Andrew Eisel

Prof Babcock

Paradigm Shift

20 November 2020

“In nuclear war all men are cremated equal” (Dexter Gordon). War could be considered

humanity’s downfall. War is not kind and has no feeling for any side. War is something that

every generation of human history has dealt with, and every generation after will deal with it as

well. The concept of war has remained relatively the same since the beginning of time, lose

fewer men than the other side, and be victorious. This concept has remained unchanged until the

late 1940s, when weapons of mass destruction altered the definition of "winning" a war. In 1945,

the United States’ involvement in World War II ended abruptly when Harry Truman decided to

drop two atomic bombs on Japan. These bombs instantly killed hundreds of thousands of people

and thousands more perished later from the after-effects, which included radiation poisoning and

cancer. War was no longer about strategically trying to win battles and save your men, but

instead, a strategy of who could take the most innocent lives and force immediate surrender. The

day the atomic bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped, the world saw a change, a

paradigm shift in the way wars would be fought between continental powers, a change in how

foreign diplomacy would operate, a difference in the culture surrounding the war, and even a

psychological shift in the creators, users, and victims of nuclear weapons.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be

fought with sticks and stones" (Albert Einstein). One of the key physicists involved in the

Manhattan Project, which facilitated the creation of the nuclear bomb, uttered this quote a few

years after the detonation and use of the first atomic bombs. Atomic bombs can kill so many, so
fast that there is very little necessity for ground troops anymore. For all of history, manpower has

been the leading force in war. Who has enough willpower and fight in their hearts to bring their

country victory? In the modern 21st century, none of that matters anymore. "Now, countries that

went to war with atomic weapons would face a stalemate neither would want to break. An

atomic war was unwinnable and, perhaps, unmanageable" (Nilsson). As of July, the US has

nearly 6,800 active nuclear warheads (Abramson) ready to use at a moment’s notice. The sheer

power of one bomb is enough to wipe out an entire city, but with thousands of these bombs, the

next one more powerful than the one before it, the world would end in disaster. War, as we are

taught in the history book, will never be fought the same. Future wars between national powers

will be fought by politicians who only use threats against one another to try and scare the other

side. The shift from ground combat and tactical strategies to political war is a shift that may be

sought after. After all, no bloodshed means that the world is inching closer towards world peace,

right? On the surface, this shift would seem beneficial to the entire world. But under further

inspection, one realizes that there is no more combat because humanity has realized that the next

war will be the last. 

"Long ago the earth was covered with water and it was destroyed. 7 But the heaven we

see now and the earth we live on now have been kept by His word. They will be kept until they

are to be destroyed by fire (The Bible. The New Oxford Annotated Version, Peter. 6-7). One's

beliefs prove the validity of any statement coming from the Bible, but since the creation of

nuclear weapons, the statement from Peter seems more and more like it could be a reality. Not

only has the way we fought wars changed since the creation and use of a nuclear bomb, but the

outcome of the wars will forever be changed. The American Revolutionary War led to American

independence. The French Revolution led to a new political stature in France. The Vietnam War
helped slow the spread of communism. However, the next great war will have a much more

devastating outcome. That outcome being no outcome at all, but a nuclear apocalypse. Not only

would millions of innocent lives be lost on both sides, but the environmental impact the bombs

would have on the world would almost certainly threaten all of civilization. 

In a nuclear war, cities and industrial areas would be targeted, thereby producing tons of

smoke as they burn. Some of that smoke would make it into the stratosphere — above the

weather — where it would stay for years because there's no rain to wash it out. That

smoke would expand around the world as it heats up, blocking out sunlight over much of 

Earth. As a result, the world would experience colder temperatures and less precipitation, 

depleting much of the globe's agricultural output. That, potentially, would lead to 

widespread famine in a matter of years (Ward).

The fundamental reason wars are fought has changed. One side no longer wins while the other

side is left in devastation. The atomic bomb has made war an unwinnable situation. Not just for

the countries involved, but for everyone on our planet.

Humanity is not foolish enough to destroy itself, is it? Up until this point, the answer is

no. In 1945, shortly after the end of World War II, the United Nations was created. "The United

Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51

countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly

relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

(“History of the UN Seventieth Anniversary”)" The point of this essay is not to promote war or

attempt to convince the reader that the outcome of war is always beneficial. However, that is not

to say that the entire geopolitical landscape has not shifted. Modern Presidential elections can be

won based on a candidate's foreign policy. With the US having the power to destroy the world
and other countries holding that same right, the strategy on foreign relations has become

extremely critical. With the advent of the nuclear bomb, the relationship you have with every

country and its allies is extremely important. Rising tensions between Pakistan and India could

spark a nuclear war at any time. While on the other side of the world, the relationship between

China and the United States could lead to disaster as well. The shift in the importance of

impeccable foreign policy cannot be talked about without mentioning a nuclear war. Every

country is fully aware that mankind has the power to destroy itself. In modern day life, the threat

of immediate destruction of mankind is nothing shy of common knowledge. Ask someone one

hundred years ago, if there was any way they could wake up tomorrow and see the fall of

humanity and they would most likely say no. Some could argue that nuclear weapons have

created peace around the world because political leaders now understand how dangerous they

are, but that school of thought only lasts until someone decides to use them.

A nuclear weapon hasn’t been used in aggression since late 1945, but that isn’t to say that

there have not been a few close calls in the past 80 years. The Cold War is yet another example

of how foreign diplomacy had shifted because of the creation of these weapons of mass

destruction. The leading reasons for the Cold War did not include the creation of nuclear

weapons, but how this conflict was handled was vastly different because of them.

President Truman announced that the United States would build an even more destructive

atomic weapon: the hydrogen bomb, or “superbomb.” Stalin followed suit. As a result,

the stakes of the Cold War were perilously high. The first H-bomb test, in the Eniwetok

atoll in the Marshall Islands, showed just how fearsome the nuclear age could be

(History.com Editors. “Cold War History.” History.com).

Previously political conflicts could end in a bloody war with casualties mounting high on both

sides. In the recent past, present, and future, poorly handled political conflicts could have a much

sinister outcome.

On a political scale, the atomic bomb has forever changed the climate of large-scale war.

However, the culture surrounding war, including cinematic and pop culture, changed too. Before

the inception of the bomb, mass destruction was just an artistic idea and not a reality. "Atomic

culture is also prevalent in the daily lives of Americans, becoming so ordinary that we don't even

notice the extent to which the bomb has permeated our society" (“Atomic Culture”). In the pre-

atomic war era, many families were not worried about a singular event that could potentially end

civilization as they know it. The post-atomic war era changed all that. Until the end of the Cold

War, schools, families, and even places of work were all trained on what to do in the event of a

nuclear attack. Bomb shelters were put in place in every community in the country, and videos

were broadcast on television, instructing people on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack.

This shift from no concern of a nuclear war to a full-scale educational operation was one that

changed the world forever. There are few people in modern life that could not tell you what a

"nuke" is. Movies and video games have entire plots based on nuclear wars. For example, one of

the most successful video game franchises in modern history, "Fallout", is based upon surviving

a nuclear holocaust. Not only have tensions arisen, the concept of war changed, but even pop

culture has learned that the atomic era is now the modern era and has been receptive to that fact. 

Mental toughness. Every youth football coach preaches it, but what does it really mean?

It is a known fact that many soldiers that return home are left with despairing memories of fallen

friends, and memories of the lives they had to take during action. However, this mental cloud of

depression and sadness that looms over a soldier’s head is no bigger than one who is involved in
the creation of a nuclear war head. “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds” (J.

ROBERT OPPENHEIMER). One of the key scientists that helped create and test some of the

first nuclear bombs in history, had more lives on his shoulders than most anyone involved in

World War II. Doctor Oppenheimer never fired a shot, and never even stepped foot onto a

battlefield during the second world war. However, with the nuclear bomb, there was a shift in

who was really the one that was to blame for the lives taken. Some would argue that Harry

Truman was at fault for the hundreds of thousands of lives taken in Japan, and some may argue it

was Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay. Before this point, bloodshed was a mental battle

between the person who fired the shot, and themselves. However, with the creation of nuclear

weapons, the “team” aspect of a project like this leaves many feelings personally at fault. Tibbets

himself said,

I felt that it gave me a tremendous responsibility. Yes, because as I say, I wanted success.

I knew success was possible. I learned this as I worked with the people at the Manhattan

District, particularly Dr. Oppenheimer and the people at Los Alamos. They were

perfectionists. I saw that in everything that they did. Well, I wanted to be a perfectionist. I

had been classified as being just that in relation to my military career. I went right ahead

with it (General Paul Tibbets).

Much like Oppenheimer, they both felt some responsibility for the destruction caused in August

of 1945. Unlike soldiers in previous conflicts, taking a life was a personal battle that each soldier

had to overcome, but with the advent of the atom bomb, it was something scientists, pilots, and

even presidents had to take on.

Not only does the “team” it takes to create and use such a bomb feel the mental and

psychological stress and depression of these bombs, but so do the citizens effected. Yes, in
previous wars, the citizens of enemy countries felt and maybe even lived through some of the

adverse effects of war, but the significance of these effects was heightened with the nuclear

bomb. Limited studies were taken in the aftermath of the tragedies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

but one study had reported some serious mental health effects. “In one of the few health studies

conducted immediately after the bombing which touched upon mental health, it was found that

survivors exhibited signs of neurosis, the former name for a category of mental disorders

characterized by anxiety and avoidance behavior” (Yeo). These people in Japan that were

affected had never put on a Japanese uniform. They had never taken an enemy’s life, and most

had probably never had any intentions of ever being involved with the war. However, their lives

were altered in unimaginable ways due to the atom bomb. “Distress was most strongly related to

social activity - apathy, disrupted personal relationships, loss of pleasantness of living -

suggesting that witnessing the bombing continues to have an impact on the daily life of survivors

even half a century later” (Yeo). In previous global conflicts, the citizens of enemy sides were

not always living in fear of losing their homes and loved ones. Throughout history there were

instances of grieving in the homelands of many countries at war, but the atom bomb has put

lurking thoughts in the back of everyone’s mind as to how they would personally be affected by

an all-out nuclear war.

The outcome of the next war will be seen by few. The mass destruction of the world will

not be because of an outside entity, but because mankind destroyed themselves. Perhaps, “The

living will envy the dead” (Nikita Khrushchev). One hundred years ago, this was not a reality,

but with the onset of the atomic bomb, it is something we all must live with. Wars have shifted

from a single event with a victor to a compilation of horrors that would lead to the demise of

mankind. Foreign policy has become one of the most important concepts in modern politics. And
pop culture has accepted that nuclear warfare is something this generation must live with.

Nuclear destruction is imminent. However, the question lies in whether the elimination will be of

mankind or the bombs themselves.

 Works Cited

Abramson, Alana. “How Many Nuclear Weapons Does the U.S. Have?” Time, Time, 9 Aug.

2017, time.com/4893175/united-states-nuclear-weapons/.

“Atomic Culture.” Atomic Heritage Foundation, 9 Aug. 2017,

www.atomicheritage.org/history/atomic-culture.

Dexter Gordon, attributed, 100 Common Misconceptions About Dexter Gordon

“History of the UN Seventieth Anniversary.” United Nations, United Nations,

www.un.org/un70/en/content/history/index.html.

History.com Editors. “Cold War History.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 27 Oct.

2009, www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cold-war-history.

General Paul Tibbets. Interview with Tom Ryan. “Reflection on Hiroshima.” Buckeye Aviation

Book Company, 1989

J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER, interview, The Decision to Drop the Bomb

Nikita Khrushchev, speaking of nuclear war, "Hiding from the Bomb--Again", Harper's, August

1979

Nilsson, Jeff, and Nicholas Gilmore. “How Hiroshima Changed the Way We Think about War.”

The Saturday Evening Post, 22 Aug. 2019,

www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/08/hiroshima-changed-way-think-war/.
The Bible. The New Oxford Annotated Version, 3rd ed., Oxford UP, 2001.

Ward, Alex. “This Is Exactly How a Nuclear War Would Kill You.” Vox, Vox, 19 Oct. 2018,

www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/19/17873822/nuclear-war-weapons-bombs-how-kill.

Yeo, Dana. Psychological Fallout of Atomic Bomb in Nagasaki,

large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/yeo1/.