4th Quarter USH Research- Mutual Assured Destruction

Mutual Assured Destruction, its Efficacy, and its Flaws: A Discussion of Global Safety

Unlike the thrilling, apocalyptic scenarios popularized by recent fiction, there is nothing redeemable in the aftermath of a nuclear war. Since the end of World War II and the detonation of the atomic bomb, we have possessed the technology to end ourselves in one sweeping campaign, but conflicts have yet to escalate to this point. Policy makers have taken note of this horrific possibility, trying to prolong nuclear disaster through the sinister doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), but as long as nuclear weapons remain stockpiled in military arsenals, this bleak future is a likely reality.

Mutual Assured Destruction aims to keep the peace by removing any gain from war. If both sides have the retaliatory capability to obliterate each other, there is not reason to initiate a conflict. War becomes suicidal and meaningless. But Mutual Assured Destruction is a policy lost in good intentions, and, furthermore, it "is not a long term, sustainable solution," as historian Michael Shermer points out. There is always the looming possibility that a conventional war will escalate to nuclear deployment despite diplomatic efforts, or that an insane leader will launch nuclear weapons, indifferent to the consequences. Nations like North Korea can be unpredictable and fanatic, and terrorist organizations too will most certainly use nuclear weapons if they obtain them. Fissile material can be purchased through black markets, and building the weapon is now widely understood information. Entire warheads can even be found in Russian Cold War ammunition dumps. MAD fails to account for all of these variables.

Unlike chemical and biological weapons, there is no official ban on the use of nuclear weapons. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are all recognized as weapons of mass destruction, but nuclear arms are treated differently. In 1970, the Proliferation Treaty was signed into international law, requiring the five recognized nuclear weapon states- France, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia- to make efforts to reduce their stockpiles. Instead of outright banning nuclear weapons, the United Nations requested their removal. All other signatories of the NPT agreed to cease their acquisition efforts of nuclear weapons, but Israel, Pakistan, and India refused to sign the NPT. North Korea continued its nuclear agenda sighting its advancements as a move towards "peaceful" technology. Currently, 95% of the world's nations do not have nuclear weapons, but thanks to the MAD doctrine, more and more nations are seeing nuclear weapons as a tool of diplomacy and global influence. If more nations become nuclear states, the probability of a nuclear conflict will exponentially increase.

The widely accepted alternative to the fear tactics imposed by MAD is nuclear disarmament. Global stockpiles have reportedly shrunk from 70,000 warheads in 1986 to 17,300 as of summer 2014. Only 4,200 warheads are active today, but thousands more still remain in waiting. Former vice chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General James E. Cartwright claimed that the U.S. and Russian could maintain their deterrence policy with just 900 weapons each, but progress is slow to reduce stockpiles.  In his 1984 State of the Union, Ronald Reagan stated: "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?" Reagan further regarded nuclear weapons as irrational, inhumane, and destructive to life and civilization. Besides nuclear disarmament, experts call for increased security around fissile materials, discouragement of nuclear development programs in new nations, and the construction of missile shields. However, the best course of action to rid the world of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be complete nuclear disarmament and the ban of their use.

Proponents of Mutual Assured Destruction may argue that nuclear weapons prevent war and increase global safety, but it is illogical to think that this deterrence peace will last forever. While nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945, every US president since Truman has threatened nuclear war for some geopolitical gain. It is only a matter of time before the policy fails to work. Author Stephen M. Younger points out that Mutual Assured Destruction "involved some of the best strategic thinkers of the 20th century," including John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, but it is paradoxical in nature and hard to implement. Nuclear states claim that nukes will only we launched if absolutely necessary, with the hope that their catastrophic power will never be unleashed. Younger reflects: "To say that you would 'never' use a weapon renders its ineffective as a deterrent to aggression- the adversary knows in advance that you will not shoot and acts accordingly." However, if a nation were to explicitly "plan" to use nuclear force, their enemy may initiate the conflict with the hopes of removing retaliatory capabilities. Mutual Assured Destruction appears to be counterproductive through the tension and anxiety it creates.

In addition, the principles of MAD are increasingly undermined by advancing technology. What leaders are now calling "modernization" seeks to create the next generation of weapons and delivery systems. Even today, cruise missiles have the capability to fly underneath enemy radar for hundreds of miles, and fast-attack Pershing missiles can preemptively strike a target from above. Missiles flying and high altitudes are oftentimes lost by radar systems. During the Cold War a "Grand, Decapitating First Strike" was seriously considered by the White House in which the United States would initiate the attack, taking out Soviet retaliatory and command assets. Underground missiles silos, airstrips and bomber bases, submarines and naval bases would all be targeted, but the strike would begin with the Moscow Kremlin. What this means is that a nuclear war could actually be won. Mutual Assured Destruction is supposed to eliminate the risk of nuclear war and promote peace, but terrifyingly enough there is a way around the 'mutual' ramifications.

Mutual Assured Destruction was so engrained in American culture during the height of the Cold War that it was extremely common to read about combat scenarios and missiles flying over the Atlantic, but what would the world actually be like if MAD failed to deter a nuclear war? Using the same computer models that scientists use to determine the effects of global warming, a team of four researchers at Rutgers University studied the effects of a limited, regional nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.

From just 100 15 kiloton weapons, each equivalent to the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, there would be devastating effects. Not only would the two warring nations be obliterated- global security and stability would be threatened as well. Eleven billion pounds of black carbon and soil particles would rise 40 miles into the stratosphere and lower mesosphere and gradually spread across the globe, absorb sunlight, and drop surface temperatures.  Even though a 15 kiloton weapon is dwarfed by modern warhead yields, nuclear weapons tend to release energy many times their yield as subsequent firestorms burn through buildings, vegetation, fuel stations, roads, and other infrastructure. As the debris in the atmosphere absorbed light, it would heat up, and the researchers estimate that the ozone layer would thin anywhere from 20%-50% due to an increase in nitrogen content in the stratosphere. As a result, surface exposure to UV rays would increase 30%-80%, ruining agriculture and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

The computer models predict global cooling of 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit, which would generate the coldest temperatures the Earth has endured in 1,000 years. The world would be trapped in a decade long 'nuclear winter', but with a 9% drop in annual precipitation, snowfall would be unlikely. Temperatures would fall so low that growing seasons would be reduced by 10-40 days per year for the first 5 years after the war. Food supplies would dwindle and global famine would set in, killing an estimated 2 billion people. Unprepared nations would dissolve into chaos, governments would fall, economies would fail, trade would cease, and the hope for continued civilization would be bleak.

In an earlier study conducted by the U.S. Congress's Office of Technology (OTA), 4 different nuclear war scenarios between Russia and the United States were examined, the most notable of which were the limited and full-scale exchanges. In a limited exchange with 10 high yield, airburst weapons, industry would likely be the primary targets. The OTA estimates that 64% of US oil refineries would be destroyed while 73% of the Soviets' refining capability would be lost. There would be 5 million American casualties and 1 million Soviet casualties. Soviet refining stations are much more rural than U.S. refineries, which tend to be centered in or near population centers. At the time of the report in May 1979, the Soviets also possessed more powerful weapons, including the 50 megaton Tsar Bomb detonated in 1961. In a full-scale nuclear war, the objective would be to inflict as much damage as possible. Military bases, cities, infrastructure, command centers, and industrial sectors would all be targeted, and it is estimated that 160 million American would die along with 57 million Russians. Another 30 million civilians would die within the first 30 days after the attack due to fallout and radiation poisoning. Undoubtedly, the US and Russian economies would collapse, communication and planning would struggle, transportation would be dangerous if not impossible, and a centralized government would cease to exist. Whatever food remained would quick be exhausted as the environmental affects unraveled and survival of all life on Earth would exponentially become more difficult. For those lucky enough to survive, paper money would be more useful as fuel for a fire than for exchanging value.

It is hard to imagine how nuclear weapons can make the world a safer place when they have the destructive potential to bring an end to civilization. At its very best, Mutual Assured Destruction prolongs nuclear war. As missile technology advances, nuclear war may become more plausible, and MAD will simply be an irrelevant doctrine of the past. Thomas Stipe reflects: "The only way to escape Mutual Assured Destruction is to attack the pathological forces of hatred and fear and intolerance that feed the vicious circle we call the arms race. Our only hope lies in the human spirit. [...] Those who place all their hopes in weapons are truly hopeless." I feel like I challenged myself to explore both sides of MAD debate and my own interests in the policy. It was very difficult to find primary sources for this topic, but I eventually found two useful sources by filtering my search and exploring google archives. There were many academic sources that I found to be useful, but media sources also proved to be helpful in researching opinionated views. Learning about the death toll and hopelessness for survival after a nuclear war was incredibly surprising and disillusioning.

A political cartoon depicts the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. PixGood

The aftermath of the Hiroshima bomb. Daily Mail

The above chart depicts the relative yields of nuclear weapons, and was originally printed in Popular Mechanics. The 50 Mt Tsar Bomb is the largest man-made explosion ever created. Tsar Bomba

Eight multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV) pass through the upper atmosphere on the way to their targets. Wikipedia

 

The 1956 Apache nuclear test. Space Telescope Science Institute 

SOURCES:

   1. Primary- U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology (May 1979)- The Effects of Nuclear War

Annotation: The Effects of Nuclear War was an official report commissioned and released by the U.S. Congress’s Office of Technology. I found substantial, detailed research on the economic and social effects of both limited and full-scale exchanges.

   2. Primary- Bangor Daily News- What will replace Mutual Assured Destruction

Annotation: This article was extremely useful for getting quotes.  The author of this article, Thomas E. Stipe, voiced his opinion against Mutual Assured Destruction, calling for a change in policy making to avoid such a disaster that it entails. The news article was printed in Bangor Daily News on January 10, 1985 and accessed through a Google database.

   3. Secondary- Military History Magazine- MADness by Stephen M. Younger

Annotation: Stephen M. Younger is the president of Nation Security Technologies, a faculty member at the University of Hawaii, a former nuclear weapons designer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and published writer of more than 70 papers in physics, public policy, and anthropology. This article was published in Military History Magazine. I used this source mainly as a narrative of the development of the nuclear bomb and the tensions of the Cold War.

   4. Secondary- Rutgers University Department of Environmental Sciences- Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict

Annotation: This research article was written by four environmental researchers at Rutgers University and published by AGU Publications in Earth’s Future. I used this source to find factual information and data on the environmental and agricultural effects of a limited nuclear exchange. This article helped me put into perspective the horrible effects of a much larger exchange, possibly between the United States and Russia. This source was perfect for giving me a sense of the condition of the world after a nuclear war.

   5. Secondary- New York Times- MAD isn’t crazy

Annotation: This article was published on the New York Times and written by Thomas L. Friedman, a three-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize and a well-regarded journalist, columnist, and author. Friedman studied at Saint Antony’s College in the University of Oxford. I used this source to gain an insight on the proponents’ perspective of MAD. This article reflected on how MAD can work against terrorist vendettas and criticized the adoption of missile shields.

   6. Secondary- World Beyond War- Phase Out Weapons of Mass Destuction

Annotation: Although this source is clearly biased, it provided me with invaluable information on the illogical thinking of MAD and terrifying ways around it. This article explored the risks of advancing nuclear technology and the risks nuclear weapons pose. This article was research based, taken from the site’s Executive Summary, and written by Alice Slater. Slater is the New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an international coordinator on the Global Council of Abolition 2000, a UN NGO representative, and an author of several published articles and op-eds.

   7. Secondary- The Scientific American- Will Mutual Assured Destruction Continue to Deter Nuclear War?

Annotation: This article was published on Scientific American and written by Michael Shermer a historian of science, published author of numerous books, and the Editor in Chief of the magazine Skeptic. I used this source to learn about the flaws and impracticalities in Mutual Assured Destruction, and alternate solutions to its practices. This source contained many useful facts and observations.

The Great Depression was a time of hardship and misfortune in United States history with over one quarter of the work force unemployed and financial turmoil ever present. Many Americans struggled to make ends meet, resorting to government subsidies and soup kitchens to stay alive.  Although the film Cinderella Man directed by Ron Howard accurately depicts the character of James Braddock and his personal struggles, it ultimately does a much better job of telling an emotional and inspirational "fairy tale" centered around one man than it does exposing audiences to facts about the Great Depression.

Arguably, the biggest flaw of the film was the depiction of Max Baer, James Braddock's opponent in the championship match. He was portrayed as a remorseless, crude villain who took pleasure in harming others. In the film, Baer threatens Braddock, telling him to drop the fight or he will end up dying int he ring like his previous two victims. Baer tells Braddock that he will sleep with his then widowed wife, but the actual Max Baer was nothing like this. In actuality, Baer only saw boxing as an inescapable evil to earn a living. He explicitly preferred partying to boxing. In response to the film, Max Baer's son spoke out: "The portrayal of my father in Cinderella Man couldn't have been more wrong and inaccurate. They turned a good0hearted, fun loving, friendly and warm human being who hated boxing into Mr. T from Rocky III with no redeemable characteristics." Furthermore, Baer's fighting only killed one person, not two as the film depicts.

In 1930, Baer accidentally killed Frankie Campbell after a boxing match. The film pretends that Baer felt nothing after the death of Campbell, but, in reality, he fell into a depression that would lead him to start drinking and smoking. He cried and had troubling nightmares long after the incident and lost four of his next five fights. He even raised $10,000 for Campbell's family during an exhibition match. The second victim, Ernie Schaaf, actually died after a fight with Primo Carnera. The film claims that Schaaf died instantly when his brain became detached from his spinal cord from one of Baer's famous right hooks, but Scaaf actually passed away four days after the fight. The autopsy determined the cause of death to be brain swelling and meningitis from a recent encounter with the flu.

Director  Ron Howard even went to the extent of altering the Start of David stitching on the front of Baer's boxing shorts. In the actual fight between Braddock and Baer, the insignia was clearly visible, but it is hardly noticeable int he film adaptation. Baer's connection to Judaism is shaky, but to leave out a symbol Baer had become widely known for is a huge injustice to factual accuracy. Howard's inaccurate depiction of Baer is questionable at the very least, but it makes sense from a production standpoint. Perhaps Howard wanted to prevent the film from being associated with antisemetic ideals by removing the Jewish star from the antagonist's costumes or to avoid offending sensitive audience members. However, the real effects of this distortion lead the film to ultimately do a better job at telling an intense and emotional story than exposing audiences to real facts about the Great Depression. Howard likely wanted his audience to relate to and support Braddock, and there is no better way of doing this than by making his enemy as evil as possible. Max Baer's son describe's his outrage over Howard's decision making: "Anyone who knew my father, even slightly, liked him. In making a good movie, being true to the main characters is absolutely mandatory. By the same token, taking the adversary and turning him into a hateful cartoon was unnecessary, especially when that person was a real human being with a real reputation. Before this movie, I thought a lot more of Ron Howard." Baer even becomes a distraction away from the setting in the Great Depression. The film quickly becomes about Braddock's preparation for the fight and his fear associated with it.

The character of Mike Wilson, although a minor inaccuracy, further draw the film away from factual depiction of the Great Depression. James Braddock's friend, Mike Wilson is a completely fictional character. Scenes with Mike and Braddock only server to showcase Braddock's work ethic and persistent mentality. Rather than using the Wilson to further the audience's knowledge of the Great Depression, Howard chose to use Wilson to develop Braddock's character. Wilson appears only a few times throughout the film, lightly complaining about the government's mistake's, but the real focus is on Braddock's reaction. Howard misused a great opportunity to explain public opinion during the Great Depression, choosing instead to focus on Braddock's story. Although Braddock was accurately characterized by the film in this sense, Howard is employing fiction to explain a truth, which is still a technical inaccuracy.

Cinderella Man does an excellent job of explaining James Braddock's character traits and personal adversities, but the fiction it employs to create an entertaining story draw the film away from accurate depiction of the Great Depression. Both characters of Max Baer and Mike Wilson were missed opportunities to teach history. Max Baer was nothing like his counterpart portrayed in the film, and he only served to create an interesting challenge for Braddock to overcome. Mike Wilson never actually existed. Howard neglected the facts in order to tell a more compelling and emotional story when he could have focused more on the environment and time period. Although some may argue that the hardship of the Great Depression was conveyed in the film, Cinderella Man focuses more on the individual story of James Braddock than it does on the Great Depression.

Sources:

Columbia-Cinderella Man

US History in Film- Cinderella Man

Boxing Scene- The biggest thing ‘Cinderella Man’ got wrong

The true Max Baer

WWI Propaganda Exercise

WWI Poster Analysis

IMAGE 1

1 1. In the first image, a young woman dressed in red white and blue is asleep on a chair while what looks like black smoke rises in the background. The text “Wake up, America! Civilization calls every man, woman, and child!” The sleeping woman represents America’s inactivity in World War I. She is the focus of the image, located at the center of the image.

2 2. The artist hoped to alert America to the threat and their need to help. The artist displays America in a shameful position of inactivity while the world around her falls into chaos. The image is designed to convince Americans to joint he war through guilt.

3 3. The audience of this image does not seem to be a specific group of people. Rather, the image seems to be directed at all levels of society. Anyone who is informed of the violence and troubles of World War I would understand the message of this propaganda.

IMAGE 2

1 1. In the second image, a grotesque gorilla, depicting Germany, carries a half naked woman who looks distressed and helpless. The gorilla looks directly at the audience and appears to be screaming. The picture is mostly gray with other dark colors, setting an eerie seen for the action. The gorilla carries a bloodied club named “kultur” or culture while walking on the shore labeled “America”. The words “Destroy this mad brute” and “Enlist. U.S. Army” stretch across the top and bottom of the picture. A war torn city lies in the background, representing the destroyed Europe. Germany appears to be changing its focus to America.

2 2. The artist hoped to scare Americans into enlisting into the U.S. Army. Germany appears to be moving on from its successful conquests in Europe and focusing on invading the United States. It also holds some anti-immigration themes as the gorilla carries the club of “culture” with it into America. He is trying to state that Germany could further spread its culture into America if they are not opposed in World War I. The naked woman further helps to instill fear in the directed audience as it makes it seems like Germany will hurt America’s women as well.

3 3. This propaganda is directed at men who are worried about German victories in the war and who dislike German immigrants and foreigners in the United States. The club of culture and the advertisement to “enlist” in the “U.S. Army” led me to this conclusion.

IMAGE 3

1 1.The third image is similar to the second as it depicts Germany as a dark, evil being directing its focus towards the United States. An Asian “hun” with bloodied hands and bayonet, clutching its conquered lands in Europe, looks over to the United States across the Atlantic Ocean. Black smoke rises from Europe. The hun stares directly at the viewer. The words “Beat back the Hun with liberty bonds” stretch across the majority of the picture. The words “Liberty Bonds” are contrasted with larger yellow font.

2 2.  The artist hoped to scare Americans with the proposition that Germany could invade the United States but give them hope of stopping this by buying “liberty bonds”. Germany has conquered and destroyed Europe in the image, as it spreads across it with its bloody hands and bayonet, but it aims to continue its conquests into the U.S.

3 3. This poster is directed at anyone in the United States who has money to pay for Liberty Bonds and cares about World War I. Even if Americans are indifferent towards the war, the picture aims to create an interest in it by threatening its audience with the possibility of a war on the home front. The picture is aimed to convince Americans to buy Liberty Bonds, therefore, its audience is anyone who has money to support the government with.

Questions about WWI

1. World War I, or the Great War, began on June 28, 1914 after Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, Bosnia. This was the immediate cause. The war was fought between the Central Powers of Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary, and the Allied Powers of Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, and later the United States in 1917.

2. The United States entered the war in February 1917 due to German submarine aggression in the Atlantic Ocean. After the sinking of British ocean liner Lusitania in May 1915, American public opinion was turned against Germany, and Congress passed a $250 million appropriation to prepare for war. Furthermore, Germany sunk  four more US merchant ships headed for Britain.

3. World War I came to an end after the Central Powers began losing battles along the  two fronts. The Ottoman economy and land was ruined by the war, and they were forced to sign an armistice in October 1918. Austria-Hungary signed an armistice on November 4, 1918 due to the growing nationalist movements within its borders. Germany signed an armistice on November 11, 1918, ending the war. German citizens stopped supporting the war effort and the loss of its allies left Germany with little choice but to surrender.

4. Signed on June 28, 1919, the Versailles Treaty officially ended the war under the terms that Germany give back lands it previously took from Russia, and the nation had divide up a portion of its land among France, Belgium, Poland, Denmark, and Czechoslovakia. Germany also had to reduce its army to 100,000 men, take full responsibility for the war, and pay a huge sum of money to the Allies. As part of the treaty and negotiated by President Woodrow Wilson, the League of Nations was to be formed for all nations excluding Germany. However, the United States did not ratify the treaty because joining the League of Nations would force it to give up a sizable amount of power.

5. How did World War I contribute to the commencement of World War II?
The harsh treatment of Germany under the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I led to building hatred and anger among the German populace that would later contribute to the start of World War II.

Sources:
Note: It was difficult to find a single source that covered all of the questions and their different parts. HISTORY covered the majority of the questions, but did not list the terms of the agreement nor the reason that the United States abstained from ratification.
1. World War I History- HISTORY
2. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History 

Diplomates gather for the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Texas Tech Today

After the Japanese sunk over 22 Russian naval vessels in two attacks in the Pacific, Japan reigned as the dominant fighting force in the Pacific, threatening the United States' Pacific trade and the newly acquired Philippines. In 1907, a fleet of 16 white-painted battleships, carrying 1,010 officers and 18,978 men, embarked on an journey around the world. It was the most innovative uses of propaganda of its time, revolutionizing combat communications, building lasting relationships through collaboration, and persuading the world to respect the United States. 

The voyage was officially referred to as a "practice cruise", but the real purposes behind the venture were much more serious. The voyage stunned and impressed the world, as the National Tribune reflects: "For Europe and Asia are alike interested in the cruise, by which the naval strength of the United States on the Pacific Ocean will exceed the naval strength of Japan or any other Nation", but the effects of the voyage would long outlive the two year venture.

Throughout the venture, from conception to completion, persuasion was a prominent goal. The voyage was undoubtably a move by the United States to gain global prestige and presence. As Richard Teare writes: "In a climate of tension, [...] Roosevelt launched [...] one of the country's most effective and long-lasting propaganda operations". Tensions were rising in the Pacific, and the German and British navies were steadily growing during this time. However the United States only possessed a small fleet located in the Atlantic and poorly defended settlements and ports in the Pacific. The United States wanted European powers to recognize its naval strength and the Japanese to see its power projection capabilities, so a fleet was built and launched. The plan was not guaranteed to work, but it was sure that the world would learn of the United State's military might. 

 Even more persuasive than the initiation of the voyage were the docking locations of the fleet. The navy entertained hundreds of requests, but it made sure to dock in Japan. In a 1907 article, the National Tribune reports: "Friendly visits to Japanese ports may be encouraged [...] for the purpose of demonstrating to the Japanese [...] the character of our Navy." After sailing thousands of miles and stopping in Japan, the fleet engaged in target practice. Thousands watched as the United States Navy proved that it could cross the world combat ready. An article in Military History states: "Many regard the voyage of the Great White Fleet as a practice in politics as usual: the United States mixing military muscle with diplomacy". 

  Domestically, the success of the Great White fleet was used to persuade Congress to increase the Navy's budget. Politicians, war enthusiasts, and navy officers alike saw the Great White Fleet as an opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of a large navy to Congress. General Benjamin F. Tracy, former secretary of the navy, was quoted saying: "A navy that is largely inferior to another is of no use because a larger navy will destroy it at the first onslaught. If I were in Congress, I should vote for four battleships of 26,000 tons each [...] We need them." The Great White Fleet was designed to persuade the world as well as the government of the United States. 

Collaboration was also a goal of the fleet. The battleships stopped in parts of China in an attempt to cool tensions between China and Japan, clearly demonstrate to Japan the United State's intentions to protect its trade, and to foster the relationship between Japan and China. Japanese ships were often encouraged to make an appearance at Chinese ports, representing the geopolitical philosophy of international collaboration that was one of the fleet's purpose. 

The visit to Australia is perhaps the most obvious example of collaboration. While the United States impressed hundreds of thousands of Australian spectators with the might of its navy, the Australians benefited from the message of the United State's visit. Australia, with its newly gained independence, displayed its strategic importance to the United States and showed that it was capable of operating in the diplomatic world. This simple collaboration would lead to years of partnership between the United States and Australia. 

Arguably the most innovative aspect of the journey was its unprecedented take to military communications by the Great White Fleet. For the first time in history, wireless telephones were used on battleships to send and receive orders. Twenty eight of these telephones were installed throughout the Great White Fleet, making the "American Navy [...] the first to possess and adopt the wireless telephone", according to the Washington Times. The use of this communication device made moving supplies, organizing repairs, and directing maneuvers in rough waters much easier. The Washington Times reported: "In the fiercest gales, in storms at night, and in the densest fogs [...] ship may talk with ship or with a dozen ships at once as easily as if they were anchored along a city street". As opposed to the previous method of flag signaling, the wireless telephone was a clear winner. Flag signals only were effective when ships were in sighting distance of one another and visibility was clear, but the telephone allowed operators to talk up to eleven miles apart. The telephone offered a solution tot he long standing problem in the Navy: communication during combat and movements. 

The Great White Fleet truly was an innovative approach to propaganda and diplomacy. The voyage is often referred to by historians, such as Sebastian Lukasik, as "one of the crowning achievements of the Roosevelt presidency". President Roosevelt was able to display America's fierce military capabilities, calm political tensions in the Pacific region and prevent war with Japan, build lasting foreign relationships through collaboration, and impress potential enemies of the United States with its industrial and technological achievements. Although the mission was peaceful,  General Tracy reflected after the conclusion of the journey that "the trip is sure to attach a great reputation to our navy. There is no doubt at all that the experience and competency of our officers and men gained through the cruise will be invaluable to the service". The voyage developed the framework that guided foreign policy into the next century and successfully persuaded Congress to expand the US Navy. As General Tracy stated: "It has taught the public the necessity of a large and powerful fleet. If no other end was served [the cruise] has been invaluable to the American nation in that way". In the years to come, bases in the Philippines, Guam, and Japan would be constructed. 

1. Primary- Library of Congress: National Tribune

Annotation: I used this source to gather information on the purpose for the Great White Fleet’s venture around the world. The article is published on the Library of Congress’ database. This site is an excellent source for legitimate documents on any time period and contains useful information for my topic. I found political, practical, and ideological reasons for sending the fleet to the Pacific.

2. Primary- Library of Congress: Los Angeles herald

Annotation: This article proved to an invaluable source for quotes. I used quotations from General Benjamin F. Tracy as he described the success of the venture shortly after its conclusion in 1909. N one of his comments, General Tracy tries to persuade Congress to increase the size of the Navy. I found this article on the Library of Congress’ archive, a credible source for academic material.

3. Primary- Wireless Phones Make Battleships One Gigantic Chain

Annotation: I used this article to take notes on the communication aspect of the Great White Fleet. The article provided me with information about the wireless telephone, its adoption by the US navy, and the issues it helps overcome. This article was perfect for the objectives of this project. Written by the Washington Times in 1907 and documented on the Library of Congress, this is a legitimate source.

4. Secondary- The U.S. Navy's Great White Fleet served a foreign policy purpose in 1907.

Annotation: This article was posted on EBSCO Publishing and was written by Thomas Lohr in the Military History magazine. Thomas Lohr is a published author of several magazine and academic journal articles. I used this site to better understand the narrative and significance of the Great White Fleet’s voyage. This article helped me with the innovation requirement of the project. 

5. Secondary- A Note on Australian-American Security Relations

Annotation: This a journal article was published in the Australasian Journal of American Studies and was posted on the JSTOR database. Richard Teare, a member of the US Foreign Service for 39 years, wrote the article. Teare devoted much of his career to Southeast Asia studies and held many other important positions in politics. I used this source to find information supporting the political purpose of the Great White Fleet. It went into great detail on how he voyage served as propaganda for the United States and Theodore Roosevelt.

6. Secondary- The Eagle and the Kangaroo: The Great White Fleet's Visit to Australia.

Annotation: This article is posted on the Alabama Virtual Library and was written by Dr. David Stevens, a naval historian published in various journals and magazines. I used this source to learn about how collaboration with the United States helped US-Australia relations and how Australia used the visit to become a major world player. This article really shows that the effects of the voyage long outlived the actual event.

7. Secondary- The Great White Fleet: Reassessing America’s Rise to Power

Annotation: This essay was written by Sebastian H. Lukasik and was published on Auburn University’s research database. Lukasik is a Assistant Professor of Comparative Military History at the U.S. Air Force Air University. Lukasik received a PhD. in history from Duke University and was an assistant visiting professor in the Department of History at Duke before coming to Air University. I used this essay to further my knowledge on the effects of the Great White as it discussed it impact of US foreign policy for the next century.

8. Textbook- pg 604-606

Annotation: The textbook briefly covered the events leading up to the Great White Fleet. This information was already covered in my other sources, but this helped reinforce the facts. I used this source to gain a better understanding on the military and economic reasons behind the voyage as it discussed the Russo-Japanese war and Pacific trade.

The Great White Fleet arrives in San Diego America’s Navy

The Great White Fleet sets sail, the message of “Welcome! Come In” representing its peaceful mission and its move for improved foreign relations. Library of Congress

These images show the course of the Great White Fleet in the Pacific and Europe. The Pacific section is arguably the most important piece of the journey. Library of Congress (top) Library of Congress (bottom)

 

The firepower, weight, and speeds of all the warships are listed, publicizing the US Navy’s might. Library of Congress 

Australians gather to see the Great White Fleet pass by U.S. Naval Historical Center