The Atomic OppositionThere are four possible stances on atomic weaponsDuring the late 1940s and early 1950s, rising numbers and destructiveness of nuclear weapons generated extreme anxietyHandy instructions did not provide much in the way of reassuranceAs Paul Boyer points out, governments sought to put atomic fears to restPublic opposition to national security policies and strategies was uncommonAnd, of course, there was Senator Joseph McCarthyWhy, then, was there an “atomic opposition?”For much of the 1950s and into the 1960s, nuclear disarmament was the activists’ goal—to which governments paid lip serviceIn the United States, much of the public’s concern was motivated by fallout from atmospheric nuclear testingPerhaps in the world’s “nuclear-free zones”1The Atomic Opposition2There are four possible stances on atomic weaponsWarfighting: use ‘emor lose ‘emArms control: Let’s have fewer to use, if we have to use ‘emNuclear deterrence: I won’t use ‘em unless you do firstAtomic disarmament: Let’s not have any at all.3During the late 1940s and early 1950s, rising numbers and destructiveness of nuclear weapons generated extreme anxietyThe public assumed they would be used4Handy instructions did not provide much in the way of reassurance1950 U.S. Govt. manual on what to do in an atomic attack5As Paul Boyer points out, governments sought to put atomic fears to rest• Clearly, such fears were bad for nat’l morale• Some were convinced that the Soviets were stirring up anxieties• Too much public concern might lead to political pressures to change• This could lead to an appearance of strategic weakness6Public opposition to national security policies and strategies was uncommon• During World War II, pacifists and critics of the war were regarded as something close to treasonous• As the Cold War developed, criticism of security policy was regarded as sympathy with Communism• Revelations of atomic spies, and charges of traitors in government made people fearful & suspicious• The FBI was active in collecting information on people suspected of being left activists and sympathizers7And, of course, there was Senator Joseph McCarthy8Why, then, was there an “atomic opposition?”• Some had ethical and moral doubts about atomic weapons• The possibility of atomic annihilation alarmed many• The long-term health consequences of fallout & atomic energy were of concern• Environmental damage was also of concern in later degades9By the mid-1950s, an antinuclear movement was beginning to form, in both the United States and Great Britain10For much of the 1950s and into the 1960s, nuclear disarmament was the activists’ goal—to which governments paid lip service• The US participated in disarmament conferences• But the “New Look” was based on the threat of nuclear retaliation• And proposals for test bans ran into opposition from both scientists & anti-communists• Thus, nothing ever came of disarmament efforts11The “Franck Report” of 1945 was the first scientists’ expression of concern about how the A-bomb would be used12Eventually, Manhattan Project scientists established Federation of Atomic (later American) Scientists (FAS) to lobby for nuclear control and reduction13Advent of the H-bomb renewed debate, mostly among scientists, and generated some opposition14Nonetheless, movements emerged. There have been two primary but intersecting anti-atomic movements, and these have reappeared throughout the past 60 yearsThe Scientists (experts)The Intellectuals (philosophers, logicians & teachers)15Scientists base arguments on physical and technical criteria: what could happenIntellectuals base arguments on morals & logic: what should happen16Members of the “public” have generally followed: anxious, concerned, uninformed and fretful17Russell-Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955“Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”18The manifesto led to the creation of the East-West PugwashConferences on Science and World Affairs19In the UK, the philosophical strand led to the creation of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which still exists20The American movement was launched by Albert Schweitzer in 1957, as the U.S. Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy21Both movements were strongly opposed by governments, elites and other scientists, and frequently red-baited as Soviet fellow travelers22In the United States, much of the public’s concern was motivated by fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing23The Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963 defused these movements to some degree. They were also displaced by the movement against the Vietnam War24In the late 1960s, some scientists lobbied against ballistic missile defense and for environmental protection; the Union of Concerned Scientists emerged from MIT at this time25The ABM Treaty and the first SALT treaty during the 1970s took the wind out of the scientists’ weapons concerns for a time, and also lead to a decline in public concerns about nuclear war26Toward the end of the 1960s, the environmental movement emerged, and some groups began to mobilize against nuclear power27This gave rise to the anti-nuclear power movement: Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Defense Fund; Natural Resources Defense Council28A California referendum in 1976 banned new nuclear plants in the state until “there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel.” Germany and Sweden passed similar bans or limits. Some would like to eliminate the ban in California, and there has been talk of doing the same in Europe29The antinuclear power movement peaked around 1980, as new orders for nuclear plants ceased, and concern began to shift back toward nuclear weapons with the arrival of the Reagan administration30NATO’s plan to deploy intermediate range nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles energized a new peace movement in Europe31The German Greens were established at this time32The Greenham Common camp was set up in 198133Members of the Reagan Administration and others spoke rather loosely of “nuclear warning shots” and “war-fighting”—did they really mean it?T.K. JonesCaspar Weinberger, Secretary of DefenseGeorge Schultz, Secretary of StateColin Gray, academic & DOD staff34In the U.S., the Nuclear Freeze Movement demanded a halt to growth in