.png)
 |
| Sarah Stovall |
Is there such thing as a balanced approach to nuclear arms control? The problem of nuclear weaponry was introduced when the United States dropped two atomic bombs as a means to end War World II. War is not a matter of balance; there is a winning side and a losing side, at least in the most general sense. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki exhibited a new level of this imbalance. The use of those two atomic bombs produced a more immediate and intense imbalance than could have been imagined pre-atomic era. In the case of a nuclear attack there is such an extreme disparity between the attacker and the attacked, because of the total destruction. During the Cold War this consequence of the nuclear arms race was referred to as “mutually assured destruction.”
Ambassador Tom Graham played a major role in the U.S. international relations regarding disarmament and nuclear proliferation treaties following the end of the Cold War. Ambassador Graham’s approach to the international distribution of nuclear weaponry included U.S. seeking disarmament as a viable goal. Graham questions the notion that some nations have the right to maintain nuclear arms while other states are denied that same right. The states with nuclear weapon stores are in the minority, but they are also strong international powers. This imbalance, the same extreme imbalance of power mentioned above, can disrupt international relations.
As part of a visit to the University of Louisville, Ambassador Graham’s presentation on the nuclear weapons situations the U.S. is facing–with both Iran and North Korea–maneuvered the complexity of this problem and offered a balanced perspective on an issue of imbalance.
Sarah Stovall, of Bowling Green, Ky., is a junior McConnell Scholar at the University. She is studying political science and English.