Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe: Some Policy Implications
Apocalyptic predictions require, to be taken seriously, higher standards of evidence than do assertions on other matters where the stakes are not as great. Since the immediate effects of even a single thermonuclear weapon explosion are so devastating, it is natural to assume--even without considering detailed mechanisms--that the more or less simultaneous explosion of ten thousand such weapons all over the Northern Hemisphere might have unpredictable and catastrophic consequences.
Carl Sagan is David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University. He has played a leading role in the Mariner, Viking and Voyager expeditions to the planets, for which he has received the NASA medals for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and (twice) for Distinguished Public Service. Study of the Martian atmosphere led to the research by Dr. Sagan and his colleagues described here. He has served as Chairman of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society; as President of the Planetology Section of the American Geophysical Union; and, for 12 years, as Editor of Icarus, the leading professional journal in planetary science. Dr. Sagan is also a recipient of the Peabody Award and the Pulitzer Prize.
We're sorry, but Foreign Affairs does not have the copyright to display this article online.
Related
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.
INTRODUCTION: Since World War II there has been a continuing debate on military doctrine concerning the actual utility of nuclear weapons in war. This debate, irrespective of the merits of the divergent points of view, tends to create the perception that the outcome and scale of a nuclear conflict could be controlled by the doctrine or the types of nuclear weapons employed. Is this the case?
Since World War II there has been a continuing debate on military doctrine concerning the actual utility of nuclear weapons in war. This debate, irrespective of the merits of the divergent points of view, tends to create the perception that the outcome and scale of a nuclear conflict could be controlled by the doctrine or the types of nuclear weapons employed. Is this the case?
