The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 20 (2009)The Search for an American Way of Nuclear Peace:
The Eisenhower Administration Confronts
Mutual Atomic Plenty
Toru ONOZAWA*INTRODUCTION
The 1950s was a crucial period in the nuclear age during which the coexistence of the antagonistic nuclear powers became gradually institutionalized. The number of nuclear warheads possessed by the United States increased from about three hundred to twenty thousand during the decade,while the Soviet Union’s arsenal grew from five warheads to two thousand.
There were also great advances in the development of delivery vehicles. Bothsuperpowers possessed substantial numbers of heavy bombers and a small
number of operational ballistic missiles by the end of the decade. We cannot
know whether and to what extent these weapons of mass destruction actuallycontributed to the prevention of major wars. However, the fact remains thatboth superpowers refrained from actually using these weapons, and mutual
deterrence appeared generally stable. Later historians credit political leadersof the early nuclear age with establishing a non-use tradition of nuclear
weapons, which constituted a pillar of the nuclear peace.1
The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower played an important role in shaping the basic contours of U.S. national security policy thatwas based on devastatingly powerful nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Many
Copyright © 2009 Toru Onozawa. All rights reserved. This work may be used, withthis notice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be
distributed, electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission fromthe author.
*Associate Professor, Kyoto University

27

28

TORU ONOZAWA

studies now praise President Eisenhower, who has come to be recognized as
the dominant force within the administration, for a sound grasp of the essenceof nuclear deterrence and a prudent recognition of the necessity of durable
national security, especially the importance of striking a balance between areliable military posture and a sound national economy. Generally, thesestudies pay considerable attention to the president’s consistent resistance tothe advocates, both within and outside the administration, of more conventional forces throughout his presidency and of more accelerated and expanded missile programs in the wake of the successful launch of Sputnik by theSoviet Union in late 1957. They extol his acumen and philosophy on national
security for rejecting increases in these forces, which proved redundant inretrospect. Succinctly put, Eisenhower has been acclaimed for correctly predicting and actually bringing about a nuclear peace without draining American resources.2
The authors of these studies, however, pay only scant attention to more
fundamental questions of how and why the United States took a course
predicated on an assumption that the nuclear arms race was more likely toensure its national security, and why it pursued a military posture that exposed its civilian population as a target of a potential Soviet nuclear onslaught. These are not speculative questions. For example, the Soviet Union
chose for its part to develop a military posture that put more emphasis on the
defense of its economy and population. Moreover, as historian Andreas
Wenger has correctly pointed out, “during the first decade of the Cold War
people did not expect the conflict between East and West to develop into a‘long peace’,” and few “predicted that nuclear weapons would play a fundamentally stabilizing role in this process.”3 In other words, the American wayof nuclear deterrence was not a foregone conclusion but a constructed policy
sifted and fashioned out of several options.4
In this article I analyze the process that culminated in a military posturethat disproportionately emphasized nuclear deterrence, focusing on President
Eisenhower, the person at the heart of the process. I emphasize the existenceof various streams of thought concerning what was then called “mutual
atomic plenty” (hereafter MAP), a status in which the United States and the
USSR would confront each other with large but unspecified numbers of nuclear weapons.5 Analytical focus is placed on the ways and reasons certain
streams were excluded as well as on those that prevailed, because the discarded options often vividly highlight the contours of a chosen policy. As aresult, the Eisenhower who is revealed in this article is a shrewder and moremanipulative leader, but one less prescient and consistent, than many recent

THE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

29

studies have depicted. Some arguments here may be reminiscent of thosefound in earlier studies that emphasize the economic factor as a crucial element that demarcated Eisenhower’s national security policy.6
I.

THE CONUNDRUM OF MUTUAL ATOMIC PLENTY

The Soviet Union’s successful detonation of its first atomic bomb in lateAugust 1949 ushered in a new phase of the nuclear age. The subsequent deliberations on the part of U.S. policymakers gave birth to two conflicting
streams of thought on a looming MAP. On the one hand, an optimistic stream
emerged that envisaged that a greater nuclear arsenal would guarantee thenational security of the United States into the MAP period. The administration of Harry S. Truman decided to promote the development of a hydrogenbomb based on assumptions typical of this stream of thought: U.S. nuclear
superiority would serve as a strong deterrent to Soviet aggression, contributeto military victory should the Soviets initiate a war, and strengthen the political and diplomatic position of the United States.7
Shortly thereafter, another stream became conspicuous that took a pessimistic view on MAP. The voluminous policy paper submitted to the National
Security Council (NSC) in April 1950, NSC 68, argued that nuclear superiority was necessary but not sufficient. As U.S. nuclear capabilities would
gradually be balanced by Soviet counterparts, the United States, which heretofore had been spared the need for large conventional forces thanks to an
atomic monopoly, should now embark on a massive conventional militarybuildup lest it “be confronted more frequently with the dilemma of reacting
totally to a limited extension of Soviet control or of not reacting at all.”Across-the-board military strength would serve “to deter war and to provide
reasonable assurance, in the event of war, that it could survive the initial blow
and go on to the eventual attainment of its objectives.” Significantly, however,even this formidable military posture could not serve as a panacea in the longrun since the “existence of two large atomic capabilities . . . might wellact . . . not as a deterrent, but as an incitement of war.” Essentially, NSC 68
considered MAP as inherently fraught with danger and instability. It therefore argued that superior U.S. military strength be fully utilized before theeventual arrival of MAP in ways designed to “support a firm policy intended
to check and to roll back the Kremlin’s drive for domination,” and also “toreduce the power and influence of the Kremlin inside the Soviet Union andother areas under its control.”8
As NSC 68 was approved in the wake of the outbreak of the Korean War,30

TORU ONOZAWA

its pessimistic outlook on MAP also became a predominant strategic assumption in official Washington. This situation had not changed substantiallywhen Eisenhower assumed the presidency. For example, a report presented in
January 1953 by an ad-hoc panel of consultants on disarmament, chaired by
J. Robert Oppenheimer, proved one of the most foresighted strategic analysesof the day, but was clearly disinclined to consider that the United States
would be better off under MAP. Its rational and judicious considerations on
various aspects of the present and prospective nuclear arms race held out only
the slight possibility that MAP might result in a “strange stability.”9Eisenhower came into office with a firm conviction that national security
required addressing dual threats: the external one of the Soviet Union andCommunism and the internal one to the nation’s economic soundness, which
he believed called for a balanced budget. He eloquently made clear his determination to rectify the previous administration’s deficit spending, which was
due largely to a massive rearmament program under NSC 68.10 Curiously
enough, however, the president persistently evaded tackling the problem overwhich the strategic community agonized: how to comprehend and prepare foran approaching situation of MAP. In his first year as president, Eisenhower
strived to establish a policy framework conducive to his fiscal philosophy
while cautiously steering clear of strategic discussions that might derail his
desired outcome.
As a first step toward the formulation of its first basic national security
policy (BNSP), the administration launched a theoretical exercise, codenamed Solarium, in which three alternative policy options—containment,
declaration of a defense perimeter, and rollback—were studied by separatetask forces. In fact, however, the Solarium exercise was contrived to lead tocertain conclusions predetermined by the president.
First, an important alternative—détente with the Soviet Union—was
dropped before the exercise was actually launched. This aborted fourth alternative was to consider “[w]hat kind of détente would provide a basis for aradical reduction in the threat of the Soviet Union and the United States to thesecurity of the other” and, as a basis of analysis on this general problem, tworelated subquestions: “[w]hether and in what respects the relative security of
the United States vis-à-vis the Soviet Union will inevitably decline with thepassage of time,” and “[w]hat would be the impact of a general war on thebasic national objectives of the United States” at certain time periods in the
future.11 In essence, this discarded alternative was to consider the implications of MAP and the wisdom of pursuing some form of détente to prevent its
arrival. Consideration of the fourth alternative was ostensibly postponed untilTHE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

31

a relevant intelligence report would become available, but it was never resuscitated thereafter.12 This silent repudiation was remarkable considering thatthe possibility and desirability of détente was a subject of lively discussion in
middle echelons of the Department of State.13
Second, the directive issued on June 1 to organize the three task forces andto assign each one of the policy alternatives came with a twist. Task Force A
was to study the option of containment, but it was directed to stand on theassumption that “[t]ime can be used to the advantage of the free world. . . . Soviet power will deteriorate or relatively decline to a point which no longer
constitutes a threat to the security of the United States and to world peace.”14
It should be noted that the existing policy of containment was not predicatedon such an optimistic view of MAP. On the other hand, the predominant pessimism on MAP was associated with the alternative assigned to Task Force
C: a series of rollback efforts aimed at generating “a climate of victory” even
if it involved “a substantial risk of general war.”15 Certainly NSC 68 included
some elements of rollback, and the previous administration had engaged insuch operations in several regions.16 But the basic framework of containment
was firmly established after the failure to achieve rollback in Korea in autumn
1950. Evidently, the Solarium directive was devised to dissociate MAP pessimism from containment while discrediting it by associating it with an extreme version of rollback.
Finally, Eisenhower ostensibly avoided taking sides, but in fact chose alternative A, or containment associated with MAP optimism. At the end of the
NSC meeting on July 16 in which the Solarium task forces made their presentations, the president observed “many similarities” among the task forces’
conclusions and directed that their “best features” be combined in preparation for BNSP, only to confuse participants, who naturally considered thealternatives A and C as simply incompatible.17 Behind the scenes, however,
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his right-hand man, Robert R.
Bowie, director of the Policy Planning Staff, understood that Eisenhower
actually preferred containment while discarding rollback, and proceeded todraft the BNSP on this understanding.18 We can know nothing further about
how the president wielded his “hidden-hand” leadership here, but the resultant BNSP, NSC 162/2, approved in late October, attests to the correctness of
the understanding of Dulles and Bowie.19
Evidently, Eisenhower was determined to eliminate MAP pessimism as abasis of national security policy. Why then did he take such a roundabout approach, instead of, for example, explicitly declaring his own judgment as hehad about fiscal policy? As Oppenheimer’s disarmament panel had already32

TORU ONOZAWA

shown, MAP optimism was far from a reasoned answer that could be deduced from the available intelligence or other objective observations. Rather,prudence seems to have driven many policymakers in the direction of MAP
pessimism. Moreover, Eisenhower’s MAP optimism was unsophisticated andinstinctive rather than logical or systematic. During the course of deliberations by the NSC that culminated in the approval of NSC 162/2, Eisenhower
only once definitely expressed his strategic outlook: “After all, deterring war
was even more important than winning a war. No deterrent to war could compare in importance with this [nuclear] retaliatory striking power.”20 It musthave been apparent that such a rudimentary optimism was not capable ofquelling a widespread and deep-rooted MAP pessimism. Nevertheless,Eisenhower was determined that defense expenditures could and should be
reduced by putting more emphasis on nuclear weapons to the detriment of
conventional forces. This required replacing MAP pessimism with MAP optimism as the basic strategic outlook on which the actual military posturewould be predicated. Thus, Eisenhower chose not to debate the issue but tocircumvent it altogether.
By exercising such a manipulative decision-making procedure, however,Eisenhower failed to forge a consensual strategic outlook. The Joint Chiefs ofStaff (JCS), chaired by Admiral Arthur Radford, resisted the president’s designs, arguing that a budget cut would inevitably lead to a proportionate deterioration of national security.21 Moreover, the JCS became wedded to thestream of thought favoring rollback, which emphasized the limited time period before the arrival of MAP.22 Only after Eisenhower forcefully dictated a
deep cut in the defense budget through a substantial reduction of military
personnel in mid-November did the JCS accept the cutback through nuclearization.23 However, his decisive leadership stopped far short of converting
MAP pessimists.
The conflict between MAP optimism and pessimism came to the surface asa series of events in 1954 appeared to drive the United States into a corner.
The French debacle in Indochina, along with Britain’s reluctance to intervene
to salvage its beleaguered ally, seemed to signify weakening of the cohesionof the Western alliance. The moribund European Defense Community, which
the administration still deemed indispensable for Western strength, approached its demise. The United States was criticized internationally for its
nuclear test at Bikini Atoll in March that severely injured Japanese fishermen
and inhabitants of the Marshall Islands. This led India to submit a proposal
before the United Nations Disarmament Commission to halt all nuclear
tests.24 The administration found the proposal worth consideration since its

THE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

33

acceptance might have propaganda value and reassure the allies, whom Secretary Dulles observed were scared of an approaching MAP, while freezing
U.S. nuclear superiority.25 Eventually, however, the administration, in lateJune, decided not to go along with the test-ban proposal on the grounds that
potential risks, such as probable difficulty in test resumption, surpassed possible gains.26
This temporary tilt by the highest policymakers toward détente, combinedwith the general sense that the administration’s overall strategy was failing,
unleashed centrifugal forces originating from MAP pessimism. The JCS,
adamantly opposed to a test ban, argued that the United States should launchmore “positive” actions, which would be calculated to put greater pressure on
the Soviet Union before the arrival of MAP, and reverse the cutback of conventional forces, which would be increasingly needed as MAP approached.
The JCS, resuscitating Solarium’s rollback alternative, now went so far as tosuggest the possibility of preventive war against the USSR.27
In the meantime, officials in the State Department continued their own
deliberations on the long-term implications of MAP.28 The general answer
seemed to be that MAP would bring about a period characterized by instability in which both the cohesion of the alliance and the living standard of thepeoples in the free world would be difficult to sustain.29 While tacitly sympathizing with the JCS’s overall concern about MAP, and even with their callfor more conventional forces, the State Department was more apprehensive
about MAP’s detrimental effects in the political and diplomatic field, andthus averse to the JCS’s bellicose stance. The department began to consider
the continuation of the nuclear arms race so risky that some form of disarmament should be pursued.30
As the two most influential departments, both motivated by MAP pessimism, tried to pull the basic line of national security policy in opposite directions, the support for the existing policy grew thinner.31 No room for maneuver was left to the president as there had been in the previous year.
Eisenhower repeated his conviction that the “more atomic weapons each side
obtains, the more anxious it will be to use these weapons.”32 Clearly recognizing, however, that this rudimentary optimism would not calm the MAP
pessimists, he tried to convert them by reiterating his conviction that theUnited States would be able to win any war even after MAP arrived.
At the base of Eisenhower’s argument was his firm conviction that theUnited States could prevail as long as its industrial capacity and mobilizationbase were kept intact. This tenet led the president to retreat unofficially fromthe rigid governmental position on arms control that linked nuclear and con-

34

TORU ONOZAWA

ventional disarmament, and to become receptive to an exclusively nuclear
disarmament that might assure the survival of a U.S. mobilization baseshould a general war come about.33 Eisenhower envisioned a future general
war consisting of two phases: an initial phase of intensive nuclear exchanges
followed by an extended period of mobilization for a lengthy war. He declared before the NSC, “We should have the capability so far as possible ofwarding off destructive enemy attack and as quickly as possible ourselves tobe able to destroy the war potential of the enemy. After these initial moves ina future war, the United States might have to contemplate a 12-year mobilization program to achieve final victory in the war.”34 As for cases of local aggression, the United States “had to depend on the indigenous victims of aggression for some time of fighting,” and could thereafter send in “Marines
and the Air Forces.”35 At a meeting with the service chiefs, the president
again postulated a war in which “phase one would be the aversion of disaster;in phase two we would go on to win the war.” Significantly, he went so far as
to indicate his “firm intention to launch a strategic air force immediately incase of alert of actual attack” and observe that “the tactical atomic weapons
can be used effectively to protect our forces.”36
It was natural that none disputed the importance of war-fighting capability,
considering that the fear of losing it in the future had driven many to MAP
pessimism. To Eisenhower’s chagrin, however, few MAP pessimists seemed
converted by his argument, since many believed the president’s design wouldat best be valid only for a brief period in the near future. The JCS kept on
arguing for more “dynamic and positive” measures, because, as Radford put
it, the chiefs could only guarantee that “in a limited or a full-scale war, theoutcome for the United States, prior to Soviet achievement of atomic plenty,
would be successful” (emphasis in original).37
On the other hand, the State Department became more inclined towarddisarmament. The department effectively dismissed the president’s argument, considering mutual deterrence as “fragile,” since it would have to be“based upon uncertain checks and balances,” and maintaining that at somepoint initial nuclear exchanges would at best cripple the U.S. mobilizationbase or at worst might imperil “the survival of civilization.”38 The Policy
Planning Staff developed a four-phased disarmament plan, starting with theestablishment of a somewhat lax inspection regime acceptable to both sides,and developing, through what would later come to be called a confidencebuilding process, into successive phases in which substantial reduction of
nuclear and conventional armaments, accompanied with a more comprehensive inspection regime, would be accomplished.39

THE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

35

However, by the end of 1954, MAP pessimists were rapidly marginalized.
The international environment turned favorably for the free world. After thedemise of the European Defense Community, Western Europeans devised ascheme for West Germany’s rearmament and its accession to NATO. The
West had salvaged the southern half of Vietnam and established the Southeast
Asia Treaty Organization to guarantee against further Communist advance inIndochina. Secretary Dulles, who in the summer supported a fundamental
reappraisal of BNSP, no longer deemed drastic revisions necessary. He
strongly dismissed the rollback alternative, which, he pointed out, would
alienate allies and increase the risk of general war but “would not touch theheart of the problem of Soviet atomic capabilities,” even if it might successfully disintegrate the Soviet bloc. Dulles’s cogent justification for his own
conversion set the tone of the NSC discussions, and effectively doomed therollback option as a viable strategic alternative.40
Concurrently, disarmament was also being discarded as a policy option.
The momentum within the State Department to fundamentally revise the existing framework of the BNSP gradually waned. The Policy Planning Staff
wildly vacillated between two conflicting observations: that MAP “could be
no real peace” because “[m]utual deterrence could be upset by a madman,”and that “[i]f we should reduce or eliminate our dependence on nuclear
weapons this deterrence would be largely lost.” It finally concluded, somewhat uneasily, that “our present policies of military and economic strengthfor ourselves and our allies . . . are the best that can be devised to deal with
the Soviet menace.”41 By late December, Dulles stood firmly against disarmament.42 In addition, the military remained opposed to any disarmament that
did not accompany an unrealistically strict system of inspection from theoutset.43
In early 1955, the president effectively intervened to put an end to the interdepartmental conflict, and instead designated a special assistant in chargeof disarmament policy. By this time, however, Eisenhower’s interest in disarmament markedly declined, as he reverted to his previous position thatechoed official policy linking nuclear with conventional disarmament. He
now considered disarmament as a means to “achieve a stalemate vis-à-vis theRussians in the area of the non-military struggle as we have already achieved
such a stalemate in the military field.”44 Disarmament was subtly relegated toa propaganda measure.45
Now that MAP pessimism was again neutralized, the administration considered MAP something to be taken on, rather than evaded. However, thefundamental problem of how to secure national security under MAP re-

36

TORU ONOZAWA

mained unresolved.
II.

METAMORPHOSIS OF DEFENSE

As observed in the previous section, policymakers in the early 1950s were
not free from the conception that war-fighting capability served as the basisof national security. Survival of the United States as a viable political, social,and economic entity was considered both the means for pursuing and ends
resulting from a future war. Such a war-fighting capability was invariably,
though not always explicitly, linked with the credibility of deterrence. This
explains why there was consensus among policymakers as well as scientists
on the need for an effective defense of the continental United States—Solarium task forces A and C as well as Oppenheimer’s disarmament panel all
recommended it.46
NSC 162/2 deemed an “integrated and effective [North American] continental defense system” an indispensable element to “deter and, if necessary,to counter Soviet military aggression.” For this purpose the continental defense had to “protect our striking force, our mobilization base, and our people” in the event of war.47 When the NSC discussed the administration’s firstpolicy statement on continental defense in autumn 1953, Eisenhower endorsed a greatly expanded continental defense program, while cautiously
warning against the tendency “to underestimate the difficulties which the
USSR would encounter in making an attack upon the continental UnitedStates.”48 The optimism about technological advances also characterized theearly discussions on continental defense. A perfect defense was ruled out
from the outset as “impractical, economically and technically,” but “a reasonably effective defense system” that could prevent the Soviets from attaining“the net capability of destroying the war-making capacity of the UnitedStates” was considered well within reach.49 In short, continental defense was
expected to extend the period during which the United States could predicate
its national security on its war-fighting capability that was taken for granted
before the arrival of MAP.
The continental defense consisted of a wide variety of programs including,inter alia, radar and early warning systems, active defense by fighter-interceptor and other antiaircraft forces, and passive defense measures including
emergency evacuation of the federal government and the civilian population.
The updated NSC policy on continental defense, NSC 5408, approved in
February 1954, endorsed a budgetary increase for these and other programs.
Though the sum allotted to continental defense was relatively small—about

THE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

37$3.3 billion out of a $45-billion total national security budget for fiscal year
1955—the gradual increase was remarkable considering that the total national security budget was continuously compressed.50 In December 1954,
Eisenhower indicated his views “that increased emphasis should be given tomeasures for continental defense” along with technological advances and theconstruction of an invulnerable mobilization base.51
Persisting concerns about MAP, however, suggest that there was a widely
shared sense that the planned continental defense might be insufficient. Particularly troubling was the possibility of a Soviet surprise attack that mightwell cripple the mobilization base and negate the superior nuclear forces of
the United States.52 A comprehensive prescription for this problem was provided by outside specialists gathered at the Technological Capabilities Panel(TCP) of the Science Advisory Committee of the Office of Defense Mobilization, chaired by James R. Killian Jr. The TCP report, submitted in February
1955, emphasized the importance of U.S. nuclear retaliatory forces that could
survive a Soviet surprise attack. Specifically, the panel urged the administration to reduce the ground vulnerability of the Strategic Air Command (SAC)
bombers through their dispersal and improvement of their alert status, andrecommended the promotion of the development of intercontinental and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (ICBM/IRBMs). In retrospect, the reportseems to have provided a blueprint for the military posture that the UnitedStates actually employed during the MAP period.53
In fact, however, the panel derived its findings from assumptions of classical MAP pessimism. The report considered MAP highly dangerous, andurged the administration to “push all promising technological development”
so that the United States could retain, and regain if necessary, the strategic
position vis-à-vis the USSR that existed before the arrival of MAP. Significantly, the report assumed a war-fighting capability to be a sine qua non for
an effective deterrent to Soviet surprise attack. This was evident in its recommendations on continental defense, which stated that various defensive measures should, in the event of war, protect “our retaliatory power as well as ourpeople and our cities.” Moreover, the panel optimistically observed that thebasic technological problems posed by manned bombers had almost beensolved, and even the attainment of means to counter the ICBMs appeared“sufficiently promising.” Accordingly, the panel recommended a panoply of
measures that were expected to improve the continental defense capability,
including a vast expansion of various radar and alert systems, development
and improvement of active defense weapons, and accelerated research andplanning for civil defense measures.54

38

TORU ONOZAWA

The administration favorably received the TCP report. Though Eisenhower
and Dulles swiftly discerned and dismissed the MAP pessimism underlying
the report, the administration endorsed a large part of its specific recommendations after reviewing them item by item. This meant that the administration
envisioned a military posture calculated to assure war-fighting capability into
the MAP period.55
Nevertheless, the goals of the military posture did not remain unchanged.
By the end of the year the administration decided to give “the highest priority above all others” to both ICBM and IRBM development programs.56 Before these decisions were taken, Eisenhower had made it clear that he considered these missiles as “a threat and a deterrent” rather than war-fighting
weapons. He recognized “the profound and overriding political and psychological importance of the U.S. achieving such a weapon,” but remained“somewhat skeptical . . . of the unique importance of the ICBM from astrictly military point of view.”57 The United States was adding weapons systems that would serve exclusively for the purpose of deterrence. This, however, in no way meant that war-fighting capability was abandoned. When the
NSC considered a progress report on continental defense in mid-1955, Eisenhower commented that reassessment of its specific programs should be carried out according to “our great objective . . . (a) to avert disaster, and (b) to
win the war, if it comes.”58
However, the administration gradually discarded war-fighting capability asa goal of its military posture after 1956. The first symptom could be perceived in January 1956, when the Net Evaluation Subcommittee (NESC)
made a great upward revision of the estimate of the prospective damage thatwould be incurred by the United States in the event of a general nuclear war.
The NESC report presented a chilling picture of the “total collapse” of theUnited States as a political and economic entity. Even a month of strategic
warning and defensive measures taken in the meantime would make “no significant difference in the losses we would take.” Deeply shocked, Eisenhower
confided to his diary that the only answer would be “a surprise attack against
the Soviets,” which, however, he considered was “against our tradition” andpolitically impossible.59 Ironically, however, the president apparently realized that the horrendous estimate provided him with ammunition to reinforce
his rudimentary MAP optimism. The president now contended more confidently than before that a formidable nuclear retaliatory capability would deter the USSR from resorting to both general and limited wars.60 He further
argued that the Soviets would have “conducted exercises similar to the NESC
study,” and “we had to give them credit for having some sense.”61THE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

39

However, considering that Eisenhower had consistently pursued a warfighting capability while placing great confidence in the value of nuclear retaliatory capability, it is inconceivable that such an estimate alone, however
upsetting, could have forced him to abruptly renounce war-fighting capability. Actually, it was only after the rising cost of sustaining a war-fighting capability became apparent that he began to abandon it. In June, the NSC considered a new continental defense policy, NSC 5606. The document was inno way innovative in content. Its stated objective duplicated almost verbatim
its predecessor, NSC 5408. Most specific policies delineated within it hadoriginally been recommended in the TCP report and were already acted on by
the NSC. Nevertheless, the document proved highly disquieting because of
its financial estimate, which stated that the approximately $3-billion continental defense expenditure in fiscal year 1955 would increase to $11.5 billion
in 1960, due largely to the rising cost of countervailing new offensive weapons, including ballistic missiles, and of covering newly added programs suchas shelters to protect the civilian population.62
Budget-conscious members of the administration denounced the “terrificjump in expenditures,” and Eisenhower quietly stood behind them. In August, he buried NSC 5606, rhetorically asking “how far we could go until wereached a state of complete futility.”63 The primacy of budgetary considerations also became evident when the Science Advisory Committee offered toinitiate a special study on “the allocation of technical and economic
resources for national security,” aiming at streamlining various weapons systems and their development programs to restrain expenditures including
those for continental defense. Eisenhower “with a wry smile” responded
negatively, indicating his belief that scientists would come to “a very finite
conclusion which inevitably added up to a great expenditure of money.”64
Clearly, Eisenhower neither anticipated the enormity of destruction ensuing from an all-out nuclear war nor the magnitude of the cost required for aneffective continental defense. But, by the end of 1956, he found that these
two intractable problems could be solved by combining them. He began to
use the horrible damage estimations to justify his retreat from his former
position on war-fighting capability. When the NESC presented an evengloomier estimate in December 1956, the president stated that the Unites
States should not “put a single nickel into anything but” developing nuclear
retaliatory capability.65 As previous studies have pointed out, Eisenhower had
a hard time silencing the conventional-force advocates concerned about theloss of nonnuclear, limited-war-fighting capabilities.66 In contrast, his rationale for the retreat from an effective continental defense was accepted rather

40

TORU ONOZAWA

easily. At an NSC meeting the next year, the JSC, which had been supportiveof NSC 5606, expressed its acceptance of “a very drastic reduction in the current level of expenditure for continental defense in order to provide andmaintain our offensive capabilities.”67
The retreat from war-fighting capability became further apparent when theFederal Civil Defense Administration proposed a comprehensive blast andfallout shelter program with a price tag of $32 billion over eight years, alongwith the plausible justification that it would save “millions of lives” and“could make the difference between the survival of the nation and its disintegration.” Dulles simply found the cost exorbitant, and argued that the UnitedStates “would obtain a much more effective defensive capability” if thatmoney was “used to increase our deterrent military capabilities.” The NSC
deferred a decision on the shelter program until an outside specialists’ study
on the protection of the civil population became available.68
The resultant Gaither report of November 1957 worked as a catalyst to
consolidate the already evident shift toward a nuclear deterrence posture devoid of war-fighting capability. The report, albeit tinged with partisan criticism against the administration, can be understood as an updated version of
the TCP report, since it was firmly anchored in MAP pessimism, and recommended a wide range of measures focused on war-fighting capabilities,
which would cost an additional $44 billion over five years.69 Thus, the administration’s negative response shows how far its concept of military posture
had changed from that of three years before. Eisenhower, while agreeing withseveral specific recommendations, rejected the report as a whole, succinctly
stating that “maximum massive retaliation remains the crux of our defense”
and “what we put into defense measures should be put into the security of ourstriking forces.”70 Early the next year, the administration rebuffed a largescale shelter program recommended in the Gaither report. The protection of
the civilian population would be continuously pursued chiefly through emergency evacuation of urban populations, whose effectiveness was at best questionable.71 Soon the administration approved a new continental defense policy, NSC 5802/1. Most significantly, the scope of continental defense wassubstantially narrowed to “the protection of that element of our retaliatory
capability based on the North American Continent.” Continental defense
ceased to be protective measures that would assure the survival of the nation
and became just ancillary to nuclear retaliatory forces.72
The administration ended up with a formidable military posture, which
included around twenty thousand nuclear warheads, the first ICBM as well as
several IRBM systems, SAC bombers sufficiently dispersed on greatly im-

THE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

41

proved alert status, and radar systems running from Midway through thenorthernmost rim of the North American Continent to the Azores.73 However,the people of the United States could enjoy this relatively inexpensive peace
only by exposing themselves as potential targets of an expanding Soviet nuclear arsenal. Naturally, the president could not tell the people that theyshould trust the Soviet leadership, even though he credited it with being as
rational as its American counterpart. He had to look to other ways to keep thegeneral public calm.
CONCLUSION
Eisenhower turned out to be an exceptionally shrewd leader who skillfully
molded national security policy according to his own vision. However, he
was not as prescient as suggested in many recent studies, even though his
instinctive prediction that MAP would bring about strategic stability proved
correct. The war-fighting capability, which he had undeniably considered theprerequisite to reliable deterrence, proved unattainable as long as he adhered
to his budgetary philosophy. It has also become apparent that Eisenhower
foreclosed the possibility that détente and disarmament might be pursued asa means to secure national security early in his administration. The fact that
he became more positively disposed to a test-ban agreement after 1958 must
be seen in this context,74 since it in no way challenged the fundamental assumption that an enormous nuclear arsenal would assure national security
into the future.
One can still credit Eisenhower with achieving peace at relatively small
cost and even for adapting himself flexibly to changing circumstances. However, his leadership style as well as the contents of his national security policy
entailed certain costs. Eisenhower generally succeeded more in silencing
rather than converting the opposition. The consensus within the administration remained fragile and did not extend far beyond the White House lawn.
More seriously, the general public was completely excluded from the fundamental decisions concerning nuclear strategy.
In fact, Eisenhower looked in vain for a way to convey his strategic outlook
to the public. In its first year, the administration contemplated launching apublic relations campaign code-named Operation Candor, aimed at creating
an “informed public” on the reality and basic governmental policy regarding
nuclear plenty. However, Eisenhower soon abandoned the original concept,
which he realized might well only scare the public.75 A candid presentation
became all the more difficult as the nuclear strategy took on a potentially

42

TORU ONOZAWA

more destructive nature. The intractable dilemma was concisely summarized
by the president: “We want to avoid hysteria on one side and complacency on
the other.”76 The administration, unable to find a single satisfactory answer,
saw a partial way out in the civil defense programs, which aimed to create adisciplined public imbued with the belief in survival in a nuclear catastrophe.77
Whether and to what extent these programs affected the disposition of the
public in the 1950s is beyond the scope of this article. In any case, the general public turned out to be docile in that it never posed fundamental questions about the wisdom of nuclear deterrence. Historian Spencer R. Weart hasargued that the majority of the public chose to believe that “there was little
chance of a nuclear war actually happening soon” in order to make their“nuclear fear” compatible with the inability to deal with its cause. The public,
learning and taught “helplessness,” retreated into apathy.78 Nuclear peace
thus emerged as a collaborative product of an administration that evaded discussions and a public that chose not to face a potentially abhorrent reality. In
this sense, the largest cost accruing from the nuclear peace was incurred by
the American democracy, which President Eisenhower had pledged to defend.
NOTES
1John L. Gaddis, The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War (New York:
Oxford UP, 1987), chaps. 5 and 8; McGeorge Bundy, Danger and Survival: Choices about theBomb in the First Fifty Years (New York: Random House, 1988), chaps. 6–7.
2
John L. Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American
National Security Policy (New York: Oxford UP, 1982) emphasizes Eisenhower’s sound graspof the means-ends relationship, and praises the cost effectiveness of his strategy. Richard H.
Immerman, “Confessions of an Eisenhower Revisionist: An Agonizing Reappraisal,” Diplomatic History 14, no.3 (Summer 1990): 319–42, applauds Eisenhower’s “intellectual acuity
and perspicacity” rather than his budgetary philosophy as a basis of his strategy. Many later
works have enriched and partially revised the theses developed in these earlier studies, but allseem to have ultimately reinforced them. See, for example, Peter J. Roman, Eisenhower andthe Missile Gap (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1995); Saki Dockrill, Eisenhower’s New-Look National Security Policy, 1953–1961 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996); John L. Gaddis, We Now
Know: Rethinking Cold War History (New York: Oxford UP, 1997); Campbell Craig, Destroying the Village: Eisenhower and Thermonuclear War (New York: Columbia UP, 1998); Robert
R. Bowie and Richard H. Immerman, Waging Peace: How Eisenhower Shaped an Enduring
Cold War Strategy (New York: Oxford UP, 1998).
3
Andreas Wenger, Living with Peril: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nuclear Weapons (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997), 2–6. I have been greatly influenced by Wenger’s
argument and his basic approach of analyzing “streams of thought,” but my definition of thestreams differs from his.
4David Goldfischer, The Best Defense: Policy Alternatives for U.S. Nuclear Security from

THE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

43

the 1950s to the 1990s (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993) provides a thought-provoking analysis
that there was a safer, but always renounced, path of nuclear strategy that emphasized defense
combined with gradual disarmament.
5“Mutual atomic plenty” and “atomic/nuclear plenty” are phrases that were commonlyused by U.S. policymakers in the 1950s. Without clear definitions, these phrases ambiguously
depicted the prospective strategic conditions that would accrue from an unchecked nuclear
arms race. Thus, “mutual atomic plenty” included a condition that was conceptualized in thefollowing decades as “mutual assured destruction,” but did not exclude the possibility that either side might acquire first-strike capability.
6
Glenn H. Snyder, “The ‘New Look’ of 1953,” in Warner R. Schilling, et. al., Strategy,
Politics, and Defense Budgets (New York: Columbia UP, 1962); H. W. Brands, “The Age ofVulnerability: Eisenhower and the National Insecurity State,” American Historical Review 94,
no. 4 (Oct. 1989): 963–89; Gaddis, Strategies, chaps. 5–6.
7
Foreign Relations of the United States (hereafter FRUS), 1950, 1: 503–11, 513–23.
8
FRUS, 1950, 1: 234–92. Quotations are from 266, 278, 283–84, 287–88.
9
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 1056–91.
10
Bowie and Immerman, Waging Peace, chap. 6.
11
Memorandum starting with “(1) The policy of the United States would be to seek to bringabout a detente with the Soviet Union,” undated, in “Review of U.S. Basic National Security
Policy, NSC 153–162, June-Aug. 1953” folder (hereafter “BNSP June-Aug.” folder), Lot 64
D 563, RG 59 (hereafter PPS1953 files), National Archives, College Park, MD (hereafterNARA).
12
Memorandum by Robert Amory for Walter B. Smith, Allen W. Dulles, and Robert Cutler,“Project ‘Solarium’,” July 8, 1953, in Declassified Documents Reference System (hereafter
DDRS), CK3100274817, declassified Mar. 27, 1989.
13
Memorandum by C. Savage, “General Lines of U.S. Foreign Policy,” May 25, 1953, in“BNSP June-Aug.” folder, PPS1953 files; Memorandum by Charles C. Stelle, “Alternative
Possible General Lines of U.S. Foreign Policy,” May 22, 1953, in the same folder.
14
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 360–66.
15
A Report to the National Security Council by Task Force “C” of Project Solarium, July16, 1953, in DDRS, CK3100243704, declassified Apr. 16, 1987.
16
Raymond L. Garthoff, Assessing the Adversary: Estimates by the Eisenhower Administration of Soviet Intentions and Capabilities (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1991), 16.
17
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 397–98, 440–41.
18
Memorandum by Robert Bowie, untitled, July 18, 1953, in “BNSP June-Aug.” folder,
PPS1953 files; Memorandum by Robert Bowie, untitled, Aug. 15, 1953, in the same folder;
Memorandum from John F. Dulles to Bowie, Aug. 1, 1953, in “Review of U.S. Basic National
Policy, NSC 153–162, Sept.–Dec. 1953” folder, PPS1953 files. See also Bowie and Immerman, Waging Peace, 127.
19
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 577–97.
20
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 572.
21
Memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense, Aug. 8, 1953, in“NSC 162/2 (1)” folder, Disaster files, White House Office, National Security Council Staff
Paper, Dwight D. Eisenhower Library (hereafter DDEL).
22
Memorandum titled “General Consideration,” (hand-written notation reads “Bonesteel(Defense) 8/53”), undated, in “BNSP June-Aug.” folder, PPS1953 files; Memorandum from
Arthur Radford to the Secretary of Defense, Oct. 6, 1953, in “NSC 162/2 (1)” folder, Disaster
files, DDEL.
23
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 597–98; Memorandum from Arthur Radford to the Secretary of
Defense, Dec. 9, 1953, in “NSC 162/2 (2)” folder, Disaster files, DDEL; Discussion at the

44

TORU ONOZAWA

176th Meeting of the National Security Council, December 16, 1953, DDEL.
24
Documents on Disarmament, 1945–1959 (Washington, DC: USGPO, 1960): 408–11,
412–13.
25
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 1419–20.
26
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 1423–29, 1463–67, 1467–72.
27
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 672–75, 680–86. See also Marc Trachtenberg, History and Strategy(Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1991), 141–46; Wenger, Living with Peril, 65–69. Garthoffplausibly argues that these “positive” actions included a scheme to take the control of Soviet
air space as a precondition for sending ultimatums to the Russians. See Garthoff, Assessing theAdversary 22–23. See also Tami Davis Biddle, “Handling the Soviet Threat: ‘Project Control’
and the Debate on American Strategy in the Early Cold War Years,” Journal of Strategic Studies 12 (Sept. 1989): 273–302.
28
Memorandum by Edmund Gullion, “Outline for Proposed Inter-Departmental Study of
the Probable Security Position of the United States in 1959 as Compared to the Present,” April
13, 1954, in “Staff Papers on NSC 5422” folder, Lot 65 D 101, RG 59, NARA (hereafter
PPS1954 files); Memorandum from Henry Owen to Bowie, “S/P Consideration of US Militaryand Disarmament Policy,” Sept. 2, 1954, in “Atomic Energy-Armaments” folder, PPS1954
files.
29
Memorandum by C. Savage on “The United States, 1954–1959: Political and Psychological Factors Which May Affect the World Situation,” Apr. 12, 1954, in “Staff Papers on
NSC 5422” folder, PPS1954 files; Memorandum by R. Bowie, starting with “ Trends in theFree World,” June 9, 1954, in the same folder.
30
Memorandum starting with “Summary and Conclusions,” undated, in “Staff Papers on
NSC 5422” folder, PPS1954 files; Memorandum from Henry Owen to Bowie on “Swords into
Ploughshares and . . . Spears into Pruning Hooks,” Apr. 16, 1954, in “Atomic Energy-Armaments 1954” folder, PPS1954 files.
31
Documents prepared for NSC meetings in June show that options of “[p]reventive war or
confrontation” and “arms control” were considered alternatives to the existing policy, but the
NSC Planning Board could not decide “whether the growing nuclear capability of the USSR
can be dealt with by means of an agreement to limit armament.” Memorandum titled “Check
List of Principal Issues Raised by ‘Guideline Studies’,” June 7, 1954, in “NSC 5422/2 (1)”folder, Disaster files, DDEL; Memorandum titled “NSC 5422 ‘Tentative Guidelines under
NSC 162/2 for FY 1956’,” June 14, 1954, in the same folder.
32
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 689.
33
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 1342–43, 1467–72.
34
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 689.
35
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 708–09.
36
Memorandum of Conference with the President, December 22, 1954, in “Military Programs (4)” folder, Disaster files, DDEL. Eisenhower’s statement was undoubtedly serious.
NATO had already adopted a military strategy that envisaged a war that closely paralleled his
two-phased-war concept. According to this strategy, the defense of Western Europe would be
realized only by a massive and instant salvo of nuclear weapons against the USSR at the outset
of a war. See Report by the North Atlantic Military Committee, M.C. 48 (FINAL), “The Most
Effective Pattern of NATO Military Strength for the Next Few Years,” Nov. 22, 1954, available
at NATO official website, http://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/a541122a.pdf; Marc
Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963(Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999), 156–78.
37
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 785–87, 791–92.
38
Memorandum from Edmund A. Gullion to Bowie on “A New Disarmament Proposal I,”
Oct. 15, 1954, in “Atomic Energy-Armaments 1954” folder, PPS1954 files; Talking Paper No.

THE SEARCH FOR AN AMERICAN WAY OF NUCLEAR PEACE

45

2 for Planning Board Meeting, Oct. 15, 1954, in the same folder.
39
Memorandum from Robert Bowie to the Secretary, on “Status Report on NSC Agenda
Item 4—U.S. Position with Respect to Arms Reduction,” Oct. 27, 1954, in “NSC 112” folder,Lot 66 D 95, RG59, NARA; Memorandum by State Working Group on “Review of U.S. Policy on Control of Armaments,” Nov. 29, 1954, in the same folder.
40
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 788–91, 833–34.
41
PPS Meetings, Oct. 14, 19, 26, and Nov. 16, 1954, in “S/P Meetings” folder, PPS1954
files; Memorandum from L. W. Fuller to Bowie on “Outline of a National Security Policy,”
Oct. 29, 1954, in “Review of U.S. Basic National Security Policy, NSC 162–5422” folder,
PPS1954 files.
42
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 1585–89; Memorandum from Murphy to the Secretary on “Review
of United States Policy on Control of Armaments,” Dec. 29, 1954, in “Atomic Energy-Armaments 1954” folder, PPS1954 files.
43
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 1563–66, 1580–82.
44
FRUS, 1955–1957, 20: 28–34, 144–55.
45
Matthew Evangelista, “Cooperation Theory and Disarmament Negotiations in the 1950s,”
World Politics 42, no.4 (July 1990): 502–28.
46
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 231–34, 403, 420, 1083–85; Report of Lincoln Laboratory on “Basic Philosophy of a Sound Defense,” Dec. 19, 1952, in Digital National Security Archives(hereafter DNSA).
47
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 583, 591.
48
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 464–75.
49
FRUS, 1952–1954, 2: 477–489; Memorandum titled “Views of the NSC Consultants on
Continental Defense,” Sept. 24, 1953, in “Continental Defense 1953(5)” folder, Disaster files,
DDEL.
50
NSC 5408, “Continental Defense,” Feb. 11, 1954, in DNSA.
51
Memorandum from James S. Lay to the Secretary of Defense, “Review of Basic National
Security Policy,” Dec. 14, 1954, in “Military Program (4)” folder, Disaster files, DDEL.
52
Memorandum titled “Study on Surprise Attack,” Aug. 25, 1954, in “S/P Papers May-July”
folder, PPS1954 files.
53
Report by the Technological Capabilities Panel of the Science Advisory Committee,“Meeting the Threat of Surprise Attack,” Feb. 14, 1955 (hereafter TCP report), in DDRS,CK3100152581 and CK3100144896, declassified Oct. 29, 1997: 14–16, 57–70.
54
TCP report, 17–22, 73–76. See also FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 41–56.
55
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 95–108, 145–50.
56
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 111–22, 166–70.
57
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 101–02, 168–69.
58
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 87–94.
59
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 187–88.
60
By arguing that every war with the USSR would escalate to an all-out nuclear war, Eisenhower was attempting to silence the growing contention that the United States should be prepared for nonnuclear limited wars as MAP might well prohibit it from resorting to massive
nuclear retaliation against Communist aggression on areas of peripheral interest. Craig, Destroying the Village, chap. 4; Gaddis, We Now Know, 230–34.
61
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 188–91.
62
NSC 5606, “Continental Defense,” June 5, 1956, in DNSA.
63
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 321–33, 347–52.
64
Memorandum from David Z. Beckler to Arthur S. Flemming, “Possible Area of Inquiry
by the Science Advisory Committee,” Oct. 9, 1956, in “Science Advisory Committee (3)”folder, Subject Subseries, White House Office, Office of the Special Assistant for National

46

TORU ONOZAWA

Security Affairs, DDEL; Memorandum from I. I. Rabi to Arthur S. Flemming, Dec. 19, 1956,
in the same folder; Memorandum, untitled, Mar. 12, 1957, in the same folder.
65
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 379–81.
66
See note 60 above.
67
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 482–83. Memorandum from Arthur Radford to the Secretary of
Defense, “Continental Defense (NSC 5606),” June 12, 1956, in “Net Evaluation Subcommittee (5)” folder, Disaster files, DDEL.
68
NSC 5709 “A Federal Shelter Program for Civil Defense,” Mar. 29, 1957, in DNSA;
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 459–64.
69
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 638–61; David L. Snead, The Gaither Committee, Eisenhower,
and the Cold War (Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1999), chaps. 2 and 4.
70
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 620–24.
71
FRUS, 1958–1960, 3: 10–25; NSC 5807/1, “Measures to Carry out the Concept of Shelters,” Apr. 2, 1958, in DNSA; Thomas J. Kerr, Civil Defense in the U.S.: Bandaid for a Holocaust? (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983), 59–116.
72
NSC 5802/1, “U.S. Policy on Continental Defense,” February 19, 1958, in DNSA; FRUS,
1958–1960, 3: 32–40.
73
NSC 6013, “Status of United States Military Programs as of 30 June 1960,” Dec. 10,
1960, in DNSA.
74
Benjamin P. Greene, Eisenhower, Science Advice, and the Nuclear Test-Ban Debate,
1945–1963 (Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2007), chaps. 7–9.
75
Bundy, Danger and Survival, 287–95; Wenger, Living with Peril, 87–99.
76
FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 99. See also FRUS, 1955–1957, 19: 568; FRUS, 1958–1960, 3:519, 523.
77
Memorandum from Val Peterson to James S. Lay, Jr., “Progress Report on Continental
Defense (NSC 5408),” May 20, 1955, in “Continental Defense 1955–1956 (1)” folder, Disaster files, DDEL; Guy Oakes, The Imaginary War: Civil Defense and American Cold War
Culture (New York: Oxford UP, 1994); Ira Chernus, “Operation Candor: Fear, Faith, and Flexibility,” Diplomatic History 29, no. 5 (Nov. 2005): 779–809.
78
Spencer R. Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1988),
chap. 13.