Whatever happened to disarmament protesters?

[Cowperson]

Seeing this story of 19 arrested at a British submarine base in a modest protest calling for nuclear disarmament got me wondering what happened to the MILLIONS who used to march every weekend over this topic in the 70's and 80's.

Where'd they go?

Is nuclear disarmament still in vogue or now out of fashion? Or do people now generally accept a nuclear deterrent?

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...e.ap/index.html

Cowperson

[Table 5]

well considering the cold war no longer casts a nuclear shadow of doom, its understandable why things have died down in that realm. The threat of an actual nuclear device being used ( atleast in a war type situation ) is considerably less than it was during that time, so its only natural to assume that it is not at the forefront of peoples minds these days.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

No more cold war + the fact that it was something new back then whereas nowadays, more countries have, or are developing, nuclear weapons. An attempt to stop it before the ball started rolling, so to speak...

[Cowperson]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the probability of a nuclear weapon being used is actually far greater today than it was in the 70's and 80's?

The danger today, it seems to me, is that you have rogue nations or terrorists who may not adhere to the concept of MAD - mutual assured destruction.

Back in the 70's and 80's there were marches attracting hundreds of thousands, particularly in Europe, calling for unilateral disarmament by the West as a show of good faith to the Soviet Union.

It seemed to me at the time that those people didn't seem to grasp that MAD was the concept that prevented large global conflicts rather than making it more likely. MAD turned the cold war into a series of low level struggles via proxy clients in obscure places like Vietnam rather than an all out nuclear exchange.

Today, MAD doesn't appear to be a deterrent for some of the rogue elements on our planet and I'm sure we could all scare up a plethora of experts that feel the detonation of a nuclear device in a major city in western civilization is only a matter of time.

Do these protesters simply need an obvious target like the Cold War to get them interested?

This protest at a British Submarine Base seemed to be one of those very rare instances where we hear a call for unilateral disarment.

Does Britain need nuclear weapons?

Cowperson

[Table 5]

the thing is cow, since they were the "progressive" countries moving towards nuclear power, it was probably seen as a legitimate and viable war tool of the future. Yes, you had both sides balancing each other out, but the fact remained, when you have such a nuclear arsenal ready to go, its still very disconcerning that one mistake could start a whole downfall.

and yes, in essence today might be even more dangerous, but as it is, its a little hard to go protesting at a terrorists hideout right? Its much easier to protest an american nuclear program when you are still bound by the rules of a democracy that allows you to protest. good luck doing that in north korea or almost all of these rogue countries.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Table 5@Aug 23 2004, 05:26 PM
the thing is cow, since they were the "progressive" countries moving towards nuclear power, it was probably seen as a legitimate and viable war tool of the future. Yes, you had both sides balancing each other out, but the fact remained, when you have such a nuclear arsenal ready to go, its still very disconcerning that one mistake could start a whole downfall.

and yes, in essence today might be even more dangerous, but as it is,

the thing is cow, since they were the "progressive" countries moving towards nuclear power, it was probably seen as a legitimate and viable war tool of the future. Yes, you had both sides balancing each other out, but the fact remained, when you have such a nuclear arsenal ready to go, its still very disconcerning that one mistake could start a whole downfall.

I presume you're conceding that it would have been a mistake, rather than intent, that might have started things off. Dangerous to be sure but lacking intent by and large.

At various points in the Korean conflict, the USA gave serious thought to a nuclear escalation with China if I remember right. The USA was probably pretty serious in the Cuban Missile Crisis, which caused the USSR to back down.

its a little hard to go protesting at a terrorists hideout right? Its much easier to protest an american nuclear program when you are still bound by the rules of a democracy that allows you to protest. good luck doing that in north korea or almost all of these rogue countries.

While many protesters in the 70's and 80's included the Soviet Union in their argument, the central focus was still pressure on their own governments. In many, many more cases, it was a stunning call for unilateral disarmament, putting ALL the pressure on their own governments.

That's what's missing today.

We're not talking about the probability of North Koreans staging a protest against their government.

We're talking about millions in the West protesting their own governments just as we saw at the British Submarine base today.

Where have these millions of people gone? Are they conceding a nuclear deterrent is necessary? Has their view of the world changed?

Has the globalization of the world economy, the new protest target, reduced the threat of conventional, non-terrorism, nuclear war?

Or is this about The Protest Generation, the boomers of the 60's and 70's, growing into older age and having different values?

By the way, the Soviet government was fond of staging an occasional anti-nuclear war protest of its own - one was with about 250,000 people in Moscow in about 1985 if I remember right.

Carefully orchestrated and certainly not ordinary.

Didn't the German government, the scene of tremendous anti-nuke protests in the 1980's, indicate the other day it was only a heartbeat away from being able to produce nuclear weapons?

An interesting link:

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/Pub...rch/peace.html

Cowperson

[Table 5]

I presume you're conceding that it would have been a mistake, rather than intent, that might have started things off. Dangerous to be sure but lacking intent by and large.

well i kind of meant both. When you have such a powerful and swift tool at your disposal, dont you think it was hard not to sometimes think of using them once in a while, as in the situations you brought up? And since it all comes down to human decision making, eventually there is a chance someone in power comes along who takes that extra necessary step. Would a more reactionary and hot-headed president have pulled the trigger in Cuba?

It was not neccesarilly about a nuclear weapon going off by mistake, since that's not what was dangerous about those circumstances. The people behind the button can be much more dangerous IMO. They dont always relly on science, but instead raw human instinct and decision making. and we all know that humans make mistakes. And im sure there were people out there who werent afraid to make the ultimate one.

Didn't the German government, the scene of tremendous anti-nuke protests in the 1980's, indicate the other day it was only a heartbeat away from being able to produce nuclear weapons?


yes, but they will handle like a mofo, and have great resale value!

[northernflame]

This sounds surprisingly like a NOVA program that was on last week.

In the program, however, they suggested that the threat of an all out nuclear launch is much greater now than during the cold war because of the increased liklihood of something gong awry in Russia - either by mistake or intentionally.

You can see the transcript of the program here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...issileers.html

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that there are three reasons why the anti-arms protestors have kinda faded into the woodwork

one is generational, the hippy peacenicks of the 60's are now in thier 50's and early 60's and probably don't have the same social views that they had back in the day.

In the 60's the Soviets were very much winning the propaganda war due to a media blackout in thier country. A lot of people in the 60's wanted to believe that communism worked, because like in Animal Farm the food bins always looked full, and thier industry always looked busy and was designed around serving thier fellow man. The Soviets were especially good at making the American's look aggressive and imperialistic due to U.S. actions in Vietnam, and the Cuban missile crisis. Its also well known that a lot of the university student leaders were funded by elements in the KGB to encourage revolutionary behavior in thier fellow students. When the Soviet Union collapsed the funding stopped. The KGB always effectionately called American and European students useful idiots.

There is no cold war anymore, and in the light of other horrific developements (rougue nations, terrorism, etc) combined with the failure of American's not using nuclear weapons since the end of the second world war, the urgency to protest them has declined.

[Bill Bumface]

I think its safe to say that the majority of protesters are university students filled with their peaceful ideals. Back when these protests were huge, nuclear stock piles were getting larger by the day for the US/USSR, and people percieved this as a threat to their wellbeing. Today, people of the protesting age, have if anything seen a mild decrease in nuclear stock piles, and its a concept that they have grown up with. They were there since you were born, and you accept them as a fact of life. I think the same thing has happened with communism, it used to be new and scary and people were seeking out communists in their neighbourhoods, but now people have grown up with it and understand it, and the fear goes away.

[transplant99]

Or is this about The Protest Generation, the boomers of the 60's and 70's, growing into older age and having different values?

DING DING DING!!!!

Funny how people change their "ideals" when they become a part of the real world with real money.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 23 2004, 06:55 PM
Or is this about The Protest Generation, the boomers of the 60's and 70's, growing into older age and having different values?

DING DING DING!!!!

Funny how people change their "ideals" when they become a part of the real world with real money.

I haven't changed my basic values since being part of the protest generation of the 60's. What I remember is it was a very tense time and the USSR leaders and the USA leaders had no concept of MAD and continually played games of brinkmanship with no thought of their own citizens, never mind the rest of the world. Each thought they could win. A nuclear war at that time would have had missiles flying over Canada and probably could have destroyed us and Europe as well as the USA and USSR. I think Cow said that the USA was thinking of using nuclear weapons in KOrea and it was also a possibility in Viet Nam with the Americans in deep trouble. I don't like Bush because now, with no USSR, he wants to return to Gunboat diplomacy. As for this real world, we haven't had real money since we went off the Gold Standard, but that's another discussion.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Vulcan@Aug 24 2004, 08:37 AM
What I remember is it was a very tense time and the USSR leaders and the USA leaders had no concept of MAD and continually played games of brinkmanship with no thought of their own citizens, never mind the rest of the world. Each thought they could win.

Well, clearly they DID have a concept of MAD since nuclear bombs WEREN'T lobbed in any conflict and you had the ancillary evidence of both sides sponsoring proxies to fight their wars for them, keeping the aggression at a low-level and not directly confrontational: IE: North and South Vietnam, minor conflicts in Central and South America, etc, etc.

How can you say they didn't understand MAD when we're still here?

The most dangerous time was probably the period after the Second World War with the real contemplation of nukes being used during the Korean Conflict and finally into a major confrontation in the Cuban Missile Crisis. From then on both parties seemed to step back while ramping up the proxy fight. The possibility of an accident was there but that's a lot different than intent which is what you are implying.

India and Pakistan almost had a nuclear exchange a few years ago. If you believe the intelligence scuttlebutt from the time, both parties thought they could endure a nuclear war. The principle of MAD wasn't working. Diplomats from a number of countries worked on the leaders to convince them of the horror they were contemplating.

That was real and scary.

A nuclear war at that time would have had missiles flying over Canada and probably could have destroyed us and Europe as well as the USA and USSR.

That could easily happen at any moment today.

What's changed? The USA hasn't.

So why are you more comfortable today than in the 70's and 80's?

In all honesty, in the 70's and 80's, with brinkmanship the norm, I was never worried - NEVER. Just depressed for a while, like everyone else named in Jimmy Carter's "crisis of confidence" speech, when Vietnam ended badly.

I never understood the agenda of the Protest Generation. The things they were worried about then seem to be upon us now. A foe that may acquire nuclear weapons that doesn't respect MAD for example. It's finally real today.

Is now a good time to disarm?

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Aug 24 2004, 07:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Aug 24 2004, 07:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Vulcan@Aug 24 2004, 08:37 AM
What I remember is it was a very tense time and the USSR leaders and the USA leaders had no concept of MAD and continually played games of brinkmanship with no thought of their own citizens, never mind the rest of the world. Each thought they could win.

Well, clearly they DID have a concept of MAD since nuclear bombs WEREN'T lobbed in any conflict and you had the ancillary evidence of both sides sponsoring proxies to fight their wars for them, keeping the aggression at a low-level and not directly confrontational: IE: North and South Vietnam, minor conflicts in Central and South America, etc, etc.

How can you say they didn't understand MAD when we're still here?

The most dangerous time was probably the period after the Second World War with the real contemplation of nukes being used during the Korean Conflict and finally into a major confrontation in the Cuban Missile Crisis. From then on both parties seemed to step back while ramping up the proxy fight. The possibility of an accident was there but that's a lot different than intent which is what you are implying.

India and Pakistan almost had a nuclear exchange a few years ago. If you believe the intelligence scuttlebutt from the time, both parties thought they could endure a nuclear war. The principle of MAD wasn't working. Diplomats from a number of countries worked on the leaders to convince them of the horror they were contemplating.

That was real and scary.

A nuclear war at that time would have had missiles flying over Canada and probably could have destroyed us and Europe as well as the USA and USSR.

That could easily happen at any moment today.

What's changed? The USA hasn't.

So why are you more comfortable today than in the 70's and 80's?

In all honesty, in the 70's and 80's, with brinkmanship the norm, I was never worried - NEVER. Just depressed for a while, like everyone else named in Jimmy Carter's "crisis of confidence" speech, when Vietnam ended badly.

I never understood the agenda of the Protest Generation. The things they were worried about then seem to be upon us now. A foe that may acquire nuclear weapons that doesn't respect MAD for example. It's finally real today.

Is now a good time to disarm?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
In retrospect both Kruschev and the American presidents probably did have an awareness of MAD but with their posturing and bluffing, it was hard to tell [ do you remember Kruschev taking his shoe off at the UN and pounding the desk with its heel while telling the US, we will bury you]. Crises seemed to follow crises with each one involving the question, do I push the button now. This may not have been the case, but the headlines of the day certainly said it was. The majority of the older generation [don't trust anyone over 30] thought it would be a good idea to kill the so called "####s" to stop the "domino effect" in SE Asia and to nuke the Russians while we were at it. My Social Studies teacher was a big advocate of this and a couple of my friends joined the US Army and went to Viet Nam. I don't know how the chain of command in the US and the USSR worked, but their were more than a few loose canons around. Our protests did have an effect. The 70's and 80's seemed more peaceful, with the winding down of the Viet Nam war, than the 50's and 60's. When the Americans lost that war, it was tense, as I feared it could escalate to a nuclear show of strength. You are right though, even Tricky Dickie had enough sense to back off. As you said India and Pakistan didn't understand the concept of MAD when first aquiring the "glow" of nuclear power and I don't remember the concept being voiced until the mid 60's. Probably not that much has changed in this generation. Now we have Iraq and terrorism to fight instead of Viet Nam and Communism, but in Canada I don't feel that threatened [which could be a big mistake]. Perhaps we have become used to the tension. Bush seems to like keeping the Americans on a war based footing for his own agenda. I believe in mutual disarmament, but trying to make deals with terroists won't work at this time. When the terrorist problem is solved, I am sure another threat will come along. This is my side of the Protest Generation, but other attractions for me were free love, drugs, and music [not that I am advocating the first two{the dangers today are obvious}]. The Pill had a huge new influence on our behaviour, drugs such as grass and LSD were new to our society and opened up different ways of thinking. Music such as Folk and Rock had matured and were our music. The economy from my perspective seemed good and thus young people also had the time to indulge themselves. I have to admit it, some of "the agenda of the Protest Generation" was to have a good time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Too be very honest the protestors had a small effect on any kind of military/governmental decision in the U.S's dealings with the Soviet Union. It did have a large effect on Vietnam, and later on dis-echanted citizen's in the Soviet Union caused the eventual withdrawl of troops in Afganistan. However and not to belittle the peace movement, but the media had a much larger effect since the parents of solidiers suddenly saw that thier children were in real danger, and war was no longer a glorious thing like it was during the first two World Wars.

After looking at some older papers, there were only three real dangerous periods where nuclear exchanges could come to bear.

The Cuban Missile Crisis - a extremely close situation, but in the end it was badly handled by the Kennedy's who gave the Politburo no room to save face and probably pushed Detente back by 30 years and lead to the eventual ascension of Yuri Antropov to the position of Politburo Chairman. A fact that just came to bear about 10 years ago was the fact that there were three Soviet Subs in Cuban Waters carrying Nuclear Tipped torpedo's designed to be used against American Carriers. The Commanders on the scene had actual asked the Politburo for position to fire on the American's, and due to a communication failure never received a response.

The Korean War - when the North Korean's saw early success in the war and threatened to push the UN forces into the ocean, the American Military approached the President with a request to use nuclear submunitions on North Korean armoured formations, bridges, and major road ways. Fortunately the plan for an amphibious assault was approved instead

The Korean War - When China became involved, it was deemed as a good opportunity to take care of the bigger threat of China and thier military. The American's felt that they couldn't beat the numerically superior Chinese and again wanted to Nuke ammunition dumps and staging areas, and threated Chinese cities.

The Soviets were an interesting question as far as even looking at a first strike concept. Due to massive losses in the Second World War, the first World War and the Napoleanic invasions, the Soviets had, and Russians still have an extreme paranoi about losing thier home lands and thier civilians to an aggressive invader to the West.

Its also noted that the Russians were terrified of Ronald Reagan and through that he was planning a first strike against him. the KGB was actively investigating this possibility when the first cracks appeared in the Soviet Union.

20th century history is interesting stuff, its probably the last time that we're ever going to see a world dominated by two Super Powers who were willing to manipulate thier client countries to gain advantage over thier enemies.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Aug 24 2004, 05:00 PM
Too be very honest the protestors had a small effect on any kind of military/governmental decision in the U.S's dealings with the Soviet Union. It did have a large effect on Vietnam, and later on dis-echanted citizen's in the Soviet Union caused the eventual withdrawl of troops in Afganistan. However and not to belittle the peace movement, but the media had a much larger effect since the parents of solidiers suddenly saw that thier children were in real danger, and war was no longer a glorious thing like it was during the first two World Wars.
real dangerous periods where nuclear exchanges could come to bear.

.

Yes the media had a huge influence on ending the Viet Nam War. However when the anti-war movement first began the media was very pro war. The American draft became a huge issue for young American men. Muhamed Ali flunked his intelligence test twice, even though he was a high school graduate, others tried to mislead the draft board in various ways to get their 4F status. Some with influence such as Bush and Clinton got noncombat positions [George Senior knew enough not to risk his son in a war of conquest against gorilla fighters]. A few did the honorable thing and went to jail for their beliefs. Others went underground. Lots voted with their feet and headed to Canada or Sweden. Some such as Kerry bit the bullet and went to Viet Nam only to speak out against the war when he returned. As more and more parents lost their children, one way or another, they questioned the War and became sympathetic to the anti-war movement. They didn't need the media to tell them their son was dead or crippled or gone underground or in jail or exiled in Canada. The parents were voters and consumers and maybe members of the media that now gave legitimate reporting on the war. Soon everyone got to see the body bags being loaded as they ate supper watching the news. Walter Cronkite, the most popular American newscaster did a huge about face on the war issue. A sidenote to this is, the USA no longer has a draft, so the young people aren't forced into a decision to participate in Iraq. This quietens a lot of the dissension