The Soviet Navy Declaratory Doctrine for Theatre Nuclear Warfare.

Author(s):  
R. O. Welander ◽  
J. J. Herzog ◽  
F. D. Kennedy ◽  
Jr
Keyword(s):  
2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 109-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Desgagné

The law of war historically paid scant attention to the protection of the environment. Its main focus was to regulate hostilities so as protect combatants from unnecessary injury. Since World War II, it has turned to the protection of the civilian population and individual civilians. It does not follow that the environment did not receive any protection at all. In as much as international humanitarian law places constraints on the use of means and methods of warfare, the environment was indirectly protected. Thus, the provisions of the Hague or the Geneva Conventions, through the protection of civilian property and objects, offer indirect protection of the environment. Similarly, the banning of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological and chemical weapons, or the restraints on activities related to nuclear warfare, such as the testing of nuclear weapons, also ultimately limit potential damage to the environment caused by armed conflicts.


1959 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-463
Author(s):  
Noble Frankland
Keyword(s):  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 802-804
Author(s):  
Lawrence R. Berger

In 1943, amidst the nation's mobilization for the Second World War, there appeared an article by Dr. William Schmidt of the Children's Bureau on the susceptibility of young people to the hazards of radioactive materials.1 Reviewing the literature, and invoking generally accepted pediatric principles, Dr. Schmidt concluded that young people possess special vulnerability to the hazards of radiation, and that this warranted their exclusion from employment in the gas mantle and radium dial industries. Now, more than 30 years later, there again exists an urgent need to review the topic of radiation and children. With the spread of nuclear weapons technology to many countries, the spectre of nuclear test fallout (not to mention nuclear warfare!) is once again upon us.


2021 ◽  
pp. 140-142
Author(s):  
Otto Heilbrunn
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
David G. Anderson ◽  
Kirk A. Maasch

As the twenty-first century winds onward, it is becoming increasingly clear that understanding how climate affects human cultural systems is critically important. Indeed, it has been argued by many researchers that how we respond to changing global climate is one of the greatest scientific and political challenges facing our planetary technological civilization, comparable and closely intertwined with concerns about biological or nuclear warfare, famine, disease, overpopulation, or environmental degradation. By any reasonable evaluation of the evidence, this century, and likely the several centuries that follow it, will be characterized by dramatic climate change, perhaps as significant in terms of its impact on our species as any climatic episodes that have occurred in the past. What we don’t know with much certainty is how these environmental changes will play out across the planet, and how individuals as well as nation states will respond to them. Archaeology has a major role to play in helping us move through this period of crisis, however, by showing us how human cultures in the past responded to dramatic changes in climate. As the work of many archaeological scholars has shown, climate change has not invariably proven to be a bad thing: it is how people respond to it that is critical (e.g. Anderson et al. 2007b; Cooper and Sheets 2012; Crumley 2000, 2006, 2007; Hardesty 2007; McAnany and Yoffee 2010; McIntosh et al. 2000; Redman 2004a; Sandweiss and Quilter 2008; Sassaman and Anderson 1996; Tainter 2000). Archaeology working in tandem with a host of palaeoenvironmental and historical disciplines has lessons for our modern world and, as this volume demonstrates, we as a profession are making great strides in getting our message out. Perhaps the most important lesson from the past is that people, through their actions, are the drivers of cultural change, including response to climate change. Societies are not, however, monolithic entities that ‘chose’ to succeed or fail; people as individuals, groups, or factions through their actions generate outcomes, and often some demonstrate remarkable flexibility and resilience (Cooper and Sheets 2012; Diamond 2005; McAnany and Yoffee 2010).


2020 ◽  
pp. 28-40
Author(s):  
Michael Dummett
Keyword(s):  

Worldview ◽  
1962 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-9
Author(s):  
Paul Ramsey

The people of this country may at last have faced up to the realities of all-out nuclear warfare. Russia's resumption of nuclear tests and the 100-megaton bomb have awakened us, for a brief moment, from the dream of deterrence. Even if this has meant only ratiier panicky discussion of “shelter morality,” it is good that we have looked out on the world with open eyes. Before world events permit us to return again to our slumbers, this moment should be seized; the opportunity to think through the moral and political dilemmas long inherent in our massive deterrence policy should not be allowed to slip from us.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document