Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T04:56:10.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Declaration on Prevention of Nuclear War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Communications & Reports
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Winter 1982 , pp. 339 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* A referee comments (and we vehemently agree) that it is gratifying to see the Roman Catholic Church speaking out in this manner regarding mankind's most urgent concern, which gives us hope that they will soon do so about the basic cause, namely human population.—Ed.

* See, for example, our stressing of the foreseeable effects of nuclear warfare through the early part of our Winter issue last year (Environmental Conservation, Vol. 8, No. 4, especially pp. 257–73, 1981), and the Subsequent double issue of Ambio devoted to this most alarming of all topics.—Ed.

** Another telling figure is given above on page 339, in the Appeal of ICSU to the recent 2nd Special Disarmament Session of the UN General Assembly, with their statement that ‘today the combined yield of existing nuclear weapons exceeds 13,000 megatons of TNT’, whereas ‘the totality of [chemical] explosives, used throughout the history of mankind, did not reach the equivalent in power of 10 megatons of TNT’—even though this figure should probably be increased to 25.—Ed.