Plausible theoretical calculations at the time suggested that the use of only a part of that arsenal could cause a catastrophic change in the world's climate (the "nuclear winter"). So nuclear war would not only destroy the combatants and their near neighbours but would place a blight on the entire world.
The main element of SANA policy was the encouragement of all attempts to reduce the numbers and size of the nuclear weapons to a minimum (preferably zero). We also opposed the continued testing of weapons on the grounds that testing led to more weapons systems.
SANA was set up in response to suggestions emanating mainly from the US White House that the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) would make possible the fighting and winning of a nuclear war. This program was soon christened the "Star Wars" program and became the main object of our attention in those early years. It was a fanciful scheme to cover the earth with a satellite early warning system and a variety of space-based anti-missile weapons which would supposedly protect the US from the consequences of a nuclear strike. There was a strong feeling in the physics and engineering communities that the claims being made for those weapons systems were unrealistic and dangerously so.
We developed a considerable knowledge base on the weapons systems held by the major powers and became an educative lobby group for the media and the public on nuclear weapons matters. We saw our main function as the need to continually remind the public, through the media, of the insanity of a defence system built on the notion that a confrontation involving any of the nuclear nations (at that time known to be the US, UK, France, China and the Soviet Union) would or could be settled by a nuclear war.
Although President Reagan subsequently admitted that a nuclear war could never be won and so should never be fought, he was nevertheless intent on pursuing what we considered to be a very dangerous game. Many will now claim that his policy was vindicated because the Soviet Union was finally made bankrupt by its attempts to match the US in the space aspects of the arms race. That is an argument which may remain forever contentious.
When the Berlin wall fell in 1989 many organisations with a background similar to ours found that their members felt that the battle had been won. There was a general belief that with the collapse of the Soviet system, and the end of the "Cold War" there was really little need for organisations like ours.
Certainly it is true that the urgency went out of the debate, especially concerning the possibility of global nuclear warfare. But there remain a large number of very real problems which an organisation such as ours can contribute to, if only by keeping the public aware of their importance.
The general public is becoming increasingly alarmed at environmental threats from every quarter and it is not possible for a small group of (mainly physical) scientists like ours to address all, or even a major part, of those concerns with any degree of authority. We are therefore forced, for the foreseeable future, to limit our involvement to weapons matters. We have expanded the narrow focus on nuclear weapons to also embrace the very special problem of land mines because physical scientists have had a role in their development and may feasibly have a part to play in limiting the appalling consequences of their indiscriminate use.
What has become clear to us is that there is still a role for us to play in reminding the community of the risks which flow from that earlier period of nuclear confrontation and the continuing high levels of nuclear stockpiling.
So too is the revival of the Star Wars program in the form of the Theatre Defense System being proposed in the US.
The parlous state of the Russian nuclear stockpile is a problem in itself. Their former very lax attitude to environmental protection has been replaced by a complete inability to take even minimal precautions to protect the environment, since now they have no resources for such "extravagances".
There was a brief period when the US was offering to make some contributions to the problem but the amounts of money which have actually been passed across to Russia have been grossly inadequate and the little which has been contributed has probably been frittered away or stolen by the many criminal operators in the new Russian economy.
The problems which stem from the neglect of the Russian nuclear weapons stockpile are a very real threat to the global environment. They are much more serious than the threat posed by nuclear power generation and uranium mining.
[Early on in our development we considered carefully our attitude to nuclear power generation and uranium mining. Although some of our members took a very strong position against both, the policy of the organisation as a whole has always been to separate them from the issue of nuclear weapons. We are concerned about the environmental impact of nuclear power generation but are too well aware of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (like coal fire power generation) to regard nuclear power as a major danger.]
Then there are the more localised stupidities like the sabre rattling on the Korean peninsular and the renewal of confrontation between China and Taiwan.
In the face of all this there is no reason to believe that we should be unconcerned about the continued reliance of the major powers on the obsolete notion of nuclear 'defence'.
For some recent comments on the continuing danger from nuclear weapons see the speech by former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating and the address by Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll Jnr, USN (Retd.) listed in the articles.
Return to SGR Homepage.