"In the past, science has often been able to provide also new methods of protection against new weapons of aggression it made possible, but it cannot promise such efficient protection against the destructive use of nuclear power- (Andrea/Overfield, pg. 415). The Committee goes on to write that nuclear power would shatter any nation that it was used against including Russia and China. These two nations could have their industries dispersed over an immense space and do not have a high value of human life. If an atomic bomb were dropped in one of the major cites in either of these nations, they too would probably crumble. The use of the atomic bomb could be prevented all together if an international agreement on the total prevention of nuclear warfare was developed. Whereas the sudden use of the atomic bomb did provide military advantages against Japan and save American lives, it may be outweighed by the loss of confidence and "by a wave of horror and repulsion sweeping over the rest of the world and perhaps even dividing public opinion at home- (Andrea/Overfield, pg. 415). Instead of just launching a surprise attack with the new destructive weapon, the Committee suggests that the weapon should be demonstrated for the leaders of the United Nations on a desert or a barren island. Showing them the capability of the weapon that the United States has, may, in a sense, scare the nations into agreement to the establishment of efficient international control of the atomic weapon. .
After the weapon is demonstrated, it should only be used on Japan if the sanction of the United States was obtained and after Japan was given the chance to surrender or at least evacuate certain regions of the country. This may not seem logical, but with nuclear weapons "we have something entirely new in order of magnitude of destructive power, and if we want to capitalize fully on the advantage their possession gives us, we must use new and imaginative methods- (Andrea/Overfield, pg.
