Source 1

Source Information: Time Magazine Article, What Is the Difference Between a Hydrogen Bomb
and an Atomic Bomb?

What Is the Difference Between 

a Hydrogen Bomb and an Atomic 
Bomb? 

 
A mushroom cloud forms over Nagasaki, Japan after the dropping of the second atomic bomb.​ ​Time
Life Pictures—The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images

BY ​MELISSA CHAN
​SEPTEMBER 22, 2017

North Korea warned this week that it ​might test a hydrogen bomb​ in the Pacific
Ocean, after saying the country had already successfully detonated one.

A hydrogen bomb has never been used in battle by any country, but experts say it
has the power to wipe out entire cities and kill significantly more people than the
already powerful atomic bomb, which the U.S. dropped in Japan during World
War II, killing tens of thousands of people.

As global tensions continue to rise over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program,
here’s what to know about atomic and hydrogen bombs:

Why is a hydrogen bomb stronger than an atomic 

bomb? 

More than 200,000 people died in Japan after the U.S. dropped the world’s first
atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then another one three days later in Nagasaki
during World War II in 1945, according to the Associated Press. The bombings in
the two cities were so devastating, they forced Japan to surrender.

But a hydrogen bomb has the potential to be 1,000 times more powerful than an
atomic bomb, according to several nuclear experts. The U.S. witnessed the
magnitude of a hydrogen bomb when it tested one within the country in 1954, the
New York ​Times​ reported.

Hydrogen bombs cause a bigger explosion, which means the shock waves, blast,
heat and radiation all have larger reach than an atomic bomb, according to
Edward Morse, a professor of nuclear engineering at University of California,
Berkeley.

Although no other country has used such a weapon of mass destruction since
World War II, experts say it would be even more catastrophic if a hydrogen bomb
were to be dropped instead of an atomic one.

“With the [atomic] bomb we dropped in Nagasaki, it killed everybody within a

mile radius,” Morse told TIME on Friday, adding that a hydrogen bomb’s reach
would be closer to 5 or 10 miles. “In other words, you kill more people,” he said.

Hall, director of the University of Tennessee’s Institute for Nuclear Security,

called the hydrogen bomb a “city killer” that would probably annihilate between
100 and 1,000 times more people than an atomic bomb.

“It will basically wipe out any of modern cities,” Hall said. “A regular atomic
bomb would still be devastating, but it would not do nearly as much damage as an
H-bomb.”
Hiroshima in ruins following the atomic bomb blast.​ ​Bernard Hoffman—The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty
Images

What’s the difference between hydrogen bombs and 

atomic bombs? 

Simply speaking, experts say a hydrogen bomb is the more advanced version of
an atomic bomb. “You have to master the A-bomb first,” Hall said.

An atomic bomb uses either uranium or plutonium and relies on fission, a

nuclear reaction in which a nucleus or an atom breaks apart into two pieces. To
make a hydrogen bomb, one would still need uranium or plutonium as well as
two other isotopes of hydrogen, called deuterium and tritium. The hydrogen
bomb relies on fusion, the process of taking two separate atoms and putting them
together to form a third atom.

“The way the hydrogen bomb works — it’s really a combination of fission and
fusion together,” said Eric Norman, who also teaches nuclear engineering at UC
Berkeley.

In both cases, a significant amount of energy is released, which drives the

explosion, experts say. However, more energy is released during the fusion
process, which causes a bigger blast. “The extra yield is going to give you more
bang,” Morse said.

Morse said the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were each equivalent to just
about 10,000 kilotons of TNT. “Those were the little guys,” Morse said. “Those
were small bombs, and they were bad enough.” Hydrogen bombs, he said, would
result in a yield of about 100,000 kilotons of TNT, up to several million kilotons
of TNT, which would mean more deaths.

Hydrogen bombs are also harder to produce but lighter in weight, meaning they
could travel farther on top of a missile, according to experts.

What are the similarities between hydrogen bombs 

and atomic bombs? 

Both bombs are extremely lethal and have the power to kill people within
seconds, as well as hours later due to radiation. Blasts from both bombs would
also instantly burn wood structures to the ground, topple big buildings and
render roads unusable.

LIFE magazine​ described such devastation in an article published on March 11,

1946, on the aftermath of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. The piece read:
“In the following waves [after the initial blast] people’s bodies were terribly
squeezed, then their internal organs ruptured. Then the blast blew the broken
bodies at 500 to 1,000 miles per hour through the flaming, rubble-filled air.
Practically everybody within a radius of 6,500 feet was killed or seriously injured
and all buildings crushed or disemboweled.”
 Using Source 1

Sourcing Questions
Based on the article, what is the main difference
between the Hydrogen and Atomic Bomb?

What are the similarities between the Atomic

and Hydrogen Bombs?

When writing a journalist based article, they

should not be biased in their writing, can you see
any opinion from the author in this article?

Contextualization Questions
The year this article was written was 2017, why
do you think that they would be writing about
this historical event in the modern day?
Are there any modern day events revolving
around nuclear bombs that were going on
around the same time this article was written?

Corroboration Tasks
What themes and/or topics are addressed in
both sections of this article?

Is it clear to the reader based on the pictures

listed in source 1 the destruction that these
devices could cause? If so estimate what types of
negatives these devices could cause if used in
the modern day.

Close Reading Questions

What modern day examples does this article give
of the use of the hydrogen or atomic bombs?

How much “damage” can the hydrogen bomb

inflict compared to the atom bomb?

If we already had the atom bomb can you think

of any reasons why we would need to create a
bigger and more powerful bomb?
 Source 2
Source Information: Truman Library, Truman Press Release- Atomic Bomb, August 6,
1945.​______________________________________________________________________

Atomic Bomb-Truman Press Release-August 6, 1945

Introduction

In the early morning hours of July 16, 1945, great anticipation and fear ran rampant at White Sands
Missile Range near Alamogordo, New Mexico. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Manhattan
Project, could hardly breathe. Years of secrecy, research, and tests were riding on this
moment. "For the last few seconds, he stared directly ahead and when the announcer shouted
Now!' and there came this tremendous burst of light followed abruptly there after by the deep
growling of the explosion, his face relaxed into an expression of tremendous relief," recalled
General L. R. Groves of Oppenheimer, in a memorandum for Secretary of War George
Marshall. The explosion carrying more power than 20,000 tons of TNT and visible for more
than 200 miles succeeded. The world's first atomic bomb had been detonated.

With the advent of the nuclear age, new dilemmas in the art of warfare arose. The war in Europe
had concluded in May. The Pacific war would receive full attention from the United States War
Department. As late as May 1945, the U.S. was engaged in heavy fighting with the Japanese
at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. In these most bloody conflicts, the United States had sustained more
than 75,000 casualties. These victories insured the United States was within air striking
distance of the Japanese mainland. The bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to initiate
United States entrance into the war, just four years before, was still fresh on the minds of many
Americans. A feeling of vindication and a desire to end the war strengthened the resolve of the
United States to quickly and decisively conclude it. President Harry Truman had many
alternatives at his disposal for ending the war: invade the Japanese mainland, hold a
demonstration of the destructive power of the atomic bomb for Japanese dignitaries, drop an
atomic bomb on selected industrial Japanese cities, bomb and blockade the islands, wait for
Soviet entry into the war on August 15, or mediate a compromised peace. Operation Olympia,
a full scale landing of United States armed forces, was already planned for Kyushu on
November 1, 1945 and a bomb and blockade plan had already been instituted over the
Japanese mainland for several months.
The Japanese resolve to fight had been seriously hampered in the preceding months. Their losses
at Iwo Jima and Okinawa had been staggering. Their navy had ceased to exist as an effective
fighting force and the air corps had been decimated. American B-29's made bombing runs over
military targets on the Japanese mainland an integral part of their air campaign. Japan's lack of
air power hindered their ability to fight. The imprecision of bombing and the use of devastating
city bombing in Europe eventually swayed United States Pacific theater military leaders to
authorize bombing of Japanese mainland cities. Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe all were
decimated by incendiary and other bombs. In all, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed
in these air strikes meant to deter the resolve of the Japanese people. Yet, Japanese resolve
stayed strong and the idea of a bloody "house to house" invasion of the Japanese mainland
would produce thousands more American and Allied casualties. The Allies in late July 1945
declared at Potsdam that the Japanese must unconditionally surrender.

After Japanese leaders flatly rejected the

Potsdam Declaration, President Truman authorized use of the atomic bomb anytime after
August 3, 1945. On the clear morning of August 6, the first atomic bomb, nicknamed Little Boy,
was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Leveling over 60 percent of the city, 70,000 residents
died instantaneously in a searing flash of heat. Three days later, on August 9, a second bomb,
Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki. Over 20,000 people died instantly. In the successive
weeks, thousands more Japanese died from the after effects of the radiation exposure of the
blast.

Vocabulary

incendiary bomb

The incendiary bomb was a mixture of thermite and oxidizing agents employed by the Allies and
Axis powers after 1943. Sometimes incorporating napalm, these bombs were responsible for
burning over 41.5 square miles of Tokyo by the United States in March 1945.

unconditional surrender

Unconditional surrender is a term used by victors in war to describe the type of settlement they
wish to extoll from the vanquished. The settlement demands that the loser make no demands
during surrender proceedings. Unconditional surrender was first enunciated by the Allies during
World War II at a summit meeting at Casablanca in January 1943.

providence
divine guidance or care

ultimatum

the final propositions, conditions, or terms offered by either of the parties during a diplomatic
negotiation

Source

Read the ​press release​ from President Truman on August 6, 1945 following the dropping of the
atomic bomb noting important details about its production and the rhetoric used.
 Using Source 2

Sourcing Questions

● Who wrote this document?

● What is the purpose of this document?
● What date was this document issued?

Contextualization Questions

● Why does the atomic bomb's power have

to be explained?
● Look at the last paragraph of the second
page of the press release. What were
Truman's plans for ending the war? Did
he accomplish those goals in dropping the
atomic bomb on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki? Why or why not?

Corroboration Tasks

● On page three, Truman advocates the

use of atomic power for world peace. How
does he propose to fulfill this goal?
● What reasons does President Truman use
to justify dropping the bomb?

Close Reading Questions

● Armed with all of the knowledge that

President Truman and his advisors had
accumulated, how would you have ended
the war in the Pacific?
 Source 3
Source Information: Atomic Heritage Foundation, Debate over the Japanese Surrender. June
1st, 2016.​ Speech:_Recordings, Historical. "[RARE] The Voice of Hirohito - 1945 Jewel Voice
Broadcast (玉音放送)." YouTube. 09 Mar. 2019. YouTube. 07 June 2019
<​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnMk1Vhg1oM&gt
____________________________________________________________________

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender

Debate over the Japanese

Surrender
History Page Type: ​Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Profiles: ​Harry Truman​Emperor Hirohito​Henry Stimson​Alex Wellerstein​J. Samuel Walker
Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Resources: ​The Jewel Voice Broadcast
The debate over what precipitated the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II is a
source of contention among historians. This debate has also figured prominently in the
discussion of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (for more on that discussion,
see ​Debate over the Bomb​). The “traditional narrative” put forward in the war’s immediate
aftermath was that using the atomic bombs caused the surrender, but this narrative has
come under fire in subsequent years.
As with other debates around the Manhattan Project, ambiguities arise due to the fact that
many of the available primary sources are considered unreliable. The historians who have
tackled this issue have generally used the same pool of primary source information, but
they have come to divergent conclusions because they differed in which sources they
considered trustworthy or significant.

Traditionalist School
The “traditionalist school” accepts the explanation given by ​President Truman​, Secretary of
War ​Henry L. Stimson​, and others in the government in the aftermath of the war. The
traditionalist conception is that the atomic bombs were crucial to forcing Japan to accept
surrender, and that the bombings prevented a planned invasion of Japan that might have
cost more lives. ​Emperor Hirohito​’s citation of the “new and most cruel bomb” in his ​speech
announcing surrender​ bolsters this theory’s credibility.
Historians have critiqued various parts of this rationale for the bombings, including
casualty estimates from the planned invasion. Retrospective estimates vary wildly, and
are often lower than the figures stated by Truman and Stimson. But there is also a sizable
literature disagreeing with the central premise: that the bombs led to the surrender.

Revisionist School
The oldest and most prominent critics of the
traditionalist school have been the “revisionist
school,” starting with Gar Alperovitz in the
1960s. The revisionists argue that Japan was
already ready to surrender before the atomic
bombs. They say the decision to use the
bombs anyway indicates ulterior motives on
the part of the US government. Japan was
attempting to use the Soviet Union to mediate
a negotiated peace in 1945 (a doomed effort,
since the Soviets were already planning on breaking off their non-aggression pact and
invading). Revisionists argue that this shows the bombings were unnecessary.

The other piece of evidence behind this claim is the US Strategic Bombing Survey,
conducted after the war. It concluded that Japan would have surrendered anyway before
November (the planned start date for the full-scale invasion). Some historians have
identified flaws in the survey, based on contemporary evidence. Others have argued that
the US had no reason to trust the sincerity of the Japanese outreach to the Soviets, and
that evidence from within Japan indicates that the Japanese Cabinet was not fully
committed to the idea of a negotiated peace.

Revisionists have also contended that surrender could have happened without the
bombings if the US had compromised on its goal of unconditional surrender. The sticking
point for the Japanese was retaining the emperor in his position. It is unclear if they would
have accepted the reduction of the emperor to a figurehead, as eventually happened after
the war. Many officials advocated for maintaining the emperor’s authority as a condition
for surrender even after the Hiroshima bombing.

Emperor ​Hirohito's Speech ​Start 3:10-​The Voice of

Hirohito
 Using Source 3

Sourcing Questions
Based on the source what are some reasons for
defending both sides of this argument?

In looking at the speech what type of tone does

this provide the listener?

In reading the article do you feel that the author

takes a stance on which side of the argument
they fall on?

Contextualization Questions
What side of the argument do you think most
americans were on in 1945?

What evidence does the article and speech

provide that the Japanese were close to
surrendering?

What evidence does the article and speech

provide that the Japanese weren’t close to
surrendering?

Corroboration Tasks
Based on the article and the speech, in listening
to the speech which side of the argument do you
think that it would side under?

What military topics are cited in both sides of the

argument, through the article and the speech?

Close Reading Questions

If you were picking a side in this argument which
side would you find yourself on, and why?

Based on the end result of what happened in

WWII what side did President Truman and the
White House side with? How do we know?

What evidence from the speech can you cite as

the main reason for Japan’s surrender?
 Source 4
Source Information: Truman Library, Harry S. Truman Public Papers, January 31st, 1950.
______________________________________________________________________

https://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=642&st=hydrogen&st1

Public Papers 

Harry S. Truman 

1945-1953 
 

​ 26. Statement by the President on the ​Hydrogen

Bomb  
January 31, 1950

IT IS part of my responsibility as Commander in Chief of the Armed

Forces to see to it that our country is able to defend itself against any
possible aggressor. Accordingly, I have directed the Atomic Energy
Commission to continue its work on all forms of atomic weapons,
including the so-called ​hydrogen​ or superbomb. Like all other work in
the field of atomic weapons, it is being and will be carried forward on a
basis consistent with the overall objectives of our program for peace
and security.

This we shall continue to do until a satisfactory plan for international

control of atomic energy is achieved. We shall also continue to examine
all those factors that affect our program 

  
 Using Source 4

Sourcing Questions
Based on the fact that this is a press release to
the public, how might that influence its tone and
purpose?

In looking at this source what is President Truman

trying to convey to the public?

Based on the header of this press release, what

significance does this hold to the american
people?

Contextualization Questions
This press release is dated January 31st 1950,
based on this date can we think of any events
that were happening in the world during this
time?

This letter states that the United States must

defend itself, what do you think that Truman is
referring to in this statement?

Corroboration Tasks
What is the general theme of this specific press
release?

What actions does this presidential press release

call for?

What information have we looked at previously

that would help the reader understand the
context of the press release?

Close Reading Questions

Who gave this press release first hand to the
public?

What is the point of a presidential press release

in general?
 Source 5
Source Information: Truman Library, Department Of The Air Force, Memorandum To Secretary
Johnson, 1949.
______________________________________________________________________
 Using Source 5

Sourcing Questions
Looking that the year of this memorandum is
1949 what events were transpiring during this
time period?

What events were occurring in foriegn affairs

during this time period?

Based on the fact that this document is listed as

classified for this time period, what inferences
can we make regarding this classification about
the information.

Contextualization Questions
What themes and topics are discussed in this
memorandum?

What is the overall message of this memorandum

and who is its audience during this time period?

Corroboration Tasks
Is it clear, based on previous discussed sources
what the theme of this memorandum is the basis
for?

What additional information does this source give

us about the military climate of this specific time
period in the United States?

Close Reading Questions

Who was the author of this memorandum?

When looking at this source is it critical or

complimentary of the events that they are
discussing?
Why is this memorandum addressed to Secretary
Johnson specifically and what is his significance?
 Source 6
Source Information: ​Life Magazine October 31st 1952 “The United States tested the world's first
hydrogen on the Pacific Island of Eniwetok”. Life Magazine January 30th, 1950. “Atom Bomb
destruction compared to the Hydrogen Bomb using the city of Chicago”. McMillan, Priscilla
Johnson. ​The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the Birth of the Modern Arms Race​. Viking,
2005.____________________________________________________________________

Life Magazine October 31st 1952 “The United States tested the world's first hydrogen on the
Pacific Island of Eniwetok”
Life Magazine January 30th, 1950. “Atom Bomb destruction compared to the Hydrogen Bomb
using the city of Chicago”.

McMillan, Priscilla Johnson. ​The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the Birth of the Modern
Arms Race​. Viking, 2005.
 Using Source 6

Sourcing Questions
In looking at the first picture and recognizing the
date what events had transpired right before this
date in history?

Being that the first two sources are pictures what

inferences can you make about the Hydrogen
Bomb?

Looking at the third source why can we assume

really influential people were cautious about the
Hydrogen Bomb?

Contextualization Questions
In looking at the dates of the first two pictures
what worldwide event can you infer that the
United States was preparing for?

In looking at the reading excerpt, would you be

able to infer whether or not the writer was in
support of the Hydrogen Bomb?

Corroboration Tasks
What themes are overall brought to the attention
of the American People through these three
sources?

What additional information does the text

excerpt bring to the table in why lead scientist
may not be in full support of this weapons
program?

Close Reading Questions

Why do you think in the first photograph the
United States chose to drop the bomb on the
specific islands listed in the description?

Why specifically was Albert Einstein in disfavor of

the development of the Hydrogen Bomb?
 Source 7
Source Information:“Father of the Atomic Bomb Was Blacklisted for Opposing H-Bomb” Becky
Little, History.com. July 16th 2018.
______________________________________________________________________
https://www.history.com/news/father-of-the-atomic-bomb-was-blacklisted-for-opposing-h-bomb

“Father of the Atomic Bomb”

Was Blacklisted for Opposing
H-Bomb
After creating the first one, J. Robert Oppenheimer called
for international controls on nuclear weapons.
BECKY LITTLE
On July 16, 1945, a team of scientists and engineers watched ​the first
successful atomic bomb explosion​ at the ​Trinity test site​ in Alamogordo,
New Mexico. The team, dubbed ​“The Manhattan Project,”​ had been secretly
developing the weapon at the Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II.
By the time it was ready, the Allies had already declared ​victory in Europe​,
but were still fighting in Japan.

Physicist ​J. Robert Oppenheimer​, the director of the laboratory and

so-called “father of the atomic bomb,” watched from afar that morning as the
bomb released a mushroom cloud 40,000 feet high. His description of that
moment has since become famous:

“I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture the ​Bhagavad-Gita,​ ” ​he
said​. “‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all
thought that, one way or another.”

On August 6, the U.S. dropped the bomb on ​Hiroshima, Japan​, wiping out
90 percent of the city and killing 80,000 people. Three days later, the U.S.
killed 40,000 people in Nagasaki with another bomb. Tens of thousands
more would die from radiation exposure. Japan surrendered a few days after
the second bombing, ending World War II.

As details of the horrific destruction reached the Manhattan Project

scientists, many began to question what they had done. In late October,
Oppenheimer visited President Harry S. Truman, who had okayed the use of
both bombs, to talk to him about placing international controls on nuclear
weapons. Truman, worried about the prospect of the Soviet nuclear
development, dismissed him.

The mushroom cloud produced by the first explosion by the Americans of a hydrogen
bomb at Eniwetok Atoll in the South Pacific. Known as Operation Ivy, this test
represented a major step forwards in terms of the destructive power achievable with
atomic weapons. (Credit: SSPL/Getty Images)

When Oppenheimer said he felt compelled to act because he had blood on

his hands, Truman angrily told the scientist that “the blood is on my hands,
let me worry about that.” He then kicked him out of the Oval Office, ​writes
author Paul Ham​ in ​Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic
Bombings and Their Aftermath​.

Ham isn’t convinced that Oppenheimer felt remorse specifically for the
bombing of Japan, which the scientist may have viewed as a necessary evil.
Rather, he thinks that Oppenheimer was more concerned about the
devastation that future nuclear war could bring.

After the war, Oppenheimer took steps to prevent such a future. He began
working with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to control the use of
nuclear weapons. In 1949, when Truman approached the commission about
creating a hydrogen bomb, Oppenheimer opposed it.

Despite his opposition, the U.S. developed an H-bomb and ​tested it in 1952​.
But Oppenheimer’s resistance ended up costing him his job. During the
McCarthy era​, the government stripped him of his job with the commission,
citing his opposition to the hydrogen bomb as well as his purported
Communist ties.

Oppenheimer’s blacklisting had more to do with his stance on the H-bomb

than his Communist friends. Still, it created a scandal that followed him until
his death in 1967. For decades afterwards, people continued to speculate
about ​whether he was a Soviet spy.

Today, Oppenheimer is mostly remembered as a scientist who was

persecuted for trying to address the moral problems of his creation. Though
there have been ​some close calls​, no country has used nuclear bombs as
weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which means that so far, we’ve
been able to avoid the nuclear future Oppenheimer feared he’d already set
in motion.
 Using Source 7

Sourcing Questions
Based on the fact that this is a public article what
is the overall tone of the topic provided?

In reading the article do you feel that the author

has any bias in the information provided, why or
why not?

Can you make any inferences to why the father of

the bomb would be opposed to furthering
nuclear weaponry?

Contextualization Questions
What events based on the article and what we
have already looked at lead to this opposition?

In looking at the articles title why is this scientist

referred to as the “father of the bomb”?

Corroboration Tasks
What is the overall method and topic of this
article?

What additional information does this article

provide us with regarding the development of the
Hydrogen Bomb?

Close Reading Questions

Give quotes to why the lead scientist named in
the article is opposed to the Hydrogen Bomb.

Why was Oppenheimer blacklisted for his opinion

regarding the development of the H-Bomb?
 Source 8
Source Information: Board, The Editorial. “Korea Heads for Denuclearization: Political
Cartoons.” ​Orange County Register​, Orange County Register, 3 May 2018,
www.ocregister.com/2018/05/02/korea-heads-for-denuclearization-political-cartoons/​.
______________________________________________________________________
 Using Source 8

Sourcing Questions
What type of source is this?

Contextualization Questions
What does DMZ refer to?

Corroboration Tasks
What opinion about denuclearization does the
cartoonist portray in this source?

Close Reading Questions

The two men in the cartoon are named Kim and
Moon. Who are these men and what countries do
they represent?
 Source 9
Source Information: “The Storied Past of 'Denuclearization'.” ​Wilson Center,​ 12 Oct. 2018,
www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-storied-past-denuclearization​.
______________________________________________________________________

The Storied Past of 'Denuclearization' 

September 20, 2018 By ​Ryan Alexander Musto 

●

The word is not unique to the Korean Peninsula, 

but could achieve new significance because of it. 

Since taking office, the Trump Administration has demanded the “denuclearization” of 
the Korean Peninsula. President Donald Trump raised the stakes when he met with 
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at a summit in Singapore in June 2018. Their joint 
declaration​ promised that North Korea would commit itself “to work toward complete 
denuclearization” of the region. An inter-Korean summit held in mid September 
reinforced​ the call to action.   

But where did the word “denuclearization” come from, and is it unique to the dangerous 
situation currently found on the Korean Peninsula? 

In a front-page ​op-ed​ in ​The New York Times ​entitled, “The Word That Could Help the 
World Avoid Nuclear War,” Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia nonproliferation 
program at the Middlebury Center of International Studies at Monterey, writes that the 
term “is more or less native to the Korean Peninsula” and “a relic from the 1990s.” 

Yet a deeper dive into the history of the word “denuclearization” reveals a longer and 
more varied backstory. It also reveals that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula 
would bestow new significance upon the term. 

The word “denuclearization” first emerged in the late 1950s in reference to Central 
Europe. It derived from the term “demilitarization,” which had most recently been used 
in a 1955 British arms control proposal for Central Europe as a means of reunifying 
Germany and aligning it with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Both East 
and West rejected that plan, but the idea of arms limitations in Central Europe endured.   

In October 1957, Poland’s Foreign Minister Adam Rapacki proposed at the United 
Nations General Assembly the prohibition of nuclear weapons in East Germany, West 
Germany, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Rapacki issued his proposal in response to the 
presence of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in West Germany and potential plans to share 
nuclear weapons amongst NATO allies. Although Rapacki did not initially use the term 
“denuclearization” in the presentation of his scheme, within a few months the word 
became associated with the so-called “Rapacki Plan.” 

The word itself did not have any special connotation in relation to the Rapacki Plan. 
Pundits used the term “denuclearization” synonymously with “atom-free zone,” 
“nuclear-free zone,” “nuclear disengagement,” “de-atomization,” and “limited 
disarmament,” amongst other phrases, to describe the contours of the Polish proposal. 
While some Western officials sympathetic to the Polish effort secretly encouraged 
Rapacki to abandon the term “disengagement” given its negative connotations in the 
West, both sides of the Cold War used the word “denuclearization” freely. 

In one example, Nikolai Patolichev, a Soviet First Deputy Foreign Minister, used it in 
early 1958 as he dismissed a rumor that Moscow had established rocket-launching 
bases in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Poland: “It’s a lie. It doesn’t make sense for 
us to support the Rapacki plan for the denuclearization of Central Europe and build 
rocket bases at the same time,” he said. In another example, Canadian Undersecretary 
of State Jules Léger wrote in a secret cable of his worries that if the West rejected the 
Rapacki Plan outright, “neither the U.S. nor the U.S.S.R. will ever be able to agree to the 
denuclearization of any region in which nuclear weapons have already been placed.” 
The West rejected the Rapacki Plan in 1958, but the issue of denuclearization in Europe 
persisted. It again rose to prominence in the early 1980s during the so-called 
Euromissiles Crisis, when proposals for the deployment of new generations of nuclear 
weapons in Europe sparked global protest. For example, George F. Kennan, the 
so-called father of the U.S. containment doctrine, penned an op-ed in ​The New York 
Times ​urging both sides of the Cold War to prohibit nuclear weapons from Central and 
Northern Europe. As a point of emphasis, Kennan simply entitled his article 
“Denuclearization.” 

The term, though, was hardly confined to the European theater during the Cold War. In 
November 1961, the United Nations passed a ​resolution​ that called on its members to 
“consider and respect the continent of Africa as a denuclearized zone” in the wake of 
French nuclear testing in the Sahara Desert. The occasion seemingly marked the first 
time that the word formally entered into the international legal lexicon, as it was never 
used when twelve nations made ​Antarctica​ the world’s first denuclearized zone in 1959. 
However, given that key nuclear nations like Great Britain, France, and the United 
States abstained from voting on the African initiative, the gesture had limited 
significance. 

A more notable achievement occurred later in the decade, when Latin America became 
the first denuclearized zone in an inhabited region. The negotiations took place amongst 
21 nations under the auspices of the Preparatory Commission for the Denuclearization 
of Latin America. The nations gathered had planned to call the final agreement the 
“Treaty for the Denuclearization of Latin America,” but in February 1967, only two 
weeks before the Treaty opened for signature, Brazil suggested that the title be 
changed. 

Brazil had been the first to use the word for Latin America in the fall of 1962, initially as 
a proposed extension of the African effort and then as a solution to the Cuban Missile 
Crisis. With the missiles removed from Cuba, Brazil claimed by 1967 that the term was 
outdated for the region. Moreover, Brazil believed that the term “offered some 
ambiguities” and failed to account for the desire of Latin American peoples to use 
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This observation had controversial undertones, 
as Brazil (and some others) fought to have the right to “peaceful nuclear explosions” 
(PNEs) under the Treaty, which would allow the use of nuclear explosive devices (all but 
indistinguishable from nuclear weapons) for large-scale civil engineering projects. In the 
end, the title was changed to the “Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 
Latin America,” and the right to PNEs remained disputed. 
Even within Asia, the term is not unique to the Korean Peninsula. As early as January 
1958, Japanese socialist politicians called for an “Asian denuclearized zone” in the mold 
of the pending Rapacki Plan. U.S. officials worried that the proposal might include such 
key U.S. allies as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Nor did the term suddenly appear in 
the early 1990s specifically for the Korean Peninsula. For example, in September 1986 
North Korea ​hosted​ delegates from more than eighty nations at the “Pyongyang 
International Conference for Denuclearization and Peace on the Korean Peninsula” as a 
ruse for its own nuclear aspirations.   

Nevertheless, the use of the word for the Korean Peninsula has specific meanings. Lewis 
makes the important point that experts have intentionally used the term 
“denuclearization” over “disarmament” in order to capture the complexity of the 
situation on the Korean Peninsula, which includes the legacy of U.S. nuclear weapons in 
the region and the “nuclear umbrella” of extended deterrence the United States 
provides South Korea. Meanwhile, North Korea adheres to a unique ​interpretation​ of 
“denuclearization,” one that aspires to the “opacity” of Israel – possess nuclear weapons, 
but do not flaunt them.  

Should the key parties prohibit nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, the word 
“denuclearization” would achieve new significance. No regional denuclearization 
agreement has ever removed an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. The Treaty of 
Pelindaba, which formally denuclearized Africa in 2009, opened for signature in 1996, 
three years after South Africa became the only nation ever to renounce its nuclear 
weapons.   

Likewise, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would be unprecedented for the 
United States. The U.S. has never led the creation of a denuclearized zone in an 
inhabited region (it did, more or less, for the uninhabited regions of Antarctica, outer 
space, and the seabed). Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, 
the United States helped to lead the removal of Russian nuclear weapons from former 
Soviet satellite states like Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, but these arrangements 
did not establish regional denuclearized zones. Neither did the 1990 Treaty on the Final 
Settlement with Respect to Germany, despite its prohibition of nuclear weapons from 
Berlin and the territory that had comprised East Germany. 

Before Trump, the United States had also never called for a summit for the purposes of 
regional denuclearization. In 1958, the United States rejected Soviet calls for a summit 
in part because the Rapacki Plan appeared to be “the only idea seemingly approaching 
negotiability.” In this sense, Trump’s approach is already groundbreaking. 

As many experts have pointed out, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula 
remains unlikely. Nuclear weapons provide North Korea with security and prestige, 
while the United States could be reluctant to undermine the protection it provides 
South Korea. North Korea’s demand for linking regional denuclearization with a formal 
agreement to end the Korean War further complicates the situation. If both sides can 
somehow agree to “ban the bomb” from the Korean Peninsula, though, it would 
undoubtedly help to make the world a safer place. 

Less noticeably, it would also bestow new significance upon the word “denuclearization” 
beyond a storied past. 
 Using Source 9

Sourcing Questions
What type of source is this?

Is this a primary or secondary source?

Contextualization Questions
Describe different times in history when
denuclearization or disarmament have been
considered?

Corroboration Tasks
What theme do you see throughout the different
times in history when denuclearization has been
considered?

Close Reading Questions

Does there appear to be any kind of bias in this
source?
 Source 10
Source Information: Jackson, David. “President Trump, Kim Jong Un Seek Something Basic: A
Definition of Denuclearization.” ​USA Today​, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 27 Feb.
2019,
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/27/donald-trump-kim-jong-un-denuclearizati
on/2936493002/​.
______________________________________________________________________

President Trump, Kim Jong Un seek

something basic: A definition of
denuclearization
David Jackson​, USA TODAY​Published 12:00 a.m. ET Feb. 27, 2019

WASHINGTON – When President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un ​sit down
Wednesday in Vietnam​, one of their goals will be rather basic: defining the very topic
of their negotiations, denuclearization.

The United States basically defines the term as having ​North Korea eliminate all of its
nuclear weapons programs​. North Koreans see it as removal of all nuclear assets
from the region – including those the United States put there to protect South Korea
and other allies.

Bridging this definition gap is key to ​this week's second summit​ between Trump and
Kim in Hanoi.

"A shared understanding is what denuclearization is," is how one administration

official put it.

Two senior administration officials discussed next week's emerging schedule on

condition they not be named, citing the confidential nature of negotiations that are
already going on in Vietnam.

Few details were provided about the agenda on Wednesday and Thursday. But they
did confirm that Trump and Kim intend to meet alone without aides, just as they did
during their first summit last year in Singapore.

Trump and aides want the North Koreans to commit to detailed, concrete ways to
eliminate their nuclear weapons programs. But Kim and his government want the U.S.
to do something first: ease economic sanctions that are crippling their country.

Addressing this standoff is part of the effort to define denuclearization, officials said.

Trump has downplayed expectations, saying last week that he was in no "rush" to
demand denuclearization and insisting he remained confident Kim eventually would
do so.

"I don’t think this will be the last meeting by any chance, but I do think that the
relationship is very strong," Trump told reporters.

Kristine Lee, research associate with the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center
for a New American Security, said the definition of denuclearization has been "a
sticking point" because of U.S. assets in the region.

"Denuclearization for North Korea has long meant the removal of all of these assets
(missile defense systems, stealth fighters) from the peninsula," she said. "Whereas for
the United States, this refers exclusively to the elimination of North Korea's nuclear
program."

As he prepared to head to Vietnam, Trump got plenty of advice.

A group of more than 40 retired military generals and diplomats urged Trump to
consider some kind of sanctions relief. They also backed a proposal to have the
United States and North Korea set up liaison offices in each other's cities – not
embassies, but offices that can be used to transmit government-to-government
messages.

Trump "must move beyond symbolism if he hopes to make real headway towards
ending the danger of the North Korean nuclear program," read the letter released by
the American Collage of National Security Leaders.

A group of House Democrats, meanwhile, have asked Trump for more details about
the North Korea talks.

In a letter to the president, three chairmen of national security committees said

Trump's positive statements about Kim are at odds with intelligence assessments that
North Korea remains a threat and is likely to want to keep its nuclear weapons.

The letter was signed by chairmen Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs; Adam Smith, D-Wash., Committee on Armed Services; and Adam
Schiff, D-Calif., Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"There are ample reasons to be skeptical that Chairman Kim is committed to a

nuclear-free North Korea," they said.
 38 Photos

Trump, Kim historic summit in Singapore

 Using Source 10

Sourcing Questions
What type of source is this?

Is this a primary or secondary source?

Contextualization Questions
In what region of the World is denuclearization
being addressed in this source?

Corroboration Tasks
Describe some of the advice Trump received in
preparation for these negotiations.

Close Reading Questions

How does the U.S. define denuclearization?

How does North Korea define denuclearization?

 Source 11
Source Information: Top Secret U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Memorandum for the
President by Col. K.E. Fields Document No. LXI-1746-LA, January, 16, 1952
______________________________________________________________________
 Using Source 11

Sourcing Questions
What type of source is this?

Who is the conversation between?

When did this conversation take place?

Contextualization Questions
Who is Secretary Acheson? What department
does he head?

Corroboration Tasks
According to Acheson, how likely is it that a
disarmament agreement can be reached?

Close Reading Questions

What is the dilemma that the United States find
itself in?
 Source 12
Source Information: Memorandum to the President Report by the Chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission, November 4, 1949
______________________________________________________________________
 Using Source 12

Sourcing Questions
Who sent this report to the President?

What is his position?

Contextualization Questions
What is the report saying will be the main benefit
from the development of the “Super Bomb”?

Corroboration Tasks
Who is recommended for being a part of the
sub-committee?

Why do you think this particular group would be

on this sub-committee?

Close Reading Questions

What is the main discussion in this

memorandum?