denounces their actions as a whole. While he may be correct that it was shameful for the U.S. to kick the Bikinians out of their home, destroy the islands, and then lie about their reasoning, he should come to understand that there were not many other options. Lieber and Press explain that not only was it important to have bombs ready for use, but an essential part of nuclear testing was to show the rest of the world their arsenal, which was a warning to other nations. Furthermore, though these tests caused much damage to the small islands of Bikini Atoll, in reality, they did not negatively affect the rest of the world at all. The anger of the native Bikinians, and those who supported their small population, is completely warranted, because it does not seem right to destroy their islands. But what Lieber and Press point out is when you look deeper, should the United States have tested out their nuclear warheads on their own land? Not to mention the possible damage that could have occurred throughout the rest of the world if nuclear war happened. That certainly would have harmed and even killed millions of more people. There is not a clear answer to this question, but Davis should have at least addressed this point in his writing, because it is something to think about. And as we see by the end of the Cold War, these nuclear tactics were effective in deterring the superpowers of the world from engaging in combat. It definitely was not an easy decision for the United States to bomb the Bikini Atoll, but it was a sacrifice they were willing to make to protect the rest of the world.

                                                                     Work Cited

       Davis, Jeffrey Sasha. Representing Place: "Deserted Isles" and the Reproduction of Bikini Atoll. 

Taylor & Francis Group, 2005. 

       Lieber, Kier, and Daryl Press. The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent. Council 

on Foreign Relations, 2009.
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/20699714?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A3f654d6bab150773a6dbc2d2453388db&seq=1)