discussians
effects af
have been

Until recently,
concerning the
nuclear weapons
severely lacking in one vital
area, Bdecause a¢ difficult-
ies in Scientifically quanti-
fying the effects af the
numerous war scenarios, mili-
tary strategists, emergency
planners and oliticians
alike have overlooked the
possible anviranmental as~
pects of nuclear war. How-
ever, it is precisely these
environmental considerations
which naw may cause all thase
invalved toa serious! re-
think the nuclear threat.

if October 1983, at the

‘Conference an the World

after Nuclear War’ leading

biologists and atmospheric

scientists presented their

findings environ

mental impa The
conference was
among others,

th Natignal u

National Wild-

the Canadian

he

of

n
C
f
i

e Earth.

Sagan
study
h ¢
miner
studied

scenarios,

the
ca-
auth

treme climatic effects would
be triggered by the  detana-
tian of a mere 0.8% of the
existing world nuclear arsen-
a e

Donald

Keynote speaker
Y ? ef Stan-

Kennedy, president
ford University, warned that
the findings had been caren
fully reviewed by many Fen
spected scientists, and were
much tao important to be
ignored by policy planners.
He said that “a major nuclear
exchange will have, among its
plausible effects, the great~
est biological and hysical
disruptions of this planet in
its last 65 million years".

Within one or two weeks of a
nuclear conflict, a huge dark
cloud would shroud mast of
the Northern. Hemisphere.
Even in a “Limited” war, this
cloud would reduce the avail-
able sunlight by 95%. Sur-
face temperatures would
lummet, whatever the season,
o well celow zero for weeks,
months, and possibly a year
ar more. he combined
effects of low light and cold
disastrous effects

crops, and grass~-

with their life

quatie ecosystems

gu¢fer a Similar fate,

f# of taxic

chemicals, and silt fron
nuded, burned-over land.

de-

As aresult af all this, un@
countable papulations ot
plants and animals would be
wiped from the Northern
Hemisphere. Their disappear-
ance would rapidly cause the
extinction of all species de~
pendant on them for their own
survival. In the end, the
“cascade of  —s extinctions"
would reach epidemic proport~
ions, and rival the catas-
traphic end of the Cretaceous
period when the dinosaurs
disappeared, Dr. Paul Ehrlich
said “If there is a_ full-
Scala nuclear war, odds are
ou can kiss the Northern
emisphere good-bye."

fs Canadians, it is interest-
ing ta note that we would
suffer these catastrophic

effects without even a sin-
ale weapon being detonated an
anadian soil.

The bottom line is that an

nuclear war, even a "Limited"
ene could set in motion a
chain af environmental
effects which would devastate
the earth, along with count-
less t 2isands of spacies.
Nuclear war is now deing re~
garded as the ultimate envi~
ronmental crisis,»

"NUCLEAR WINTER"

; *
THEORY IS ONE MORE POWERFUL ARGUMENT FOR THE FREEZE §

Experts back scientist’s ‘nuclear winter’ theory

The Citizen, Ottawa, Thursday, July 12, 1984

WASHINGTON (AP) — Military
and arms control experts agreed with
space scientist Cari Sagan after he
testified Wednesday that a nuclear
war, even if limited to a small frae-
tion of the U.S. and Soviet arsenals,
could threaten the extinction of h
manity because of the “climatic catas-
trophe” that would grip the planet for
up to two years. 7

Sagan advanced the so-called “nu-
clear winter” theory to the joint eco-
nomic committee of the S. Con-

gress.

Sagan, a Cornell University profes-
sor of astronomy, summarized a study
that he and four other scientists — R.
P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Acker-

man and J. B. Pollack — produced
for Science magazine last year.

In short, the nuclear winter thesis
holds that an exchange of just 500 to
2,000 strategic warheads — aside
from swiftly killing a majority of the
citizens between the warring states —
would kick so much dust, smoke and
poisonous gascs into the atmosphere
that the Earth’s surface would cool by
tens of degrees, turning the planet
into a dark, icy wasteland incapable
of sustaining any survivors.

The United States has about 10,000
strategic warheads; the Soviet Union
about 8,000.

Other experts have called such pre-
dictions too grim. But gnother Wash-

ington witness, former U.S. arms con-
trol director Paul Warnke, told the
committee: “I, for one, am unwilling
to wait for conclusive proof. This is
one theory we can’t afford to put to
the test.””

Retired Admiral Noel Gaylor,
former director of the U.S. National
Security Agency, said that if Sagan
and his colleagues are “correct, even
to a degree, no country, great or
small, will be safe, whether at war or
not.”

And “since the number of weapons
required to trigger the nuclear winter
is comparatively low, the idea of nu-
clear balance becomes meaningless,”
he said.-

bum atl