Home › Features › Essays › The Danger of Thermonuclear War

The Danger of Thermonuclear War

Andrei Sakharov
Summer 1983
Summary -- 

AN OPEN LETTER TO DR. SIDNEY DRELL Dear Friend: I have read your two splendid lectures--the speech on nuclear weapons at Grace Cathedral, October 23, 1982, and the opening statement to Hearings on the Consequences of Nuclear War before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. What you say and write about the appalling dangers of nuclear war is very close to my heart and has disturbed me profoundly for many years now. I decided to address an open letter to you, feeling it necessary to take part in the discussion of this problem, one of the most important facing mankind.

Andrei Sakharov is the distinguished Soviet physicist, winner of the 1975 Nobel Peace Prize, currently in internal exile in Gorki. Among his works available in English are Alarm and Hope and Collected Scientific Works. This article was written for publication in response to the materials noted, which had been sent to him by Professor Drell of Stanford. The translation from the Russian was done by Richard Lourie and Efrem Yankelevich. Copyright (c) Andrei Sakharov.

Login or Register to leave a comment.

Dr. Drell's speech at Grace Cathedral (in San Francisco) is unpublished but available from him on request. His opening statement before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on Science and Technology is contained in the Committee's record of those hearings, The Consequences of Nuclear War on the Global Environment, September 15, 1982, p. 6. A more comprehensive statement of Dr. Drell's views will be found in his Danz Lectures, to be published by the University of Washington Press in June 1983 under the title Facing the Threat of Nuclear Weapons.

The Editor is grateful to Professor Drell and to Strobe Talbott for their help in refining the translation of technical terms, and in preparing the explanatory Editor's Notes, for which of course the Editor takes responsibility.

Dear Friend:

I have read your two splendid lectures-the speech on nuclear weapons at Grace Cathedral, October 23, 1982, and the opening statement to Hearings on the Consequences of Nuclear War before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. What you say and write about the appalling dangers of nuclear war is very close to my heart and has disturbed me profoundly for many years now. I decided to address an open letter to you, feeling it necessary to take part in the discussion of this problem, one of the most important facing mankind.

In full agreement with your general theses, I will express certain considerations of a more specific nature which, I think, need to be taken into account when making decisions. These considerations in part contradict some of your statements and in part supplement and, possibly, amplify them. It seems to me that my opinion communicated here in open discussion can prove of interest in view of my scientific, technological, and psychological experience, acquired in the period when I took part in work on thermonuclear weapons, and also because I am one of the few independent participants in this discussion in the U.S.S.R.

II

I fully agree with your assessment of the danger of nuclear war. In view of the critical importance of this thesis, I will dwell on it in some detail, perhaps repeating what is already well known.

This is a premium article

You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.

Buy PDF

Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.

Related

Essay, Mar/Apr 1995
Russia's Wounded Military
Benjamin S. Lambeth

The Chechnya misadventure unmasked what Russia's armed forces have known for awhile: the heir to the once-vaunted Soviet military is in shambles. Years of cutbacks in Russia's military budgets, worsened by rapid inflation, have crippled morale, the development of new weapons, maintenance, and training. At the upper echelons, there is now an exodus of talented and experienced officers; in the lower ranks, desertion and draft evasion are widespread. Nevertheless, the Russian military has largely remained above politics and helped to stabilize the nation amid reform. The United States would do well to press for an honest and open military-to-military relationship with Russia. One day, a grave nuclear threat may require it.

Read
Essay, Fall 1991
Nuclear Weapons and the Gulf
McGeorge Bundy

Though nuclear weapons were not exploded in the coalition war against Iraq, they were 'used' in the sense of deterring use of chemical weapons by Iraq; however, US warnings might perhaps have been more carefully phrased, in order to show consistency with a 'no first use' policy. The war should also have served to heighten the need to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

Read
Essay, Summer 1985
The Postwar Era: Between an Unfree World and None
Albert Wohlstetter

Would nuclear war endanger civilization or even the human species? Does that possibility require us to subordinate all considerations of freedom to survival and to dismiss any possibility of responding justly to a nuclear attack--or at least without committing suicide? The question has a familiar ring to anyone whose memory stretches back as far as 1958 to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and the famous controversy between the philosophers Bertrand Russell and Sidney Hook over whether it was better to be "Red or Dead."

Read
Cover image

In the Magazine

November/December 2009 / 6, 88
Essay
In the Quicksands of Somalia
Bronwyn Bruton

Washington's repeated attempts to bring peace to Somalia with state-building initiatives have failed, even backfired. It should renounce political intervention and encourage local development without trying to improve governance.
Read