Assignment: Using your knowledge of the period (1950s) and the documents provided support or oppose the following statement: The United States should use nuclear weapons, and their potential use, as an instrument of foreign policy.

It is absolutely necessary for the U.S. to keep and maintain nuclear weapons to use them, or their potential use, against any belligerent or threatening foe to first deter them from attacking and then if at all needed to neutralize them. For as President Ronald Reagan said it is sadly ironic that in these modern times it still takes weapons to prevent war. We cannot negotiate with the Soviets effectively from a position of weakness as the Soviets had already developed a successful atomic bomb in 1949 and were now on the same level as us. Also we would be at the mercy of another country who did not disarm as they could blackmail us. The Truman administration realized this and decided to build the all more destructive and powerful Hydrogen bomb. The use of Nuclear weapons should be a part of a flexible response policy in which the U.S. creates an advantageous position to respond to aggressive actions against it on all levels of warfare, not limiting to but including nuclear weapons. Sec. Harold Brown pushed for this policy in his report to congress saying Our planning must provide a continuum of options, ranging from small numbers of strategic and/or theater nuclear weapons aimed at narrowly defined targets, to employment of large portions of our nuclear forces against a broad spectrum of targets." In essence we must be prepared to deter and take action against enemies on all levels so to initially to try and avoid escalation of conflict. And since we cannot predict with 100% assuredness we must, as Sec. Weinberger put it, plan for flexibility in our forces and in our response options so that there is a possibility of reestablishing deterrence at the lowest possible level of violence, and avoiding further escalation." And as as Sec. McNamara put it By building into our forces a flexible capability, we at least eliminate the prospect that we could strike back in only one way, namely, against the entire Soviet target system including their cities. So, nuclear weapons are essential to the flexible response policy as it allows us if necessary to go all out and allows us to warn our enemies that we are capable of doing so. In addition the Soviets knew that we could and would use nuclear weapons against them as we had before in Japan and thus only need be clearly warned that we would and could use military or nuclear force against any aggression.

Background: Since success of the Manhattan Project, the Potsdam Conference, the atomic bombing of Japan and the threat of nuclear weapons in the Korean War, the United States has used nuclear weapons as an integral component of its foreign policy.  By the 1950s the danger posed by a nuclear confrontation between superpowers threatened everyone in the world.  Nuclear tests demonstrated the ecological damage that would pervade the results of a nuclear explosion.  All of a sudden, the use of nuclear weapons had consequences that would outlast their military use.  The US had to develop a foreign policy strategy that included many potential outcomes, both positive and negative.  John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State for President Eisenhower, designed a policy called massive retaliation.
Assignment: Using your knowledge of the period (1950s) and the documents provided, support or oppose the following statement: The United States should use nuclear weapons, and their potential use, as an instrument of foreign policy.

I oppose the following statement. I don't feel the US should
nuclear weapons as an instrument of foreign policy, or even the threat of them. I feel like if the United States started to use these massive weapons as a threat, it would only cause even more countries to begin to try and build them. I think that the other countries would decide to try and get them so feel safer, especially since we were using them to threaten. If more and more countries began to possess these terrible weapons, then they wouldn't be recognized for how power they hold, and I feel that they would be used before actually being thought through. The side affects of this would be disastrous. I think that the best foreign policies are talked out and agreed upon. If we left out the fact that the US possessed nuclear weapons it would no longer always be in the back of the country leaders' minds.

I have an almost two-sided approach to this question. I agree completely that the United States should posses nuclear weapons. I also agree that in cases of national security that they should be used as means of protection or self-defense. However I dont think that we should use atomic weaponry as a means of dictating what other countries do. It seems rather ridiculous to use them to threaten other nations to do what we say, when we say it. When did the United States suddenly become the boss of everyone else? If we try and control foreign policy with threats then eventually some bitter nation is going to try and get back at us, and who knows what kind of consequences that attack could have. This holds especially true in context with the time period where many world powers were discovering how to create atomic weapons and stockpiling them. With so many nations now harboring this awesome power then who is to say that they would listen to the United States anyway? Additionally we were just coming out of a world war that involved nearly every major global power, and many of them were still at odds, regardless of treaties and whatnot. So I personally think that for once the United States should stay out of everyone elses business, and not dictate foreign policy, especially if they intend to use nukes to do it.

From 1945 and all throughout the cold war (and even to this day) the United States has used the threat of nuclear weapons as a tool in its foreign policy. I believe that since the United States does possess them, and since 1945 the number of nuclear states has increased and have become increasingly more dangerous, the use or threat of nuclear weapons is necessary. John Foster said The way to deter aggression is for the free community to be willing and able to respond vigorously at places and with means of its own choosing. and that is what the U.S. should do; deter its enemies by using the threat of weapons of mass destruction. With our enemies (during the Cold war into the present) developing nuclear technology and openly hostile countries testing atomic bombs and missiles it is imperative that we not only possess these weapons but utilize them in part w/ our foreign policy to deter our enemies from attacking us as well as our allies.