Nuclear Winter

Linus Pauling speaking at a Greenpeace press conference commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. June 10, 1983.

[Ed Note: This post was researched and written as a result of a request from one of our readers.  If there are specific aspects of Pauling's life and work that you are interested in learning more about, please do not hesitate to let us know in Comments.]

“In a nuclear exchange, which we must try to avoid or to deter, the Russian deaths would probably not exceed ten million. Tragic as such a figure is, the Russian nation would survive. If they succeed in eliminating the United States they can commandeer food, machinery and manpower from the rest of the world. They could recover rapidly. They would have attained their goal: world domination.“

- Edward Teller, Foreword to Nuclear War Survival Skills, 1979.

In 1982 executives from several foundations met to discuss what was, at the time, a perceived gap in research and peer-reviewed scholarship on nuclear weapons and their use. While a few studies had addressed the biological impacts of nuclear war, primarily focusing on fallout and radiation, significant research concerning global environmental impact was glaringly absent from relevant discussions. To help fill this void, a group of scientists, including popular astronomer Carl Sagan, began investigating the atmospheric and climatic effects of a full-scale nuclear war.

The paper that resulted from their collaboration, later referred to as the TTAPS study, set in motion an evolution in the scientific perspective on nuclear warfare. In the wake of the TTAPS report, scientists from various backgrounds were brought together to begin advanced study of the issue, beginning with widespread peer review of the TTAPS conclusions, and leading to the organization of several international conferences at which many diverse aspects of this emerging multi-disciplinary topic were discussed.

Out of all this arose a more comprehensive theory of nuclear warfare, which attempted to shift perceptions from genocidal mechanisms to omnicidal ones.  Specifically, supporters of this new paradigm proposed that a world wide nuclear war could destroy nearly all of the life-sustaining biological systems on earth, not just the basic elements required for human civilization.  The ramifications of this frightening notion led to the coining of a new phrase: nuclear winter.

Figure from "Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe: Some Policy Implications," by Carl Sagan.

The primary suggestion of nuclear winter theory is that an aggressive international atomic conflict would likely alter the climatic systems of the earth, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Because cities and forests would be ignited by widespread nuclear explosions, the theory asserts that unprecedented amounts of smoke, soot and dust would be propelled high into the atmosphere. This layer of dust and soot would absorb most of the incoming solar radiation at high levels of the atmosphere, thus lowering the temperature of the Earth’s surface and hindering or completely halting photosynthetic processes on a global scale.

Using the dust storms and atmospheric activity on Mars as a reference, Sagan and his associates developed a model of the effect that such a condition could have on the Earth. Their initial estimate suggested that most land temperatures, aside from strips of coastline, could expect to drop to minus-13 degrees Fahrenheit and would stay at that temperature for several months, even during a summer war.

The lack of sunlight and heat on the surface of the planet would have obvious major impacts on agriculture and the ability of the Earth’s biological systems to recover and support human life. Employing a mix of psychiatry, history, religion and biology, proponents of the theory therein encouraged their audiences to question what they viewed to be an overly aggressive strategic nuclear policy being advanced by the world’s political leaders.

The concept of nuclear winter was not without its criticisms, one of the most direct coming in a book by Cresson Kearny titled Nuclear War Survival Skills. With a foreword by Edward Teller – the “father” of the hydrogen bomb – the book was written to serve as a civil defense manual, providing advice for logical courses of action in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. Most of the information in the book was developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory during the Cold War, but Kearny’s critical views on nuclear winter were based primarily on conclusions drawn from another paper, “Nuclear Winter Reappraised.”

Table of contents for "Nuclear War Survival Skills," by Cresson Kearny.

While the authors of  “Nuclear Winter Reappraised,” S. L. Thompson and S. H. Schneider, acknowledged the general climatic effects hypothesized by the nuclear winter theory, they also suggested that the overall impact would be much less severe than Sagan and others had predicted. Among other critical observations, Thompson and Schneider emphasized the assertion that a “‘threshold’ existed above which the climatic affects of a nuclear attack would become catastrophic,” in the process strongly suggesting that limited nuclear warfare should still be considered as a viable military tactic. Coining the term “nuclear autumn,” the paper provided skeptics and others with an avenue to reject the nuclear winter theory’s basic and largely undisputed principles.

---

Linus Pauling, an ardent activist against nuclear testing for more than four decades, chose to remain relatively discrete in his outright use of the term “nuclear winter.” He engaged in sporadic communication with Carl Sagan during the theory’s mainstream exposure, but the topic of nuclear winter was not covered in their correspondence. Pauling likewise owned a copy of the essay collection The Long Darkness: Psychological and Moral Perspectives on Nuclear Winter, in his personal library, but the book does not appear to have been heavily used.

While related sources might be sparse because of his slow retreat from activism in later years, Pauling did demonstrate agreement with the theory’s central tenants during several speeches that he gave throughout the mid-1980s.

In an oft-delivered and highly acclaimed talk titled “The Path to World Peace,” Pauling discussed the effects of world wide atomic war in terms that closely match those used by proponents of the nuclear winter theory. In early versions of the speech, notes can be found on drafts which implicitly relate to the effects of nuclear winter, but do not show up in finished versions of the speech.

By 1983 however, Pauling had revised portions of the speech to include content which directly conforms to the theory’s central tenets. After discussing potential damage to the ozone layer at a conference in British Columbia, Pauling described the effects that fires, ignited by atomic blasts from a nuclear conflict, would have around the Earth:

Almost all forests, houses, and other combustible materials would burn. The amount of smoke and dust thrown up from ground bursts might be enough to prevent sunlight from getting to the surface of the earth for months. We know that species of animals and plants die out under this condition.

Immediately following this point, Pauling shared a theory about the extinction of dinosaurs. Referring to the fossil record, Pauling outlined the hypothesis that a large asteroid collided with Earth during prehistoric times, incinerating tons of rock that were then forced into the atmosphere in the form of dust. This dust cloud, according to the theory, then absorbed the sun’s radiation for a substantial amount of time. Pauling described how the lack of sunlight would have prevented photosynthesis in plants, causing mass extinctions as the effects worked their way up the food chain.

Though similar references are difficult to find in Pauling’s papers, a letter from a student, whose class was visited by Pauling in 1984, demonstrates that Pauling’s reference to the nuclear winter theory was not a one time affair.  In it, the student writes

Your talk at Corte Madera effectively changed my view of nuclear war. Not that I didn’t realize that nuclear war would virtually destroy the world population, but I scoffed at the Nuclear Winter Theory. Your comparison between the meteorite causing the extinction of the dinosaurs and nuclear blasts around the world convinced me that a nuclear winter would occur in the event of a clash between the superpowers involving nuclear weapons.

While it is not clear how much time Pauling spent discussing or thinking about the theory of nuclear winter, his familiarity with and acceptance of its concepts seems evident, and it is clear that he found them important enough to share with both large audiences and classrooms of young people. Though the theory was not the recipient of much public backing from Pauling, and was subject to calculated criticism by others, it has maintained consistent support and recognition well into the current decade.

Radioactive Fallout and the Birth of the “Superbomb”

 

Event Baker test explosion, Bikini Atoll, July 1946.

 

[Part 2 of 2]

While Linus Pauling’s immediate concern with the new hydrogen bomb was avoidance of a global nuclear conflict, he was also very uneasy about the threat of nuclear fallout.

As is now commonly understood, dangerous byproducts result from the fission fraction of radioactive materials following the detonation of atomic weapons. Much of the radioactive material released during such an explosion, widely referred to as fallout, eventually falls to the Earth’s surface. The exact distribution of the fallout depends largely on how closely the bomb is detonated to the surface of the Earth, as well as the direction and intensity of winds near the Earth’s surface.

Humans that come into contact with fallout can develop radiation poisoning – a condition that, depending on the level of exposure, is hazardous and potentially fatal. The outcome of consistent exposure to large amounts of radiation became relatively easy to predict, but little was known during the early 1950s about long-term exposure to smaller amounts.

The radiation released from atomic bomb tests was a relatively small addition to the total amount of other man-made and naturally occurring sources in the atmosphere. However, Pauling feared that even a small increase in radiation could significantly increase the risk of harmful genetic mutations to vulnerable populations. As a result of the accumulated nuclear fallout from ongoing atomic testing, Pauling predicted a higher frequency of medical complications and birth defects world-wide over the next several generations. As with the case of long-term exposure to small amounts of radiation, the long-term effects of nuclear fallout were very difficult to control for, lending Pauling’s grave warnings serious cause for consideration.

The uncertainty regarding fallout and radioactivity from nuclear explosions likewise allowed for a wide spectrum of alternative perspectives to emerge. Though Pauling’s warnings about nuclear fallout received ample attention, he was challenged by several conflicting counter-claims, especially those of the Atomic Energy Commission and of nuclear physicist Dr. Edward Teller.

 

Portrait of Edward Teller by Dmitri Vail. June 1965.

 

The debate that came to define Pauling and Teller’s interaction, and the contrasting viewpoints that they represented, would last for decades. Teller argued that the actual level of long-term radiation resulting from nuclear fallout was negligible when other forms of radiation were taken into consideration. Using essentially the same data as Pauling, he demonstrated that the average risk to any one person from fallout-related radioactivity was minimal, at least for those positioned outside of a certain blast radius. Furthermore, he argued that most people were subjected to more radiation annually by cosmic rays (among other sources), than they were from the fallout of a typical well-planned nuclear detonation.

Pauling and Teller were given several forums for debate on television and other outlets in the mainstream media. Though they were not on friendly terms, and often characterized in the media as completely at odds, historians and more moderate voices in the general discussion believed that Pauling and Teller had more in common than was popularly perceived. In a 2001 lecture, author and Pauling biographer Tom Hager had this to say about the general debate:

It was inconclusive to a certain extent because each side used the same data two different ways. And depending on how you look at the data, it can either look like fallout is going to cause 200,000 miscarriages and deaths of infants over the next few generations, or atomic fallout poses a danger equivalent to wearing a watch with a radium dial. Now, those were the kind of terms that were used in the debate and they were both correct. Pauling looked at the worst case scenario over many generations worldwide and the Atomic Energy Commission looked at the increased risk for an individual during their lifetime. In both cases, they were coming to correct or essentially correct conclusions, but the debate was framed in a way on Pauling’s side so that it aroused world opinion against atomic testing.

Pauling remained involved in the discussion of nuclear fallout and the politics of atomic weapons in the following years, but gradually receded from the scene as his public profile began to cause trouble for him at Caltech and with investigatory bodies. He was pulled back into the fray, however, when, in 1954, an unexpected reaction resulted from the detonation of a secret new type of atomic weapon.

This mysterious bomb, detonated on the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, surprised even the scientists who were testing it. Several military personnel overseeing the test were subjected to unexpected levels of radiation, as was the crew of a Japanese fishing boat that had wandered into the area unaware of the danger. The men on the fishing boat, sick from radiation poisoning and carrying a hull of contaminated fish, were analyzed by Japanese scientists. Judging by the type of radiation damage discovered in the men, it was clear that something unusual was involved with the test to which they had been subjected.

This “superbomb” as it would commonly be known afterward, involved the coating of a hydrogen bomb with ordinary uranium metal or uranium-238, a by-product of the uranium enrichment process. Typically unfit for use in nuclear weapons, the uranium was destabilized during a three-stage reaction using a fission-fusion-fission detonation process. The resulting explosion penetrated a hole into the upper regions of the atmosphere, where radioactive materials were deposited and capable of traveling much greater distances on the high elevation winds.

This new development quickly re-energized Pauling’s public outspokenness. The relative silence that he had attempted to maintain for several of the preceding years was shattered by his concern over the powerful new bomb. In due course, he gave his first bomb-related speech in over two years and became engaged with the ongoing conversation once again.

The fallout debate, filled with victories and defeats for Pauling and the anti-testing community, would remain frustratingly unresolved throughout much of the following century. Over the course of many difficulties however, Pauling never lost sight of his hope for world peace. Later in life, he recalled his thoughts following development of the original atomic bomb in 1945:

I came to think, as did Albert Einstein, that the existence of nuclear weapons had finally made it imperative to abandon war once and for all. As seemed only logical to me, these weapons force us to accept the idea of coexistence and cooperation. Now that the facts about nuclear weapons are relatively well-known to the general public, we must realize that the future of the human race depends on our willingness and ability to cooperate and work together to solve global problems without belligerence.

Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of No More War!

No More War! First edition published in 1958.

“Dr. Pauling writes with a noble passion, which even the most hardened cynic must respect….[No More War!] should be widely read and deeply pondered.”
- Philip Noel-Baker, 1958.

A few weeks ago, Linda Richards, an Oregon State University History of Science graduate student, approached us with an idea to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of No More War! — Linus Pauling’s renowned plea for peace, written over two long weekends in hurried response to Edward Teller’s Our Nuclear Future.

The terrific article that arose out of this meeting, “No More War! 50 Years Later,” is now available on the website of a new campus publication, Life@OSU.

A focal point of Richards’ commentary is this 1983 quote, written by Pauling in the Preface to the twenty-fifth anniversary edition of his famous book.

Twenty-five years ago the message of this book was that the development of great nuclear weapons requires that war be given up, for all time – that the forces that can destroy the world must not be used.

This is still the message of the book.

The danger of world destruction in a nuclear war is greater than ever before…I hope that when the year 2008 arrives, after another 25 years, the world will have survived and the human race still will be here (although I probably shall no longer be living) but that there will be no need to republish the book, because the goal of world peace will have been achieved, militarism and nuclear weapons will have been brought under control and the threat of world destruction will finally have been abolished.

Whether or not the world’s civilizations have advanced appreciably toward the ideal that Pauling envisioned for 2008 is a question very much open to debate.  What seems to be clear, however, is the continuing relevance of Pauling’s writings on the topic.

In this spirit, we urge our visitors to read Richards’ text in its entirety.  We also hasten to add that copies of the 1983 edition of No More War! are available for purchase from the OSU Libraries Special Collections. [Click here for more information]

Finally, for those who are interested in learning more about the Pauling peace legacy, please have a look at the website Linus Pauling and the International Peace Movement: A Documentary History.

Featured Document: Angry and Frustrated, Pauling Considers a Run for the U.S. Presidency

Linus Pauling. Oslo, Norway. December 21, 1963

Though often encouraged to, Linus Pauling never ran for elected office. From the vantage point of his peace work, Pauling believed himself to be a far more effective agent for change when working in an environment that was essentially unencumbered by political considerations. Of at least equal importance was the fact that the time commitments demanded by government service would surely diminish Pauling’s capacity to pursue his first love, scientific inquiry.

For a very brief period however, Pauling certainly did consider running for the highest office in the land — the United States Presidency. Deeply angered by his treatment at the hands of Senator Thomas Dodd and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, the frustrated scientist made, as it turned out, a temporary decision to pursue a position in the Oval Office. The three pages of notes that follow were written — as per Pauling’s annotation — on the flight home to southern California following Pauling’s first appearance before the Dodd subcommittee.

Click on the thumbnails below to enlarge each page of this fascinating manuscript.

“I have decided to run for the office of Pres. of the U.S. I cannot bring myself to vote for either the Dem. or the Rep. candidate. I shall vote for myself. I invite people everywhere to help me. I do not care who they are or what they have done in the past, I pro only that they believe in what I state as my beliefs. I promise that I will not reward them in any way. If the satisfaction of having done what they think is right is not enough, I do not want them. One advantage that I have is that I know what the world of 1960 is like. No one can fool me the way Dr. Teller fooled Pres. Eisenhower.“

“[Tangential Notes: We need a law that no former FBI agents should be elected to Congress. Perhaps only professors. I am shocked with the revelation that has come to me of the quality, caliber, nature of our Senators. Respect - ] It is not necessary that the Pres. be a vassal of the Rep. party or the Dem. party. I shall be the servant only of the people of the U.S. – and only then if they are unselfish.“

“I have held no office. The presidency differs so much from other offices that this is not important. I can think – I shall get good advice – but I will make the decisions. We need leadership unhampered by politics. Pres. Eisen was unhampered but he did not grasp his opportunity.“

Pauling vs. Teller

Portrait of Edward Teller by Dmitri Vail. June 1965.

“Our ultimate end must be precisely what Dr. Pauling says, peace based on agreement, upon understanding, on universally agreed and enforced law. I think this is a wonderful idea, but peace based on force buys us the necessary time, and in this time we can work for better understanding, for closer collaboration.”

-Edward Teller. “Fallout and Disarmament: A Debate Between Linus Pauling and Edward Teller,” KQED television, San Francisco, California. February 20, 1958.

Throughout the 1950s Linus Pauling’s work to emphasize the dangers of nuclear weapons testing was publicly contradicted by, among others, a cadre of opposing scientists. Pauling argued that radiation released into the atmosphere, most pressingly those amounts unleashed by nuclear weapons testing, could cause widespread birth defects and subsequently increase levels of human suffering, especially in children.

Pro-militarization scientists including physicist Edward Teller, argued that the negative effects of radiation were negligible, at least as compared to the utility of nuclear stockpiles in maintaining the global balance of power. Suggesting that “to my mind, the distinction between a nuclear weapon and a conventional weapon is the distinction between an effective weapon and an outmoded weapon,” Teller was perhaps the leading scientific opponent of Pauling’s anti-bomb position.

Pauling argued that Teller’s claims were blatantly false. He attacked Teller in the media for his use of “dishonest and incomplete information.” Teller, known as “the father of the hydrogen bomb,” responded in kind, disputing the statistics that Pauling used to support his claims.

In February 1958, Pauling and Teller agreed to publicly debate the issue, to be broadcast on live television by San Francisco station KQED-TV.

Linus Pauling debating Edward Teller on the topic of nuclear fallout. February 1958

Pauling’s approach was typical of his writing. Relying upon published statements, scientific data and a lengthy defense of his own record against those who had already questioned the validity of his position, Pauling attempted to provide a reasoned argument that might educate the viewing public:

“There are every year seventy-five million children born in the world. Two percent of these children are seriously deficient because of heredity…the bad genes that are in the pool of human germ plasm, partially due to the natural radioactivity, and cosmic rays, and now being increased by fallout….One percent increase in this is fifteen thousand seriously defective children each year….We can say, accordingly, that the man who gives the order to test a single large superbomb with high-fission yield is dooming fifteen thousand seriously defective children to be born in later generation.”

Teller’s tactics, on the other hand, were steeped in the highly-effective Cold War rhetoric of the era:

“Peace cannot be obtained by wishing for it….It has often been said, and I think with some justification, that the first world war was brought on by a race in armament. I believe that the second world war was brought on by a race in disarmament. The peace-loving nations disarmed, and when the Hitler tyranny armed, inertia was too great…he got away with his army and he almost conquered the world. Next time when a tyranny arms and we don’t, we might not be so fortunate.”

Perhaps most galling to Pauling’s sensibilities was Teller’s rather flippant refutation of his opponent’s statements concerning the potential for genetic damage caused by radioactive fallout:

“We know enough about the mechanism of heredity to be sure that changes will be made in the germ plasm, just as Dr. Pauling has said, and many, very many, probably the great majority of these changes will be damaging. Yet without some changes, evolution would be impossible.”

As the debate wore on, Teller’s approach threw Pauling increasingly off-balance. By the end, many neutral observers came away from the event feeling that the physicist had maintained a greater degree of poise and had, in fact, “won” the debate. After the evening had concluded, a frustrated and angered Pauling refused to debate with Teller again, feeling that his adversary was neither interested nor willing to engage in a formal, educational discussion.

Linus Pauling and Edward Teller with members of the media and television crew during the debate. February 1958

The two did, however, continue to trade barbs in various public arenas — much of Pauling’s 1958 book No More War! was written in direct response to Teller’s own publication titled Our Nuclear Future. Accusations, points and counterpoints would continue to be made over the years, in dozens of speeches and articles. Admirers of one another’s scientific achievements, Pauling and Teller remained life-long nemeses on subjects of war and peace.

Read more about the Pauling vs. Teller debate on the Linus Pauling and the International Peace Movement website, or watch extracts from the event itself by clicking on the multimedia link below.

"Teller vs. Pauling." 1958. Produced by KQED-TV, San Francisco, California.