atom for peace essay with quotations

National Museum of Nuclear Science & History

Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” Speech

One of the most famous speeches of the Cold War was given by President Dwight D. Eisenhower before the United Nations on December 8, 1953. Eisenhower was anxious to reduce the threat from the growing arsenals of nuclear weapons and instead develop peaceful applications of atomic energy for all nations to enjoy, or “Atoms for Peace.” 

• Nuclear Proliferation & Control

I know that the American people share my deep belief that if a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all; and equally, that if hope exists in the mind of one nation, that hope should be shared by all. Finally, if there is to be advanced any proposal designed to ease even by the smallest measure the tensions of today’s world, what more appropriate audience could there be than the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

I feel impelled to speak today in a language that in a sense is new, one which I, who have spent so much of my life in the military profession, would have preferred never to use. That new language is the language of atomic warfare.

The atomic age has moved forward at such a pace that every citizen of the world should have some comprehension, at least in comparative terms, of the extent of this development, of the utmost significance to every one of us. Clearly, if the peoples of the world are to conduct an intelligent search for peace, they must be armed with the significant facts of today’s existence.

My recital of atomic danger and power is necessarily stated in United States terms, for these are the only incontrovertible facts that I know. I need hardly point out to this Assembly, however, that this subject is global, not merely national in character.

On July 16, 1945, the United States set off the world’s first atomic explosion. Since that date in 1945, the United States of America has conducted forty-two test explosions. Atomic bombs today are more than twenty-five times as powerful as the weapon with which the atomic age dawned, while the hydrogen weapons are in the ranges of millions of tons of TNT equivalent. Today, the United States stockpile of atomic weapons, which, of course, increases daily, exceeds by many times the total [explosive] equivalent of the total of all bombs and all shells that came from every plane and every gun in every theater of war in all of the years of World War II. A single air group, whether afloat or land based, can now deliver to any reachable target a destructive cargo exceeding in power all the bombs that fell on Britain in all of World War II. In size and variety, the development of atomic weapons has been no less remarkable. The development has been such that atomic weapons have virtually achieved conventional status within our armed services. In the United States, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps are all capable of putting this weapon to military use. But the dread secret and the fearful engines of atomic might are not ours alone.

In the first place, the secret is possessed by our friends and allies, Great Britain and Canada, whose scientific genius made a tremendous contribution to our original discoveries and the designs of atomic bombs. The secret is also known by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has informed us that, over the recent years, it has devoted extensive resources to atomic weapons. During this period the Soviet Union has exploded a series of atomic devices, including at least one involving thermo-nuclear reactions. If at one time the United States possessed what might have been called a monopoly of atomic power, that monopoly ceased to exist several years ago.

Therefore, although our earlier start has permitted us to accumulate what is today a great quantitative advantage, the atomic realities of today comprehend two facts of even greater significance. First, the knowledge now possessed by several nations will eventually be shared by others, possibly all others.

Second, even a vast superiority in numbers of weapons, and a consequent capability of devastating retaliation, is no preventive, of itself, against the fearful material damage and toll of human lives that would be inflicted by surprise aggression.

The free world, at least dimly aware of these facts, has naturally embarked on a large program of warning and defense systems. That program will be accelerated and expanded. But let no one think that the expenditure of vast sums for weapons and systems of defense can guarantee absolute safety for the cities and citizens of any nation. The awful arithmetic of the atomic bomb does not permit of any such easy solution. Even against the most powerful defense, an aggressor in possession of the effective minimum number of atomic bombs for a surprise attack could probably place a sufficient number of his bombs on the chosen targets to cause hideous damage.

It is with the book of history, and not with isolated pages, that the United States will ever wish to be identified. My country wants to be constructive, not destructive. It wants agreements, not wars, among nations. It wants itself to live in freedom and in the confidence that the people of every other nation enjoy equally the right of choosing their own way of life.

So my country’s purpose is to help us move out of the dark chamber of horrors into the light, to find a way by which the minds of men, the hopes of men, the souls of men everywhere, can move forward toward peace and happiness and well-being.

In this quest, I know that we must not lack patience. I know that in a world divided, such as ours today, salvation cannot be attained by one dramatic act. I know that many steps will have to be taken over many months before the world can look at itself one day and truly realize that a new climate of mutually peaceful confidence is abroad in the world. But I know, above all else, that we must start to take these steps—now.

The United States would seek more than a mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes. It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.

The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build-up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind. The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. That capability, already proved, is here—now—today. Who can doubt, if the entire body of the world’s scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas, that this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient and economic usage?

To hasten the day when fear of the atom will begin to disappear from the minds of people and the governments of the East and West, there are certain steps that can be taken now. I therefore make the following proposal.

The governments principally involved, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence, begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international atomic energy agency. We would expect that such an agency would be set up under the aegis of the United Nations. The ratios of contributions, the procedures and other details would properly be within the scope of the “private conversations” I referred to earlier.

The United States is prepared to undertake these explorations in good faith. Any partner of the United States acting in the same good faith will find the United States a not unreasonable or ungenerous associate. Undoubtedly, initial and early contributions to this plan would be small in quantity. However, the proposal has the great virtue that it can be undertaken without the irritations and mutual suspicions incident to any attempt to set up a completely acceptable system of world-wide inspection and control.

The atomic energy agency could be made responsible for the impounding, storage and protection of the contributed fissionable and other materials. The ingenuity of our scientists will provide special safe conditions under which such a bank of fissionable material can be made essentially immune to surprise seizure.

The more important responsibility of this atomic energy agency would be to devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world.

Thus the contributing Powers would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind. The United States would be more than willing—it would be proud to take up with others “principally involved” the development of plans whereby such peaceful use of atomic energy would be expedited.

Of those “principally involved” the Soviet Union must, of course, be one. I would be prepared to submit to the Congress of the United States, and with every expectation of approval, any such plan that would, first, encourage world-wide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material, and with the certainty that they had all the material needed for the conduct of all experiments that were appropriate; second, begin to diminish the potential destructive power of the world’s atomic stockpiles; third, allow all peoples of all nations to see that, in this enlightened age, the great Powers of the earth, both of the East and of the West, are interested in human aspirations first rather than in building up the armaments of war; fourth, open up a new channel for peaceful discussion and initiate at least a new approach to the many difficult problems that must be solved in both private and public conversations if the world is to shake off the inertia imposed by fear and is to make positive progress toward peace.

Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace. The coming months will be fraught with fateful decisions. In this Assembly, in the capitals and military headquarters of the world, in the hearts of men everywhere, be they governed or governors, may they be the decisions which will lead this world out of fear and into peace. To the making of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you, and therefore before the world, its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma—to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.

• Atomic Heritage Foundation, Nuclear Power Today

Distillations magazine

Atoms for peace: the mixed legacy of eisenhower’s nuclear gambit.

Following World War II, President Dwight Eisenhower attempted a risky balancing act between war and peace, secrecy and transparency.

On the cold, rainy morning of July 16, 1945, a group of scientists and soldiers gathered in New Mexico’s Jornada del Muerto desert. Atop a 100-foot steel tower they had placed a large metal ball studded with plugs and wires. The “gadget,” as they called it, was a code word for their secret weapon. Inside it sat another globe made of high explosives, and inside that was a core of subcritical plutonium. This device was the first nuclear explosive, a prototype bomb built to end a war.

The atomic age began with a bang: the great mass of humanity first knew a threshold had been crossed when it witnessed the incineration of two cities. But the newly harnessed atom had a peaceful aspect as well. Not just a global sword of Damocles, it could also be, as Walt Disney later put it, “our friend, the atom.” Nuclear technology could advance medicine and agriculture. It could, as envisioned by Lewis Strauss, chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), provide the world with energy “too cheap to meter.” If J. Robert Oppenheimer and his Promethean colleagues had given mankind the means for species suicide, maybe they had also provided a means of salvation.

Dwight Eisenhower was a military man, a former World War II commander drafted into a presidential campaign. He entered office in 1953 as the first chief executive elected after the advent of the bomb, when both scientific and governmental authorities had just begun to grapple with its ramifications. Eisenhower recognized how the world of war had changed. That December, in a speech before the United Nations, he said, “I feel impelled to speak today in a language that in a sense is new—one which I, who have spent so much of my life in the military profession, would have preferred never to use. That new language is the language of atomic warfare.”

But in that same speech Eisenhower proposed another vision: the peaceful, controlled distribution of nuclear technology to all the countries of the world. In exchange for the potentially life-changing knowledge, countries would agree not to pursue atomic weapons. In outline it was a simple plan but a revolutionary one; it was, as Eisenhower put it, an attempt to ensure “this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon for the benefit of all mankind.”

Atoms for Peace, as the program came to be called, appeared simple on its surface, yet it evolved from a complex constellation of motives and objectives. It was neither wholly utopian nor baldly pragmatic. The program was in many ways a product of its time, but even today we face the consequences of those early decisions.

The Martial Atom

When President Franklin Roosevelt died in early 1945, his successor, Harry Truman, knew nothing about the Manhattan Project, then in the final stages of developing the atomic bomb. In his diary he described it as “the most terrible bomb in the history of the world,” likening it to “fire destruction” found in biblical prophecy. Truman ultimately made the decision to use the fruits of Oppenheimer’s work in Japan.

For Truman the weapon was a secret revealed only once he had risen to the most powerful position in the country. Likewise, the bomb was a revelation for the public and the U.S. Congress, whose members quickly scrambled to comprehend and control this new technology after the war’s end. The scientists and military men, having worked on it for years, had a head start on the politicians and the public when it came to understanding the new era they had birthed. Consequently, those already in the know drove much of the early debate.

During the war nuclear knowledge was a closely held secret, one cultivated by the scientists but ultimately controlled by the military. Many of the scientists involved with the Manhattan Project bristled under that authority; others, particularly Oppenheimer, saw their duty as merely to produce the technology, leaving political and military decision making to those in charge. But these scientists knew their work would become public one day, and they had begun to think through the ramifications of a nuclear world.

One crucial question was whether the United States and its allies could maintain a nuclear monopoly, and if so, for how long. Some strategists saw the bomb as a hard-won advantage, one the Soviets would take years to match. These planners estimated the Soviet Union wouldn’t have its own nuclear weapons for a generation. Others recognized the bomb as a piece of technology—applied scientific knowledge—unlikely to remain secret for long. (The question of nuclear monopoly became moot in 1949 when the Soviets, thanks to a combination of scientific talent and espionage, detonated their own nuclear weapon.)

Deciding who ultimately controlled the bomb defined early attempts at regulation, such as the May-Johnson bill of late 1945. The bill, produced almost entirely by Truman’s advisers, compelled many scientists to voice opposition to military control of the technology. Opposition grew largely out of the belief that during peacetime, control of nuclear technology—particularly atomic weapons—should reside in the hands of civilian leaders. Yet even those in favor of civilian control agreed that “security” meant “secrecy” and that it was best to keep other countries from developing nuclear technology. The debate turned on which group could better maintain nuclear secrecy: civilians or the military.

During the war nuclear knowledge was a closely held secret, one cultivated by the scientists but ultimately controlled by the military.

In the face of such scientific criticism the May-Johnson bill withered in committee, replaced with a more civilian-focused proposal. The debate culminated on August 1, 1946, with the passage of the Atomic Energy Act, which established the AEC, the civilian body that would control nuclear information. The law also created a unique legal category: that of “restricted data.” Any information related to atomic weapons, the production of nuclear material, or nuclear energy would be “born classified.” Such data was so important to national security, the thinking went, that it would be preemptively classified and shared only with the commission’s approval. That effectively froze out allies of the United States, including Canada and the United Kingdom. Both had contributed knowledge and manpower to the Manhattan Project and had received wartime promises that the technology would be shared.

But Congress granted the AEC unprecedented regulatory powers for developing, producing, and controlling atomic energy in all its forms, while imposing its own strict controls. In addition to the technology-transfer freeze and the blanket secrecy of the “born classified” category, the FBI would have to closely vet scientists and contractors accessing AEC information. (In one of the era’s sad ironies Oppenheimer himself was stripped of clearance in 1954 over suspicions he was sympathetic to Communism.) The AEC took over the development of the U.S. atomic arsenal; research took place in government-owned labs and was tightly controlled by the commission. Congress had given the AEC the power to shape the world’s postwar atomic future—largely in secret—and that’s exactly what it did.

The Peaceful Atom

A week after Eisenhower’s election, on a foggy, sodden morning, he arrived at the clubhouse of the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. There the president-elect was met by Roy B. Snapp, the secretary of the AEC. Snapp wore a gun, a requirement given the sensitive information he carried: a memorandum detailing the current state of U.S. nuclear technology. He was to brief Eisenhower on its contents, then burn the document.

In the half-dozen years since the AEC’s inception the atomic world had changed dramatically. Though tasked with developing peaceful as well as military nuclear technology, most of the AEC’s early work involved weapons research. In 1948 it began testing new designs on Enewetak Atoll in the Pacific Ocean; the tests led to a growing stockpile of nuclear weapons. The following September, however, the Soviet Union detonated its own nuclear device. In response the AEC starting building a more powerful thermonuclear weapon, often called a hydrogen bomb because part of its energy comes from the fusion of hydrogen; this project became one of the largest in U.S. history, involving several years and several billion dollars spent at research facilities across the country.

When Snapp met with Eisenhower, he revealed to the president-elect that the project had succeeded. On November 1, 1952, the United States had detonated the first full-scale thermonuclear device. The blast was equivalent to 10 million tons of TNT—500 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Elugelab Island, where the new hydrogen bomb had been tested, was vaporized, leaving only a watery crater 1,500 yards across.

The news troubled Eisenhower. The failure to internationalize nuclear technology—as some scientists had hoped to do—had started an arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Eisenhower, the former general, understood the strategic necessity of a nuclear arsenal but saw no need “for us to build enough destructive power to destroy everything.” He didn’t fear the Soviets or their arsenal, but he worried that as atomic bombs became cheaper and more prevalent, they might be viewed as just another conventional weapon waiting to be used. The deadlier hydrogen bomb only worried him more.

Eisenhower had come to the meeting with ideas of his own, particularly about atomic energy. Charles A. Thomas, president of the Monsanto Chemical Company, had suggested to Eisenhower a larger role for private industry in developing nuclear-power plants; the AEC, some industrialists felt, had not done enough to successfully commercialize nuclear power. Eisenhower, believing that government should allow private industry to carry out economic policy wherever possible, was inclined to agree.

So President Eisenhower entered office with his own beliefs about atomic secrecy. Early in his term he launched Operation Candor with the express goal of explaining to the American public the risks and rewards of the atomic age. The administration attempted to balance secrecy with transparency, as Eisenhower recognized the tactical advantage of keeping the Soviets guessing but saw the nuclear question as about more than just weaponry.

Operation Candor may have represented an evolution in political thinking, but Eisenhower was ready to make an even more serious break with the past. On December 8, 1953, he went before the U.N.’s General Assembly to give a 20-minute speech. He began by warning that nuclear technology would only grow cheaper and that atomic weapons would become available to more countries, possibly all of them. Devastating surprise attacks, he cautioned, would become a possibility. Yet he also spoke of redirecting nuclear research to peaceful ends. He proposed an International Atomic Energy Agency that would collect, store, and distribute fissionable materials—a responsibly managed “uranium bank.” He described in glowing terms the future prospects of nuclear power. Finally, he pledged the United States’ “determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma—to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.” As his speech concluded, the delegates broke into applause.

Why had Eisenhower broken so completely with Harry Truman’s strategy of U.S. control and secrecy? In some ways he hadn’t. In 1946 Truman asked the U.S. Department of State to develop an international control plan for fissionable material; the resulting report declared fissionable material produced by atomic power could too easily be diverted to military use. But by late 1953 the Soviets had their own atomic arsenal and even a hydrogen bomb. Truman’s strategy of clamping down on nuclear knowledge hadn’t worked. The nuclear arms race was well under way. The United States would continue to participate in the race, while also reassuring its European allies that it didn’t intend to provoke a nuclear apocalypse. Eisenhower’s canny strategy emphasized the atom’s peaceful uses while allowing development of atomic weapons of even greater destructive power. Atoms for Peace was, like virtually all politics, intended partly as a propaganda maneuver.

[Eisenhower] didn’t fear the Soviets or their arsenal, but he worried that as atomic bombs became cheaper and more prevalent, they might be viewed as just another conventional weapon waiting to be used.

But this propaganda was more than mere words. Within a year the U.S. Atomic Energy Act was revised: the United States would now provide nuclear-power technology to countries that pledged not to develop nuclear weapons. Much in the way the atom had been split, American policy makers tried to split the military and peaceful uses of nuclear technology, and with equally world-changing results. The United States began training foreign scientists; it declassified reams of nuclear research; it sponsored nuclear reactors worldwide and provided allies with fissionable material. It was a remarkable shift from the preceding years of secrecy, one designed as a show of America’s leadership and peaceful generosity, contrasted with the Soviet’s bellicosity. The name itself, Atoms for Peace, could be considered a kind of preemptive strike aimed at winning hearts and minds before the Soviet Union could introduce a similar program.

In just a few years the U.S. nuclear strategy shifted from near-absolute secrecy to that of remarkable openness. And while they understood the risk of this change, U.S. policy makers believed they could manage it. They enacted safeguards designed to cleave peaceful use from military development and monitored the movement of nuclear materials. They rejected requests for assistance from countries deemed untrustworthy or disingenuous.

With hindsight it is easy to recognize how authorities overestimated both their judgment and their capability. India provides an illuminating case study: after lobbying hard for assistance, in 1955 it was the first country to receive nuclear material under the program. On May 18, 1974, the message reached New Delhi: “The Buddha is smiling.” India had detonated its first nuclear device, 350 feet beneath the desert. A Canadian-supplied reactor provided easily diverted plutonium for the effort, while Atoms for Peace had helped train India’s nuclear scientists. Homi Sethna, who would later become chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, declared, “I can say with confidence that the initial cooperation agreement itself has been the bedrock on which our nuclear program has been built.” The test enraged Pakistani officials, who committed themselves to developing a nuclear arsenal with their own Canadian reactor and Atoms for Peace–trained scientists.

While critics can use such cases to label Atoms for Peace a naïve failure—a project that actually increased the proliferation it sought to curb—doing so means neglecting the program’s positive effects. Following Truman’s untenable position of absolute secrecy (spurred by estimates that the Soviet Union would take a generation to develop its own nukes), Atoms for Peace established the groundwork for future international nonproliferation efforts. It made possible regulated trade in nuclear technology and materials with accompanying safeguards. Out of it arose the International Atomic Energy Agency, which remains the global body for monitoring nuclear proliferation. As weapons-proliferation expert Peter R. Lavoy notes, “Indeed, the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty can be seen as a refined, negotiated expression of Atoms for Peace and follow-on efforts by the Eisenhower administration.”

With Operation Candor, Eisenhower had sought to describe the nuclear situation to the world; with Atoms for Peace he prescribed a new regime, one based on transparency rather than secrecy that acknowledged the nuclear threat while envisioning the “peaceful atom.” We are still wrestling with the downside of the atomic age, as news headlines describe secret nuclear-weapons programs in Iran and North Korea and the radioactive aftereffects of a tsunami-battered nuclear-power plant in Fukushima, Japan. Eisenhower likely would have recognized the complexities of such a world as ours. Despite accusations that Atoms for Peace was hopelessly idealistic, it appears in hindsight to be a pragmatic, if imperfect, strategy. Eisenhower knew the bomb would be around for a long time and that we would continue to struggle in its shadow. He ended his presidency with a speech acknowledging as much: “As one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization, which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years—I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.”

Jesse Hicks is a freelance writer who has taught in the Science, Technology, and Society Program at Pennsylvania State University.

More from our magazine

The Dinosaurs Died in Spring

Science that ushered in a new epoch also revealed stunning details from Earth’s distant past.

Sylvia Earle and the Call of the Deep

Adventure and tangled interests under the sea.

Matchmaking in Colonial India

An inconspicuous technology sparks revolution on the subcontinent.

Copy the above HTML to republish this content. We have formatted the material to follow our guidelines, which include our credit requirements. Please review our full list of guidelines for more information. By republishing this content, you agree to our republication requirements.

A message from United Cleanup Oak Ridge, LLC

Oak Ridge: The Future Begins With Cleanup

Understanding the legacy of the “Atom for Peace” speech

What to expect from this article: (4 minutes read)

• Get a reminder about the context of the "Atom for Peace" speech
• Learn about the main positive consequences and the shortcomings and of the speech
• Find resources to go further

An unprecedented and threatening context:

The Atom for Peace symbol [1]

"I feel impelled to speak today in a language that in a sense is new, one which I, [...] would have preferred never to use. That new language is the language of atomic warfare." -President Dwight D. Eisenhower

In 1953, atomic power is not exclusive to the United States anymore. The Soviet Union already tested several nuclear bombs. Among them, at least one thermo-nuclear bomb [2].

President Dwight D. Eisenhower is conscious of both the dangers and promises of atomic power. On one hand, he acknowledges the increasing risk of nuclear proliferation and the threat of mutual destruction from atomic warfare. On the other hand, he recognizes the immense potential of peaceful use of nuclear energy.

As such, in his speech, the president declares:  "...the United States pledges before you, and therefore before the world, its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma - to devote its entire heart and mind to finding the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." -President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Positive consequences of the speech:

1) Creation of international agreements

"The governments principally involved [...], should begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international atomic energy agency [...].

The more important responsibility of this atomic energy agency would be to devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind."  -President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The "Atom for Peace" speech described the framework for the creation of several international treaties and agencies. Among them, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons. The IAEA never became a weapon-grade materials bank, but still had a tremendous effect on non-proliferation and the development of peaceful nuclear energy (learn more in [4]).

2) Development of peaceful nuclear

"The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build-up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind."-  President Dwight D. Eisenhower

This speech led to the creation of a multitude of peaceful nuclear programs across the world, benefiting mankind in energy production, medicine, and many other fields [5].

3) Democratization of the discussion around nuclear power

"If the peoples of the world are to conduct an intelligent search for peace, they must be armed with the significant facts of today's existence." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower

After this speech, atomic power ceased to be exclusively a secret matter of the state to become a global challenge for every citizen of the world. The Atom for Peace program launched soon after supported the development of nuclear research to civilians and countries that did not have previous access to nuclear power.

Shortcomings of the speech

1) This speech did not prevent the nuclear arm-race that followed.

"...two atomic Colossi are doomed malevolently to eye each other indefinitely across a trembling world" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Unfortunately, the President predicted the fear the world would live under during the rest of the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

2) Some programs that were launched after the speech might have contributed to proliferation.

"First, the knowledge now possessed by several nations will eventually be shared by others, possibly all others." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Despite the president's desire and efforts to limit the proliferation of military nuclear power, some argue that programs put in place after the "Atom for Peace" speech initiated the development of nuclear military programs in some countries. Ariana Rowberry, for example, described how the well-intended Atom for Peace program might have contributed to the subsequent development of Iran's nuclear weapons program (learn more in [6])

Closing remarks

The" Atom for Peace" speech was a turning point in the international discussion around atomic power.

In this short story, we discussed the positive consequences of the "Atom for Peace" speech, as well as some of its shortcomings. It democratized nuclear power and laid the ideological foundations for international agencies and bodies for the development of peaceful use of nuclear energy. This development improved the condition of mankind thanks to the production of clean and plentiful electricity, as well as improvements in medicine, space propulsion, and plenty of other technological advancements.

In essence, the "Atom for Peace" speech was a call for international unity in an ambiguous time of unprecedented danger and immense opportunities. Today, as the world faces the reality of climate change, it is important we remember these words of President Eisenhower:

"...if a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all; and equally, that if hope exists in the mind of one nation, that hope should be shared by all."

Read the entire speech .

References:

[1] OECD historical series, United states Atomic Energy Commission - http://www.eurochemic.be/nl/documents/68-eurochemic-EN.pdf page 52 . 1996

[2] Atom for Peace speech, IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/about/history/atoms-for-peace-speech

[3] Draft of presidential speech before the general assembly of the United Nations. https://www.dwightdeisenhower.com/DocumentCenter/View/2278/Atoms-for-Peace-Draft-PDF?bidId=

[4] IAEA https://www.iaea.org/about/overview

[5] Atom for Peace, IKE Eisenhower Foundation. https://www.dwightdeisenhower.com/378/Atoms-for-Peace

[6] Ariana Rowberry 'Sixty years of "Atom for Peace" and Iran's Nuclear Program', Brookings, 2013. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2013/12/18/sixty-years-of-atoms-for-peace-and-irans-nuclear-program/

Lesson Plans for Secondary Educators

Dwight d. eisenhower, “ atoms for peace ” 8 december 1953.

High School Lesson Plan created for Voices of Democracy by Nicole Kennerly, Independent Editor.

Click here for the VOD unit corresponding to this lesson plan.

Value for Teachers

• This speech launched a major propaganda campaign that framed America’s development of atomic technology as a peaceful pursuit, while associating the Soviet Union with the forces of fear and darkness.
• The “Atoms for Peace” speech addressed both the United States and international groups and countries. One goal was to justify the buildup of atomic weaponry by framing the United States as peacemakers. While some scholars have viewed this speech as effective toward that end, it also served to exacerbate Cold War tensions and may have actually escalated the arms race.

Relevant Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.1 Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.

• The “Atoms for Peace” speech purposely left some matters unstated, while relying on implied arguments for much of its persuasive impact. These implicit arguments included a warning to the Soviet Union against escalating the Cold War couched in an explicit message of peace and cooperation. This was consistent with the emphasis on peaceful uses of Atomic energy, which was the central theme of the years-long Atoms for Peace campaign.
• Light and dark archetypal metaphors are used throughout the speech to contrast the seemingly peaceful motives of the United States with the more aggressive motives of the Soviet Union in developing atomic technology.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.6 Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text in which the rhetoric is particularly effective, analyzing how style and content contribute to the power, persuasiveness or beauty of the text.

• Eisenhower is credited with editing the speech personally to place more emphasis on the theme of hope instead of the fear of war. He used the word “peace” 24 times in the speech, while at the same time implicitly threatening the Soviet Union. Eisenhower’s focus on peace may have diverted attention from ongoing efforts to build up America’s atomic arsenal and prepare for war with civil defense policies.

Ideas for Pre-Reading

• Begin by showing an image of the stamp designed and used as part of the Atoms for Peace campaign by the Eisenhower administration. Without providing any context, have students generate a list of 3-5 words they associate with the image. Have students keep their lists. After analyzing the speech, return to these lists and have students consider how they might revise their list after learning more about Atoms for Peace.
• Provide historical context for the “Atoms for Peace” speech with information from the scholarly essay by Parry-Giles on the Voices of Democracy website. Have students read the following excerpt from that essay and reflect on the fears and other emotions that might have been present in the United States and around the globe at this time:

“The year 1953 represented a tension-filled period in the cold war; the Eisenhower administration responded to the exigencies both publicly and privately. On March 6, 1953, Joseph Stalin’s death was announced to the world. As the leader of the Soviet Union and General Secretary of the Communist Party’s Central Committee, his passing was viewed as an opportunity for the United States to take advantage of a Soviet transfer of power and address fears about nuclear proliferation. In response to Stalin’s death, President Eisenhower delivered his famous “Chance for Peace” address on April 16, 1953, to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Assessing this speech, Ira Chernus suggests that it “identified the Soviet Union as the sole source of nuclear threat.” In the aftermath of the “Chance for Peace” speech, the Eisenhower administration privately planned “Operation Candor,” which was designed to tell the truth to the American people about the increasing dangers of atomic weapons and the escalating cold war with the Soviet Union. The Eisenhower administration often referred to this period as an “Age of Peril.”… Fears were also mounting among the American people over the intensification of the cold war. In April of 1953, the Vietminh invaded northern Laos as the French stronghold in the region deteriorated. The July 27, 1953, Armistice Agreement left a divided Korea; the war thus failed to create a unified Korea devoid of communist infiltration. In a matter of weeks, the Soviet Union had also tested its first hydrogen bomb.”

• Eisenhower’s speech was delivered to the newly formed United Nations. Have students research when the UN was founded and why. Discuss why you think Eisenhower chose this venue and this audience for his speech launching the Atoms for Peace campaign.

Important Vocabulary/Figures

• Secretary General Hammarskjold [para 2] : Swedish diplomat and Secretary General of the United Nations from 1953 until his death in 1961.
• “The dread secret” [para 21] : Here Eisenhower referred to the scientific knowledge needed to build atomic weapons, which both the United States and U.S.S.R had at the time of his speech.
• “Dark chamber of horrors” [para 35] : An example of a light/dark metaphor Eisenhower used to contrast the peaceful uses of atomic energy championed in his speech with the use of that technology for war. Specifically, he pledged that the Atoms for Peace initiative promised to a way to move the whole world “out of the dark chamber of horrors into the light,” a reference to the bright promise of atomic energy used for peaceful purposes.

Suggested Timeline/Objectives

Day 1: Pre-reading, Introduction of Important Vocabulary/Figures, and Beginning the Speech

• Students will complete pre-reading assigned by teacher.
• Teacher will introduce key terms of the speech.
• Students will read paragraphs 1-20 of the speech itself.
• Students will assess how Eisenhower introduced the subject of atomic weapons, emphasizing the dangers posed by these new weapons of mass destruction.

Day 2: Implied Arguments: Continuing on Themes of Peace in a Perilous Nuclear Age

• Students will read paragraphs 21-57.
• Students will continue to analyze how Eisenhower makes his argument that the U.S. and its allies have led the effort to find peace in the atomic age, while implying that the U.S.S.R., which only recently discovered the “secret” of the atomic bomb, poses a threat to peace.

Day 3: Finishing the Speech and Post-Reading & Assessment

• Students will read paragraphs 58-81.
• Students will complete post-activities.

Key During Reading Passages and Discussion Questions

• Paragraphs 1-5: Discuss with students the opening of Eisenhower’s speech. Who made up this audience at the UN General Assembly? President Eisenhower spoke of the “honor” and “privilege” of addressing them; why do you think he did that? Did he say those things merely to flatter his audience? Do you think his opening might have made the audience more receptive to his message?
• Paragraphs 6-9: How would you describe the tone of the speech in this section? Students might pull from these paragraphs key words that they might associate with an uplifting mood (such as “wisdom,” “courage,” “faith,” “happiness,” “universal peace,” “human dignity,” etc). At the same time, how did Eisenhower’s language prepare his audience for the seriousness of his topic—the threat of atomic war?
• Paragraphs 10-20: Here Eisenhower’s tone becomes even more serious, as he directly acknowledges the threat of nuclear war. Where did he say the danger lies? How did he convey the magnitude of America’s growing “stockpile of atomic weapons” (para 18)? How did he communicate the destructive power of those weapons? Why do you think he placed so much emphasis on the destructive force of that stockpile? Guiding questions might include: Which country had the most atomic bombs at this time?    And how do you think this part of Eisenhower’s speech might have been interpreted by UN delegates from the Soviet Union or other countries? Could Eisenhower’s talk about the power of the U.S. arsenal be seen as a warning or a threat to the Soviet Union?.
• Paragraphs 21-30: This section contains the first explicit reference to the Soviet Union. What tone did Eisenhower establish when discussing the U.S.S.R? Note Eisenhower’s use of the term “dread secret” (see Key Vocabulary section above). Why does he suggest we should “dread” the “secret” of the atomic bomb? What other key phrases do students notice in this part of the speech? After the most explicit discussion of the threat of atomic bombs, Eisenhower concludes, in paragraph 30, by warning that any atomic attack on the U.S. would be met with massive retaliation. Yet he then goes on to say that this “is not the true expression of the purpose and hope of the United States.” What did Eisenhower mean by that, and why did he place that statement here?
• Paragraphs 31-39: Here Eisenhower takes a long view of history, noting that the threat of nuclear annihilation threatens to destroy “the irreplaceable heritage of mankind handed down to us generation from generation.” Associating the United States with the forces of “decency, and right, and justice” in the “age-old struggle upward from savagery,” he insists that the U.S. wants to be “constructive, not destructive.” In the process, he implicitly criticizes the Soviet Union. Who else might he be referring to when he speaks of the “Great Destroyers” in history? Ask students to imagine how Soviet leaders might have reacted to the speech. Would they see the speech as threatening or conciliatory, offering a chance to work together for peace?
• Paragraphs 40-54 : These paragraphs offer a seemingly more conciliatory attitude, suggesting America’s willingness to negotiate with the Soviets. Here the emphasis is on diplomacy, negotiation, and “the conference table.” Have students discuss whether this section seems consistent with the tone of the rest of the speech. Is it more hopeful? Less threatening to the Soviets?
• Paragraphs 55-77 : Here Eisenhower lays out his Atoms for Peace proposal, which he offers as an alternative to the development of nuclear technologies for the purposes of war. Who did Eisenhower imply should lead this effort, the UN or the U.S.? How did he transition in this part of the speech from a discussion of the fearful prospects of an atomic arms race to an optimistic vision of Atoms for Peace? What did he mean when he said, in paragraph 60, that the development of atomic technologies should be turned over to those who could adapt those technologies to “the arts of peace?”
• Paragraphs 78-81 : How did Eisenhower close the speech? What did he mean in speaking of the “fearful atomic dilemma” faced by humanity?

Ideas for Post-Reading and Assessment

• Identify and discuss President Eisenhower’s use of metaphors in the speech. How do his metaphors of light and dark contrast the threat of atomic weapons with the promise of peaceful uses for atomic energy?
• Remembering the contrast of “hope” and “fear” in President Eisenhower’s speech, have students consider other public discourses that invoke feelings of hope or fear. What other political leaders have emphasized themes of hope and/or fear? Did former President Obama’s speeches about the “power of hope” also appeal to fear? Did President Trump’s warnings about the threats posed by illegal immigrants or “radical Islamic extremism” also appeal to hope?
• Read President George W. Bush’s “Graduation Speech at West Point” in 2002, also on the Voices of Democracy Website ( http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/bush-graduation-speech-speech-text/ ). How did Bush’s characterization of the threats faced by the U.S. after 9/11 compare with President Eisenhower’s description of the atomic age? Which seems a more dangerous and frightening portrait of the world and the threats faced by the U.S.?
• Locate two sources that detail contemporary attitudes toward the United Nations. In what ways are today’s attitudes toward the UN different or similar to those views articulated in Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech?

Contact Information

Voices of Democracy: The U.S. Oratory Project Shawn J. Parry-Giles Department of Communication 2130 Skinner Building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-7635

301-405-6527 spg@umd.edu

Questions/comments about the VOD website may be directed to Shawn Parry-Giles, University of Maryland

Web Accessibility Privacy Notice

When Secretary General Hammarskjold’s invitation to address this General Assembly reached me in Bermuda, I was just beginning a series of conferences with the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of Great Britain and of France. Our subject was some of the problems that beset our world. During the remainder of the Bermuda Conference, I had constantly in mind that ahead of me lay a great honor. That honor is mine today as I stand here, Privileged to address the General Assembly of the United Nations. At the same time that I appreciate the distinction of addressing you, I have a sense of exhilaration as I look upon this Assembly. Never before in history has so much hope for so many people been gathered together in a single organization. Your deliberations and decisions during these somber years have already realized part of those hopes. But the great test and the great accomplishments still lie ahead. And in the confident expectation of those accomplishments, I would use the office which, for the time being, I hold, to assure you that the Government of the United States will remain steadfast in its support of this body. This we shall do in the conviction that you will provide a great share of the wisdom, the courage, and the faith which can bring to this world lasting peace for all nations, and happiness and well-being for all men. Clearly, it would not be fitting for me to take this occasion to present to you a unilateral American report on Bermuda. Nevertheless, I assure you that in our deliberations on that lovely island we sought to invoke those same great concepts of universal peace and human dignity which are so clearly etched in your Charter. Neither would it be a measure of this great opportunity merely to recite, however hopefully, pious platitudes. I therefore decided that this occasion warranted my saying to you some of the things that have been on the minds and hearts of my legislative and executive associates and on mine for a great many months--thoughts I had originally planned to say primarily to the American people. I know that the American people share my deep belief that if a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all--and equally, that if hope exists in the mind of one nation, that hope should be shared by all. Finally, if there is to be advanced any proposal designed to ease even by the smallest measure the tensions of today’s world, what more appropriate audience could there be than the members of the General Assembly of the United Nations? I feel impelled to speak today in a language that in a sense is new--one which I, who have spent so much of my life in the military profession, would have preferred never to use. That new language is the language of atomic warfare. The atomic age has moved forward at such a pace that every citizen of the world should have some comprehension, at least in comparative terms, of the extent of this development of the utmost significance to every one of us. Clearly, if the people of the world are to conduct an intelligent search for peace, they must be armed with the significant facts of today’s existence. My recital of atomic danger and power is necessarily stated in United States terms, for these are the only in controvertible facts that I know. I need hardly point out to this Assembly, however, that this subject is global, not merely national in character. On July 16, 1945, the United States set off the world’s first atomic explosion. Since that date in 1945, the United States of America has conducted 42 test explosions. Atomic bombs today are more than 25 times as powerful as the weapons with which the atomic age dawned, while hydrogen weapons are in the ranges of millions of tons of TNT equivalent. Today, the United States’ stockpile of atomic weapons, which, of course, increases daily, exceeds by many times the explosive equivalent of the total of all bombs and all shells that came from every plane and every gun in every theatre of war in all of the years of World War II. A single air group, whether afloat or land-based, can now deliver to any reachable target a destructive cargo exceeding in power all the bombs that fell on Britain in all of World War II. In size and variety, the development of atomic weapons has been no less remarkable. The development has been such that atomic weapons have virtually achieved conventional status within our armed services. In the United States, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps are all capable of putting this weapon to military use. But the dread secret, and the fearful engines of atomic might, are not ours alone. In the first place, the secret is possessed by our friends and allies, Great Britain and Canada, whose scientific genius made a tremendous contribution to our original discoveries, and the designs of atomic bombs. The secret is also known by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has informed us that, over recent years, it has devoted extensive resources to atomic weapons. During this period, the Soviet Union has exploded a series of atomic devices, including at least one involving thermo-nuclear reactions. If at one time the United States possessed what might have been called a monopoly of atomic power, that monopoly ceased to exist several years ago. Therefore, although our earlier start has permitted us to accumulate what is today a great quantitative advantage, the atomic realities of today comprehend two facts of even greater significance. First, the knowledge now possessed by several nations will eventually be shared by others--possibly all others. Second, even a vast superiority in numbers of weapons, and a consequent capability of devastating retaliation, is no preventive, of itself, against the fearful material damage and toll of human lives that would be inflicted by surprise aggression. The free world, at least dimly aware of these facts, has naturally embarked on a large program of warning and defense systems. That program will be accelerated and expanded. But let no one think that the expenditure of vast sums for weapons and systems of defense can guarantee absolute safety for the cities and citizens of any nation. The awful arithmetic of the atomic bomb does not permit any such easy solution. Even against the most powerful defense, an aggressor in possession of the effective minimum number of atomic bombs for a surprise attack could probably place a sufficient number of his bombs on the chosen targets to cause hideous damage. Should such an atomic attack be launched against the United States, our reactions would be swift and resolute. But for me to say that the defense capabilities of the United States are such that they could inflict terrible losses upon an aggressor--for me to say that the retaliation capabilities of the United States are so great that such an aggressor’s land would be laid waste--all this, while fact, is not the true expression of the purpose and the hope of the United States. To pause there would be to confirm the hopeless finality of a belief that two atomic colossi are doomed malevolently to eye each other indefinitely across a trembling world. To stop there would be to accept helplessly the probability of civilization destroyed--the annihilation of the irreplaceable heritage of mankind handed down to us generation from generation--and the condemnation of mankind to begin all over again the age-old struggle upward from savagery toward decency, and right, and justice. Surely no sane member of the human race could discover victory in such desolation. Could anyone wish his name to be coupled by history with such human degradation and destruction. Occasional pages of history do record the faces of the ”Great Destroyers” but the whole book of history reveals mankind’s never-ending quest for peace, and mankind’s God-given capacity to build. It is with the book of history, and not with isolated pages, that the United States will ever wish to be identified. My country wants to be constructive, not destructive. It wants agreement, not wars, among nations. It wants itself to live in freedom, and in the confidence that the people of every other nation enjoy equally the right of choosing their own way of life. So my country’s purpose is to help us move out of the dark chamber of horrors into the light, to find a way by which the minds of men, the hopes of men, the souls of men every where, can move forward toward peace and happiness and well being. In this quest, I know that we must not lack patience. I know that in a world divided, such as our today, salvation cannot be attained by one dramatic act. I know that many steps will have to be taken over many months before the world can look at itself one day and truly realize that a new climate of mutually peaceful confidence is abroad in the world. But I know, above all else, that we much start to take these steps--now. The United States and its allies, Great Britain and France, have over the past months tried to take some of these steps. Let no one say that we shun the conference table. On the record has long stood the request of the United States, Great Britain, and France to negotiate with the Soviet Union the problems of a divided Germany. On that record has long stood the request of the same three nations to negotiate the problems of Korea. Most recently, we have received from the Soviet Union what is in effect an expression of willingness to hold a Four Power meeting. Along with our allies, Great Britain and France, we were pleased to see that this note did not contain the unacceptable preconditions previously put forward. As you already know from our joint Bermuda communique, the United States, Great Britain, and France have agreed promptly to meet with the Soviet Union. The Government of the United States approaches this conference with hopeful sincerity. We will bend every effort of our minds to the single purpose of emerging from that conference with tangible results toward peace--the only true way of lessening international tension. We never have, we never will, propose or suggest that the Soviet Union surrender what is rightfully theirs. We will never say that the people of Russia are an enemy with whom we have no desire ever to deal or mingle in friendly and fruitful relationship. On the contrary, we hope that this coming Conference may initiate a relationship with the Soviet Union which will eventually bring about a free inter mingling of the peoples of the east and of the west--the one sure, human way of developing the understanding required for confident and peaceful relations. Instead of the discontent which is now settling upon Eastern Germany, occupied Austria, and countries of Eastern Europe, we seek a harmonious family of free European nations, with none a threat to the other, and least of all a threat to the peoples of Russia. Beyond the turmoil and strife and misery of Asia, we seek peaceful opportunity for these peoples to develop their natural resources and to elevate their lives. These are not idle works or shallow visions. Behind them lies a story of nations lately come to independence, not as a result of war, but through free grant or peaceful negotiation. There is a record, already written, of assistance gladly given by nations of the west to needy peoples, and to those suffering the temporary effects of famine, drought, and natural disaster. These are deeds of peace. They speak more loudly than promises or protestations of peaceful intent. But I do not wish to rest either upon the reiteration of past proposals or the restatement of past deeds. The gravity of the time is such that every new avenue of peace, no matter how dimly discernible, should be explored. These is at least one new avenue of peace which has not yet been well explored--an avenue now laid out by the General Assembly of the United Nations. In its resolution of November 18th, 1953 this General Assembly suggested--and I quote--”that the Disarmament Commission study the desirability of establishing a sub-committee consisting of representatives of the Powers principally involved, which should seek in private an acceptable solution . . . and report on such a solution to the General Assembly and to the Security Council not later than 1 September 1954.” The United States, heeding the suggestion of the General Assembly of the United Nations, is instantly prepared to meet privately with such other countries as may be ”principally involved,” to seek ”an acceptable solution” to the atomic armaments race which over shadows not only the peace, but the very life, of the world. We shall carry into these private or diplomatic talks a new conception. The United States would seek more than the mere reduction or elimination of atomic materials for military purposes. It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace. The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military build up can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind. The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. That capability, already proved, is here--now--today. Who can doubt, if the entire body of the world’s scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their ideas, that this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and economic usage. To hasten the day when fear of the atom will begin to disappear from the minds of people, and the governments of the East and West, there are certain steps that can be taken now. I therefore make the following proposals: The Governments principally involved, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence, to begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international Atomic Energy Agency. We would expect that such an agency would be set up under the aegis of the United Nations. The ratios of contributions, the procedures and other details would properly be within the scope of the ” private conversations” I have referred to earlier. The United States is prepared to under take these explorations in good faith. Any partner of the United States acting in the same good faith will find the United States a not unreasonable or ungenerous associate. Undoubtedly initial and early contributions to this plan would be small in quantity. However, the proposal has the great virtue that it can be under taken without the irritations and mutual suspicions incident to any attempt to set up a completely acceptable system of world-wide inspection and control. The Atomic Energy Agency could be made responsible for the impounding, storage, and protection of the contributed fissionable and other materials. The ingenuity of our scientists will provide special safe conditions under which such a bank of fissionable material can be made essentially immune to surprise seizure. The more important responsibility of this Atomic Energy Agency would be to devise methods where by this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world. Thus the contributing powers would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind. The United States would be more than willing--it would be proud to take up with others ”principally involved: the development of plans where by such peaceful use of atomic energy would be expedited. Of those ”principally involved” the Soviet Union must, of course, be one. I would be prepared to submit to the Congress of the United States, and with every expectation of approval, any such plan that would: First--encourage world-wide investigation into the most effective peace time uses of fissionable material, and with the certainty that they had all the material needed for the conduct of all experiments that were appropriate; Second--begin to diminish the potential destructive power of the world’s atomic stockpiles; Third--allow all peoples of all nations to see that, in this enlightened age, the great powers of the earth, both of the East and of the West, are interested in human aspirations first, rather than in building up the armaments of war; Fourth--open up a new channel for peaceful discussion, and initiate at least a new approach to the many difficult problems that must be solved in both private and public conversations, if the world is to shake off the inertia imposed by fear, and is to make positive progress toward peace. Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United Stats does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace. The coming months will be fraught with fateful decisions. In this Assembly; in the capitals and military headquarters of the world; in the hearts of men every where, be they governors, or governed, may they be decisions which will lead this work out of fear and into peace. To the making of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you--and therefore before the world--its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma--to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life. I again thank the delegates for the great honor they have done me, in inviting me to appear before them, and in listening to me so courteously. Thank you.  

More History

Picture Archive A - C Picture Archive D - M Picture Archive N - Z

Attila short biography Map of Attila's empire Battle of the Catalaunian Plains Who were the Huns?  

Also called the Persian Wars , the Greco-Persian Wars were fought for almost half a century from 492 BC - 449 BC. Greece won against enormous odds. Here is more:

Battle of Marathon Battle of Thermopylae Battle of Salamis Battle of Plataea

Academic Master

• Free Essays
• Latest Essays
• Pricing Plans

• Global Politics

Rhetoric Analysis of Atoms for Peace Speech by Eisenhower

• Author: arsalan
• Posted on: 8 May 2018
• Paper Type: Free Essay
• Subject: Global Politics
• Wordcount: 1378 words
• Published: 8th May 2018

President Dwight Eisenhower, the 34th president of the US, delivered the Atoms for Peace speech in 1953. After the speech, the president launched the Atoms for Peace program to facilitate institutions such as schools, hospitals, and research institutions in the US and other nations. The speech was part of the meticulously prearranged media campaign known as “Operation Candor” to raise public awareness of the benefits and detriments of nuclear use in the future.

The campaign was part of the propaganda that accompanied the Cold War. Eisenhower’s speech initiated media crusades that lasted for several years and whose main goal was to manage emotions and stabilize fears of the continuing rearmament with the hope that there would be a peaceful usage of nuclear materials in the forthcoming days. Atoms for Peace speech was the turning point for all nations in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The speech was an attempt by Eisenhower to console a terrified world after nuclear assaults in Japan and nuclear tests that took place in the 1950s (IAEA par.3).

Atoms for Peace speech demonstrates an ostensible antithesis to politics and the worldwide machination that almost plunged the world into war. The speech had a substantial impact owing to the warfare atmosphere that prevailed at the time, and it reflects how things were during that time. The speech gave people and nations a dream for the future. Eisenhower’s speech appears to have touched the hearts of many countries, and this made them reconsider the way they used atomic energy. Within the few minutes that he used to deliver his speech, President Eisenhower probably influenced and enlightened the world about how people can peacefully use nuclear weapons (IAEA par.8). Atoms for Peace speech demonstrates a spectacular success of rhetoric. Eisenhower makes use of various rhetorical modes like ethos, pathos, logos, and antithesis. He also underpins the rhetoric modes with different rhetoric devices as well as schemes, shaping his name in history (“Pathos, ethos and logos definition and examples” par.1-10).

The organization of a speech determines how good it is. The Atoms for Peace speech is well organized, and this ensures that it meets its goal of emphasizing the need for the peaceful use of atomic energy. Fundamentally, the structure of the speech as intended to appeal to an important type of audience that will possibly pay attention to the international community. At the beginning of the speech, Eisenhower skillfully paints his image as a peace ambassador. For example, he says that before he was asked to deliver the speech during the General Assembly meeting, he had convened a meeting with leaders from other nations, such as the United Kingdom and France, where they discussed matters troubling the world. That way, he assures the international community that the US is devoted to upholding global peace. Eisenhower also thanked other nations for their efforts in maintaining global peace. He says that gathering together in a single organization to deliberate on how to maintain global peace gives people hope for a better tomorrow. He commends the efforts and decisions by the international community that have promoted global peace, meaning that he is appreciative of other nations in promoting peace (IAEA par.8).

To back up the plain structure of the speech, President Eisenhower used rhetoric modes. One of the modes that he uses is Pathos which utilizes human emotions. Eisenhower demonstrates the use of pathos when he emphasizes the importance of joint efforts to uphold global peace. For example, Eisenhower says that “…. if a danger exists in the world, it is a danger shared by all; and equally, that if hope exists in the mind of one nation, that hope should be shared by all.” President Eisenhower also says that people need to be armed with important facts about the way the world is today so that they will be able to carry out a smart search for global peace. Eisenhower uses pathos here to inform his listeners that they should not circumvent the debate on the peaceful use of atomic energy, which was among the main topics when he delivered the speech. Eisenhower also uses pathos to express his concern that the US is no longer the only country in possession of nuclear weapons and that everyone might end up owning the weapons, including those with ill motives. Again, Eisenhower employs pathos to emphasize the need for continued efforts to promote peaceful coexistence among nations. He says that if nations abandon the fight for nonviolent use of nuclear energy , it will show that the world is giving in to the likelihood of a damaged civilization. It will also indicate the obliteration of the unique culture of humankind that would compel it to begin all over again the extended struggle from violence via civility and right to justice. No one would wish to experience that. This example, together with several other instances, exhibits the effective use of pathos in the Atoms for Peace speech (IAEA par.8).

Apart from pathos, Eisenhower uses ethos in his speech. Ethos utilizes social ethics, and it helps Eisenhower to shape the organization of his speech. Ethically, it is of paramount importance for nations to uphold global peace. He describes his military profession and his understanding of atomic warfare to show the audience that he knows what he has enough knowledge about all that he is saying. By doing that, he boosts the listeners’ confidence that he has sufficient knowledge of atomic warfare and military operations, and this reinforces the credibility of his speech. Eisenhower makes ethos appeals by making reasonable appeals to logos. He refers to the nuclear bomb attacks in Japan in 1945. He describes how the US set the biggest atomic explosion in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and its devastating effects in his attempt to emphasize the importance of the peaceful use of atomic energy in the coming days. The reference strengthens the credibility of the speech (IAEA par.8).

To enhance the structure of the speech and the use of the various rhetoric modes, Eisenhower also makes use of the rhetoric trope. There are several instances in the speech where the author uses rhetorical tropes to elevate it and give it an influential and lasting feel. An example of the device that Eisenhower uses for the rhetoric trope is the antithesis. Antithesis refers to the art of juxtaposing two contrasting opinions that are normally in a parallel organization. Eisenhower used this device severally in the Atoms for Peace speech. For instance, he says that it is with the history books and not with the isolated pages. By this, he is trying to say that the US wants to be conspicuous throughout the world’s history. Another instance of antithesis is evident when Eisenhower says that his country wants to be constructive rather than destructive. By using antithesis, Eisenhower can emphasize the fact that his country is willing to promote global peace and not warfare. Another instance of antithesis is when Eisenhower says that his country wants agreements instead of war among the countries of the world. The statement puts together the idea and reason for the US commitment to global peace despite being the most powerful nation globally. The nation is willing to do all that it can to uphold global peace in the world. Eisenhower used antithesis as a way of making his speech great and memorable. It is a good demonstration of how important rhetoric devices, among other devices, are when writing a speech (IAEA par.8).

In sum, President Eisenhower used different rhetoric modes in his speech. There are also several instances of the rhetoric trope in the speech. He uses pathos, ethos as well as logo appeals to ensure that his speech is great and memorable. Pathos utilizes human emotions, and Eisenhower uses it to emphasize the importance of joint efforts in maintaining global peace. He also uses rhetoric tropes to enhance the various rhetorical modes used in the speech.  Eisenhower uses antithesis, which involves the use of contrasting words in a sentence to emphasize something. The author uses the device repeatedly in the speech.

• 100% custom written college papers
• Writers with Masters and PhD degrees
• Any citation style available
• Any subject, any difficulty
• 24/7 service available
• Privacy guaranteed
• Free amendments if required
• Satisfaction guarantee

Calculate Your Order

Standard price, save on your first order, you may also like, malikki pakistan’s online marketplace redefining how we buy, sell.

At Malikki, the act of buy is transformed into an effortless adventure. With a diverse array of products available—from cutting-edge electronics to daily necessities—Malikki has

The American Revolution

Living as part of the Crown for several decades, the people of America were unhappy with the British rule. As the crown was trying to

Religious Freedom in American society

Religious freedom is considered to be an intrinsic part of American society. An example of this can be traced to the seventeenth century when some

Join Our Test Series for Free!

• Competitions

Atoms for Peace and Development Essay Competition 2023 by International Atomic Energy Agency [Ages 18-24; Chance to get Published]: Submit by Oct 23

• Priyanka Barik
• Oct 14, 2023

Submissions are invited for Atoms for Peace and Development Essay Competition 2023 by International Atomic Energy Agency. The last date of submission is October 23, 2023.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is the world’s central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical cooperation in the nuclear field. It works for the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology, contributing to international peace and security and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

Competition Details

The IAEA’s essay competition for young adults around the world is based on the IAEA’s slogan – Atoms for Peace and Development. The competition is designed to commemorate the 70th anniversary of US President Dwight D Eisenhower’s ‘Atoms for Peace’ speech delivered on 8 December 1953 to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, which laid the foundation for the establishment of the IAEA in 1957. 

The winning essay will posit ways the IAEA and the international community can address today’s biggest challenges within the mission of “Atoms for Peace and Development”.

The competition is free to enter, and contestants are limited to one entry.

Eligibility

• The competition is only open to nationals of IAEA Member States.
• Applicants must be between 18 and 24 years of age on the date of the deadline for submission (23rd October 2023). Finalists will be requested to send a copy of their identification documents (e.g. copy of passport) to facilitate administrative arrangements regarding their prize.

Competition Guidelines

• Essays must be submitted by an applicant acting in their own personal capacity and not on behalf of an organization, company, or government.
• Essay character count: maximum 4000 characters, excluding references.
• Entries must be submitted in the English language. Translation into English from essays originally written in another language will be accepted.
• Only one submission per individual is allowed. Revisions will not be possible after the essay is officially submitted. Please carefully check before submitting the final copy and ensure that all supplementary information is correct.

The winning essay will be published by the IAEA, and the winner will be invited to Vienna to commemorate the anniversary of the speech on 8 December 2023.

How to Submit?

Interested participants can submit online via this link .

Submission Deadline

The last date of submission is October 23, 2023.

Telephone: +43 (1) 2600-0

Click here to view the official notification of Atoms for Peace and Development Essay Competition 2023 by International Atomic Energy Agency.

Join our competitions whatsapp channel, get daily updates, join our competitions telegram group.

Get relevant opportunities in your inbox every day!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

For submitting a Post

• +91 63936 71382
• [email protected]

For banner ads & admission campaigns

• +91 90235 43927
• [email protected]
• Hours: 11 AM - 7 PM (Mon-Fri)

Useful Links

• Submit a Post

© 2024 – NoticeBard | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service

Enter your email

Log in using your NoticeBard account. If you do not have an account, you will be prompted to create one.

Parents, Teachers, School Students: Subscribe for your Youngster Career

Competitions, scholarships, olympiads, and jobs for your growth & development, for 1 month, for 3 months, for 6 months.

Advertisement

Netanyahu Asserts Israel’s Right to Fight Its Enemies in Defiant Speech

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been steadfast in his goal of destroying Hamas. On Sunday, he defended Israel’s right to defend itself at a Holocaust remembrance event.

• Share full article

By Vivek Shankar

• May 6, 2024

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Sunday rejected international pressure to rein in its military campaign in Gaza and, speaking at a Holocaust memorial, asserted Israel’s right to fight its “genocidal enemies.”

Nearly seven months into the war, Mr. Netanyahu has been steadfast in his goal of destroying Hamas. This, and Mr. Netanyahu’s insistence on sending troops into Rafah, the southernmost city in the Gaza Strip, has complicated efforts to end the fighting and raised concerns about the future of the hostages held by Hamas.

But Mr. Netanyahu has remained defiant.

On Sunday, he spoke at Yad Vashem , Israel’s Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, to mark the national Holocaust remembrance day. Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, he said, was not a “Holocaust” — not because Hamas did not have the intention to destroy Israel but because of its inability to do so. About 1,200 people were killed and more than 200 were taken hostage that day, Israeli authorities say. Hamas’s intention, Mr. Netanyahu said, was the same as that of the Nazis.

In his speech , which lasted for about 15 minutes and was largely in Hebrew, Mr. Netanyahu rejected accusations that Israel was committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. Since the beginning of the war, Gazan authorities say Israeli troops have killed more than 34,000 people, many of them women and children, though the statistics do not differentiate between civilians and combatants.

Mr. Netanyahu said that Israel’s military does everything it can to avoid harming civilians and that it has allowed aid to flow through to Gaza to avoid a humanitarian crisis. A United Nations official recently said that parts of Gaza are experiencing “ full-blown famine .”

Mr. Netanyahu made a point to say a few words in English that were aimed at the international community. He invoked the Holocaust in asserting Israel’s right to defend itself, with or without international support.

“If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone,” he said. “But we know we are not alone because countless decent people around the world support our just cause. And I say to you, we will defeat our genocidal enemies. Never again is now!”

On Monday morning after his speech, the Israeli military gave the strongest signal yet that it was going to invade Rafah as it asked tens of thousands of Gazans to evacuate from the city.

Vivek Shankar is a senior staff editor on the International desk. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News in San Francisco, Sydney and Washington. More about Vivek Shankar

Our Coverage of the Israel-Hamas War

News and Analysis

President Biden paused an arms shipment to Israel  to prevent the American-made weapons from being used in an assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah, a sign of the growing rift between the United States and Israel.

​​The Israeli military said that its tanks had entered Rafah  and had seized control of the city’s critical border crossing with Egypt in what it called a limited operation. The incursion did not appear to be the long-anticipated invasion of the city.

Israel said that it had reopened the Kerem Shalom crossing  into Gaza, a critical conduit for humanitarian aid, after closing it days earlier because of an attack by Hamas.

Hobbling Education for Years: Most of Gaza’s schools, including all 12 of its universities, have severe damage that makes them unusable , which could harm an entire generation of students, the U.N. and others say.

No Palestinian Flags at Eurovision: The organizers of the Eurovision Song Contest, a glitzy singing contest, said that attendees would be allowed to wave  only the flags of participating nations — including Israel’s.

Nonviolent Resistance in the West Bank: Issa Amro, a Palestinian activist who has been arrested and beaten for simple acts of defiance, is aiming to emulate Gandhi  at a time when violence is inescapable.

Campus Protests in the U.S.: On quads and lawns from coast to coast, U.S. colleges are grappling with a groundswell of student activism  over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Administrators are having to make controversial decisions .