Doctrine of Peace Through Strength
The 1980s were defined by an intense and dangerous dance between two superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. President Ronald Reagan, who famously described the Soviet Union as the "evil empire,” believed that a robust nuclear arsenal was crucial for deterrence—a philosophy that was neatly packaged as "peace through strength.” This stance resonated with his 1964 support for Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign and highlighted the period's prevailing sense of impending catastrophe. [1]
At the time (1983–1984), the Cold War seemed a fixed feature of world affairs, with both sides accumulating vast arsenals of nuclear weapons, enough to annihilate each other many times over. The Doomsday Clock, a symbolic and chilling representation of how close humanity was to self-destruction, was set at 3 minutes to midnight. “U.S.-Soviet relations reach their iciest point in decades,” the Bulletin said. As I write this, the Doomsday Clock stands at 90 seconds to midnight, “a moment of historic danger,” and a sobering reminder of how dangerous our world remains.
Nuclear Winter
Amidst this tension, Reagan introduced one of his most ambitious and controversial initiatives: the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Announced with great fanfare in 1983, DSI aimed to develop a sophisticated missile defence system that could protect the United States from nuclear attacks. Dubbed ‘Star Wars,’ after the popular science fiction movie Star Wars, which had only been released a few months before, SDI envisioned a high-tech array of ground- and space-based systems. Standing in its way, however, was a scientist.
Carl Sagan, a Cornell University astronomer, was more than just a respected and accomplished scientist; he was a cultural icon, with a unique ability to make complex scientific concepts accessible, even fascinating, to the public. Sagan recognised the existential threat posed by the escalating arms race and used his platform to warn against the dangers of nuclear war. Along with four other scientists, he published the landmark “TTAPS" study (named from the initials of the authors’ surnames), introducing the world to the concept of “nuclear winter.”
Their research suggested a nuclear war would not just devastate the immediate targets, but it could also unleash a chain of environmental catastrophes that would plunge the planet into a prolonged winter. The fires would send vast amounts of smoke into the stratosphere, the atmospheric layer above the troposphere, where we humans live. In the stratosphere, there is no rain to wash it out, so the smoke will remain there for years where it will absorb sunlight, leading to a reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. The result? A nuclear winter. Humanity could face a fate similar to that of dinosaurs following a massive asteroid impact—a sunlight-blocking dust storm that ended their reign sixty-five million years ago.
Although not a weapons expert, Carl Sagan understood that the Strategic Defense Initiative was unrealistic. “The reason was simple,” Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway note in The Merchants of Doubt. “No weapons system—indeed, no technological system—is ever perfect, and an imperfect defense against nuclear weapons is worse than worthless. It’s a matter of arithmetic. If strategic defense is 90 percent effective, then 10 percent of the warheads still get through. The Soviets had an arsenal of about two thousand ballistic missiles capable of delivering over eight thousand warheads, 10 percent of which would more than suffice to destroy a nation.”
Manufacturing Doubt
Little surprise that the proponents of the SDI were less than thrilled with Sagan’s criticism. In response, they didn’t just challenge the science; they attacked him personally. This is an old tactic from a well-worn playbook that has been used against other scientists, most notably against Rachel Carson, who faced posthumous attacks from advocates of the pesticide DDT. And much like the tobacco industry created the Tobacco Institute to promote their claims and create doubt on the science linking smoking to disease, the SDI lobby founded the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank dedicated to promoting the SDI objectives and subtly undermining Sagan's credibility.[2]
The Institute’s strategy was both cunning and effective: rather than directly refuting the science, they focused on creating the illusion of a debate. By pressuring media outlets to present "balanced" views—an approach that gave equal weight to both the overwhelming scientific consensus and the fringe opinions of SDI supporters—they succeeded in polarizing the public discourse. The result was that the public was increasingly unsure of what to believe. Were the risks of nuclear winter real, or just another doomsday scenario concocted by paranoid scientists? As the lines between fact and fiction blurred, the stage was set for a broader erosion of trust in scientific expertise—a trend that would have far-reaching consequences in the decades to come.
Despite the attacks, Carl Sagan persisted in his efforts to educate the public about the dangers of a nuclear war. Through books, articles, lectures and media appearances, he became one of the most recognisable voices in the fight against nuclear proliferation. His work not only raised awareness but also set a new standard for science communication, influencing how scientists engage with the public and policymakers to this day.
The End of the Cold War and the Beginning of Climate Change Debates
As the 1980s drew to a close, so too did the Cold War. At the end of the decade, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev had made significant progress in nuclear disarmament, signalling a turning point in the Cold War. On December 8, 1987, they signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, agreeing to eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons. The US destroyed 846 of its missiles and 32 launch sites, and the USSR destroyed 1,846 missiles and 117 sites. The Doomsday Clock ticked a few precious minutes from midnight, and the world began to breathe a sigh of relief.
But peace was short-lived. In 2019, the Trump administration withdrew from the INF Treaty and began developing three new missile systems that would exceed the range limits of the treaty. Soon after, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would also suspend its treaty obligations. Today, the risk of nuclear escalation is higher than it has been in decades, with 9 countries collectively holding thousands of nuclear warheads, the U.S. and Russia possessing the majority.[3]
Meanwhile, with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the need for a comprehensive missile defense system diminished. In 1993, President George H.W. Bush terminated the Strategic Defense Initiative program, and replaced it with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), refocusing efforts on developing more realistic missile defense capabilities.
However, that was not the end of the George C. Marchall Institute. By the late 1980s, the Institute had shifted its focus from nuclear defense to environmental issues, particularly climate change. Drawing from its Strategic Defense Initiative playbook, the Institute and its successors, like the CO2 Coalition (formed after the Marshall Institute closed in 2015), insisted on "balanced" media coverage.
I’m not going to discuss here the media's responsibility to inform the public and facilitate an informed debate on climate change. However, it was a huge mistake to equate the scientifically supported consensus with fringe, often ideologically driven skepticism. They amplified the voices of a small but vocal group of climate deniers, sowing doubt and confusion. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on human-driven climate change, these tactics succeeded in muddying public understanding and delaying action by swaying malleable politicians.[4]
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Carl Sagan, who passed away in 1996, left behind a legacy that is more relevant today than ever. His aphorism, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," serves as a reminder of the need for rigorous examination of information, particularly in an era where misinformation and disinformation are increasingly prevalent. The term "alternative facts," popularized during the Trump administration, epitomizes the broader phenomenon of politicians and public figures rejecting established truths in favour of narratives that align with their agendas.
Carl Sagan wasn’t alone in warning about the dangers of climate change. On June 23, 1988, a sweltering day in Washington, D.C., NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen, delivered his own impactful message before the U.S. Senate. D.C. Hansen’s testimony is often cited as a key moment in raising public awareness about climate change. For those familiar with the field of comparative planetology, it is no surprise that Jim Hansen began his career by studying the climate of Venus—a fitting start for someone who would become a leading voice in the fight against climate change.
And like Sagan, Hansen faced fierce opposition from those who saw his warnings as a threat to their interests. Today, the “war on truth" continues to manifest in various domains, not just in the realms of nuclear policy and climate change, but across a wide spectrum of issues, from public health to economic policy. The rise of "alternative facts" and the decline of trust in institutions have made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between reality and rhetoric. In this environment, the lessons of the past are more crucial than ever. The deniers may change their targets, but their tactics remain the same. And so too must our resolve to defend the truth, even—and especially—when it is inconvenient.
Bibliography
INF Treaty Withdrawal: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-09/news/us-completes-inf-treaty-withdrawal
Fred Panzer papers, 1950-2001 and undated. (n.d.). Retrieved from Archives and Manuscripts, Duke University: https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/panzerfred
Mecklin, J. (2024, January 23). A moment of historic danger:It is still 90 seconds to midnight. Retrieved from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
Oreskes, N., & Conway , E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury.
Peace Through Strength. (n.d.). Retrieved from Ronald Reagan Presidential Library: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/permanent-exhibits/peace-through-strength
Petersen, A. M., Vincent, E. M., & Westerling, A. L. (2019). Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians. Nature Communications, 10(3502). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09959-4
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at a Glance. (n.d.). Retrieved from Arms Control Association: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-inf-treaty-glance
The Role of a Strong National Defense. (2015, October 5). Retrieved from Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/military-strength-topical-essays/2016-essays/the-role-strong-national-defense
Turco, R. P., Toon, O. B., Ackerman, T., Pollack , J. B., & Sagan, C. (1983). Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions. Science, 222(4630), 1283-1292.
Footnotes
[1] In the late 1970s, a strong conservative movement emerged within the Republican Party in the United States. This movement, partly a reaction to the Democratic dominance since 1932, gained momentum with Barry Goldwater’s 1964 candidacy, which marked the dawn of modern conservatism. Although Goldwater's views might not seem so extreme today, they set the stage for a significant political shift. Following his loss to LBJ, a new conservative coalition formed, comprising business leaders, middle-class voters, disaffected Democrats, and fundamentalist Christians. Wealthy donors started pouring funds into think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, universities, and media outlets to challenge the perceived establishment.
[2] The founders of the institute were Frederick Seitz, former President of the United States National Academy of Sciences, and now the chairman of the board, Robert Jastrow, the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and William Nierenberg, former director of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
[3] As of 2024, there are nine nations known to possess nuclear weapons, 1) United States 2) Russia 3) China, 4) France, 5) United Kingdom, 6) India, 7) Pakistan, 8) North Korea, 9) Israel (though Israel has not officially confirmed its nuclear arsenal, it is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons).
[4] William Happer, a physicist and climate skeptic, was a former director of the Marshall Institute, and the founder of the CO2 Coalition. In 2018, Donald Trump appointed him to the National Security Council to review climate science. He left after a year when Trump administration officials, including science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, suggested that Happer's inflammatory statements on climate change could be harmful to the president during the 2020 campaign. (Waldman, 2019)