If progress is to be made toward peace, public education on arms‐race issues is crucial both in the short run and for the long term. Because technical information is invariably essential to an understanding of issues, physicists can make a major contribution. However, educational efforts on the arms race face great difficulties, which we must first recognize if we are to overcome them:

• Teaching about the arms race has in the past been a cyclical activity, rising and falling in parallel with public concern. These cycles are not all bad; the arms race is a real problem, not just an academic one, and hence it must be addressed whenever it surfaces in the political arena. But cycles tend to inject an aura of crisis into discussions, providing short‐term motivation at the cost of credibility and efficiency in the long run. The longer‐term approach has more educational implications. It means that arms‐race education must be general enough to be useful for analyzing unknown future issues. The danger with short‐term education is that by the time current educational efforts have roused public support for, say, a new round of arms control, the political need and opportunity may have passed.

• The arms race presents interdisciplinary problems. Physicists may be unaware of contributions other disciplines can make to this issue and insensitive to their own biases.

• There is little encouragement for physicists undertaking arms‐race educational efforts. Peer recognition for either research or teaching in the area is sparse. There is little financial support for this kind of work. The DOD looks for technical research of direct use to its missions, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is in disfavor within the government, the National Science Foundation has difficulty supporting anything involving the social sciences or science education and the Ford Foundation also appears to be decreasing its support for these activities.

1.
J.
Kavlin
, “
A talk with Louis Harris
,”
Bull At. Sci.
38
, 1 July
1982
, page 3.
2.
R. Gilpin, American Scientist and Nuclear Weapons Policy, Princeton U.P., Princeton (1962), pages 51, 309.
3.
W. Kornhauser, Scientist in Industry: Conflict and Accomodation, U. California P., Berkeley (1962).
4.
R. K. Merton, “The Normative Structure of Science,” in The Sociology of Science, U. Chicago P., Chicago (1983), page 267.
5.
A. de Volpi, G. E. Marsh, T. A. Postol, G. S. Stanford, Born Secret: The H Bomb, the Progressive Case and National Security, Pergamon, New York (1981).
6.
A. M. Weinberg, Relections on Big Science, MIT, Cambridge (1967).
7.
W. O. Hagstrom, The Scientific Community, Southern Illinois U.P., Carbondale (1965) page 34.
8.
R. Goodell, The Visible Scientists, Little, Brown, Boston (1977).
9.
For information write the Nuclear Arms Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, 1384 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138.
10.
The FAS Nuclear War Education Project publishes the newsletter Countdown. For information write the project at FAS, 307 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington DC 20002. The UCS has published the book Beyond the Nuclear Freeze: The Road to Nuclear Sanity, D. Ford, H. Kendall, S. Nadis, Beacon, Boston (1982).
11.
A second short course on the arms race will be held 17 April 1983, in conjunction with the Spring meeting of The American Physical Society, in Baltimore. For details write the author.
12.
For information about the Committee on Science, Arms Control and National Security of the AAAS write R. Scribner, AAAS, 1776 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington DC 20036.
13.
H. L. Davis, PHYSICS TODAY35, June 1982, page 112.
14.
J. S.
Rigden
, “
Editorial: Physics and the arms race
,”
Am. J. Phys.
48
,
177
(
1980
).
15.
P. M. Boffey, The Brain Bank of America, McGraw‐Hill, New York (1975),
reviewed in
Science
188
,
1094
(
1975
).
16.
Long‐term World‐Wide Effects of Multiple Nuclear‐Weapons Detonations, National Academy of Science, (1975);
see also
Science
190
,
248
(
1975
).
17.
B. M.
Casper
, “
The rhetoric and reality of Congressional technology assessment
,”
Bull. At. Sci.
34
, February
1978
, page 20.
18.
The Effects of Nuclear War, Office of Technology Assessment (1979).
19.
Strategic Survey: 1982, and The Military Balance: 1982–1983, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London (1982).
20.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, World Armaments and Disarmament: SIPRI Yearbook 1981/82, Crane Russak, New York (1981).
21.
For further information write to K. Tsipis, director, Program in Science and Technology for International Security, Department of Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02138.
22.
S. A.
Fetter
,
K.
Tsipis
, “
Catastrophic releases of radioactivity
,”
Sci. Am.
244
, April
1981
, page 41.
23.
G. Bekefi, B. T. Feld, J. Parmentola, K. Tsipis, Particle Beam Weapons, Report ♯ 4 of the Program in Science Technology for International Security, MIT (1978).
24.
G.
Bekefi
,
B. T.
Feld
,
J.
Parmentola
,
K.
Tsipis
, “
Particle‐beam weapons—a technical assessment
,”
Nature
284
,
219
(
1980
).
25.
J.
Parmentola
,
K.
Tsipis
, “
Particle‐beam weapons
,”
Sci. Am.
240
, April
1979
, page 54.
26.
For further information write to the John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University, 79 Boylston Street, Cambridge MA 02138.
27.
For further information write to John W. Lewis, Arms Control and Disarmament Program, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305.
28.
J. H. Barton, L. D. Weiler, eds., International Arms Control: Issues and Agreements, Stanford U.P., Stanford (1976); revised edition is in preparation.
29.
H. Morland, “The H‐bomb secret,” The Progressive 43, November 1979, page 14.
30.
F. Winterberg, The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices, Fusion Energy Foundation, 888 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10019 (1981).
31.
D.
Hafemeister
, “
Science and society test for physicists: the arms race
,”
Am. J. Phys.
41
,
1191
(
1973
);
D.
Hafemeister
, “
Science and society test V: nuclear proliferation
,”
Am. J. Phys.
48
,
112
(
1980
).
32.
D.
Schroeer
,
J.
Dowling
, “
Resource letter PNAR1: Physics and the nuclear arms race
,”
Am. J. Phys.
50
,
786
(
1982
).
33.
C. D.
Spencer
,
D.
Schroeer
, “
Teaching a physics and society course
,”
Am. J. Phys.
44
,
135
(
1976
).
34.
H. F. York, ed., Arms Control: Readings from Scientific American, Freeman, San Francisco (1973);
B. M. Russett, B. G. Blair, Progress in Arms Control? Readings from Scientific American, Freeman, San Francisco (1979).
35.
K.
Tsipis
, “
Physics and calculus of countercity and counterforce nuclear attacks
,”
Science
187
,
393
(
1975
).
36.
A. Legault, G. Lindsey, The Dynamics of the Nuclear Balance, Cornell U.P., Ithaca (1976).
37.
L. W. Ricketts, J. E. Bridges, J. Milette, EMP Radiation and Protective Techniques, Wiley, New York (1976).
38.
K. F. Spielmann, Analyzing Soviet Strategic Arms Decisions, Westview, Boulder (1978).
39.
A.
Raraport
, “
Lewis F. Richardson's mathematical theory of war
,”
J. Conflict Res.
1
,
249
(
1957
).
40.
For information about possible arms‐race related research projects under the sponsorship of the Forum of Physics and Society of the American Physical Society, contact Leo Sartori, Physics Department, University of Nebraska, Lincoln NE 68588.
41.
J. Primack, F. von Hippel, Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena, Basic, New York, (1974), particularly Part V on “Public Interest Science,” page 239.
42.
J. Dowling, War Peace Film Guide, World Without War Publications, 67 E. Madison, Suite 1417, Chicago IL 60603 (1980).
43.
For a complete listing of films and TV programs related to the arms race, write John Dowling, Department of Physics, Mansfield State College, Mansfield PA 16933.
44.
For information write Ground Zero, 806 15th Street, N.W., Suite 421, Washington DC 20005.
45.
T. J.
Watson
Jr.
, “
America's advantage is that we educate for the future
,”
Brown Alumni Monthly
83
, October
1982
, page 32.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.