No matter how serious the dangers for humanity are that accompany all other global problems, they are not even in the aggregate comparable to the catastrophic demographic, environmental and other consequences of a global thermonuclear war, which threatens the very existence of civilization and life on our planet.
Back in the late 70s, scientists believed that a global thermonuclear war would be accompanied by the death of many hundreds of millions of people and the resolution of world civilization.
Studies on the likely consequences of thermonuclear war have revealed that even 5% of the currently accumulated nuclear arsenal of the great powers will be enough to plunge our planet into an irreversible environmental catastrophe: the soot rising into the atmosphere from incinerated cities and forest fires will create a screen impenetrable to sunlight and will lead to a drop in temperature by tens of degrees, so that even in the tropical zone there will be a long polar night.
The priority of preventing a global thermonuclear war is determined not only by its consequences, but also by the fact that a non-violent world without nuclear weapons creates the need for prerequisites and guarantees for the scientific and practical solution of all other global problems in the conditions of international cooperation.
Chapter III. Interrelation of global problems.
All global problems of our time are closely related to each other and mutually conditioned, so that an isolated solution to them is practically impossible. Thus, ensuring the further economic development of mankind with natural resources obviously presupposes the prevention of increasing environmental pollution, otherwise this will lead to an environmental disaster on a planetary scale in the foreseeable future. That is why both of these global problems are rightly called environmental and are even considered, with some justification, as two sides of a single environmental problem. In turn, this environmental problem can only be solved along the path of a new type of environmental development, fruitfully using the potential of the scientific and technological revolution, while simultaneously preventing its negative consequences. And although the pace of environmental growth over the past four decades, in general, in developing times this gap has increased. Statistical calculations show: if the annual population growth in developing countries were the same as in developed countries, then the contrast between them in terms of per capita income would have been reduced by now. Up to 1:8 and could turn out to be comparable per capita amounts twice as high as they are now. However, this “demographic explosion” itself in developing countries, according to scientists, is due to their continued economic, social and cultural backwardness. The inability of humanity to develop at least one of the global problems will most negatively affect the ability to solve all the others.
In the view of some Western scientists, the interconnection and interdependence of global problems form a kind of “vicious circle” of disasters insoluble for humanity, from which there is either no way out at all, or the only salvation is the immediate cessation of environmental growth and population growth. This approach to global problems is accompanied by various alarmist, pessimistic forecasts for the future of humanity.
Conclusion
At the present stage of development, humanity is faced with perhaps the most pressing problem - how to preserve nature, since no one knows when and in what form an environmental catastrophe can occur. And humanity has not yet even come close to creating a global mechanism for regulating the use of natural resources, but continues to destroy the colossal gifts of nature. There is no doubt that the inventive human mind will eventually find a replacement for them. But the human body, will it survive, will it be able to adapt to abnormal living conditions?
This is disastrous not only for nature, but also for man and his culture, which at all times gave harmony to the relationship between man and nature. Therefore, to create a new artificial environment would mean to destroy culture.
Man cannot exist without nature, not only physically (bodily), which goes without saying, but also spiritually.
The meaning of modern environmental ethics is to place the highest moral values of man above the value of nature-transforming activities. At the same time, the principle of value equality of all living things (equivalence) appears as the basis of environmental ethics.
Above we talked about the modern scientific and technological revolution, its positive and negative consequences. It is the latter that create the so-called global problems. The very name “scientific and technological revolution” came into scientific circulation in the middle of the 20th century, after the creation of the atomic bomb. The use of new weapons of mass destruction made a tremendous impression on the entire population of the planet. It became clear that there had truly been a revolution in the means of human influence on other people and on the natural environment around him. Never before has it happened that a person was capable of destroying himself and almost all life on Earth, i.e. on a global scale. Gradually, the realization came that global problems represent the inevitable downside of scientific and technological revolution and as it develops, they will worsen.
The first of the global problems is the problem of preventing global thermonuclear war. Computer modeling has shown that if only part of the deadly potential of atomic and hydrogen weapons is used in the emerging nuclear conflict, then “nuclear winter” or “nuclear night” will come on Earth. From the combined effects of radiation, explosions and fires, a huge amount of dust particles will be released into the air, which will sharply reduce the incidence of sunlight on the Earth's surface and reduce the air temperature to such a level that it will make it impossible for humans and most plant and animal species to exist on Earth. The number of countries that have or could become owners of nuclear weapons is steadily growing, and at the same time the danger of thermonuclear war is growing.
The second global problem, which also arose in the era of scientific and technological revolution, is environmental.
What will we do with the received material:
If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:
| Tweet |
All topics in this section:
Gorelov A.A
Fundamentals of philosophy: a textbook for students. avg. prof. textbook establishments / A.A. Gorelov. - 9th ed., erased. - M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2010. - 256 p.
ISBN 978-5-7695-7358-3
The formation of philosophy from mythology
The love of wisdom served as the basis for the formation of philosophy as a branch of spiritual culture. If we liken philosophy (as the ancient Greeks did) to a tree, then the love of wisdom is the root from which it springs.
Death of Socrates
Before his conviction, Socrates (469-399 BC) - an outstanding ancient Greek philosopher - was twice in a situation where his courageous actions at the behest of his conscience threatened him with death. "I proved not words
Rationality of philosophy
The emergence of philosophy from mythology allows us to define it as the first rational branch in the history of spiritual culture. Literally translated from Latin, “ratio” means “reason.” But these two words
Subject of philosophy
A subject is what a given discipline studies. Regarding philosophy, we can say that its subject is the most general and fundamental questions of the origin and functioning of pr
Definition of philosophy
So, now we can more clearly define the concept of philosophy, which distinguishes it from all other branches of culture. Philosophy is a rational branch of spiritual worship inspired by the love of wisdom.
Some of the main problems of our life are: where does a person come into the world, what is the meaning of his existence, what will happen to him after death, etc. - are eternal. They have long been staged by various peoples. Ochev
Reincarnation
Each culture has its own deep feature, which gives it uniqueness and is the most valuable thing that it brings to world civilization. To understand any culture, one must accept
Upanishads
In the ancient Indian tradition, great importance was attached to the direct transfer of knowledge. “Only knowledge received from a teacher leads along the most direct path.”3 Upanishads literally and meaning
Background of philosophy in ancient China
The two main features of the Chinese national character are their focus on the problems of the world in which a person lives, and a predominant focus on studying the relationships between people
Philosophical idea of nature
Among the natural philosophical ideas of Ancient China, noteworthy is the doctrine of the five elements: water, fire, earth, wood and metal. “Water moistens and flows down, fire burns and rises up, der
Three thinkers
The three greatest thinkers of Ancient China who should be given the most attention are the mysterious Lao Tzu, the universally revered Confucius and the now little-known
Lao Tzu
Lao Tzu is a nickname meaning "old teacher". There is very little information about his life, but it is known that he was the keeper of the imperial archive of the Zhou court - the greatest book depository of Ancient China
Taoism
What significance does this concept, far from our worldview, have for modern times?
Lao Tzu is considered the founder of Taoism, a school of Chinese thought that has survived to this day. Close
Confucius
Lao Tzu's younger contemporary Confucius (c. 551 - c. 479 BC) pays the traditional Chinese cultural tribute to Heaven as the creator of all things and calls for unquestioningly following fate, but the main thing is
Myth and Axial Age
In the book “The Origins of History and Its Purpose,” the German philosopher K. Jaspers identified time about 2500 years ago as pivotal and determining the future fate of humanity. During this period, man began to realize
Milesian school
Where did everything that exists in the world come from? This question has been bothering people for a long time, and philosophy is looking for an answer to it. Ancient Greek philosophers were able to critically rethink myths and formulate principles
The most prominent representative of another school - the Italian one (its representatives lived in the Greek colonies in Italy) - was the ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras. Pythagoras owns the concept
Democritus
Particular attention should be paid to the teachings of Democritus (c. 460-c. 371 BC), and not only because he introduced the concept of idea - a concept that then became the main one in the philosophical system
Eleatic school
The most famous representatives of the Eleatic school were Parmenides (c. 540-480 BC) of Elea, a city in southern Italy, and his follower Zeno of Elea (c. 490-43
Heraclitus
Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 544-483 BC) held the opposite point of view on the movement in relation to the Eleatics. Heraclitus is considered the founder of ancient dialectics. The main thing is
Justice
Of particular interest from an ethical point of view is Socrates' view of resistance to evil. It is better to endure injustice than to cause it, although both are bad, Socrates believes.
In favor
Students of Socrates
Socrates had many students who formed schools: Cynics, Cyrenaics, Megarians, etc. Like the ancient Indian myth about the creation of people from the body of Purusha, we can say that everything came out of Socrates
Plato's dialectic
Plato adopted the Socratic method of argument, bringing it to perfection, and used the doctrine of universal truth to solve the basic problems of existence: how the world works, what are the reasons for development and
World of ideas
The world of ideas can be compared to a multiplication table, which we also do not see or hear, but which we use in calculations, when, for example, we build a house, etc. Ideas exist as if they really exist outside
Cyrenaics and Cynics
In any developed culture there are different views on problems. Some of them dominate and determine the soul of culture, others are on the periphery. After Socrates there was a division into theoretical
Aristippus
The Cyrenaics, emphasizing Socrates’s idea that man strives for what is pleasant, cut off the second part, that it is virtue and goodness that give pleasure. The founder of the school is Aristippus (c. 435 - c. 355 BC.
Matter and form
Aristotle did not deny the existence of ideas, but, largely moving away from his teacher Plato, he believed that they are located inside individual things as a principle and method, the law of their formation, energy, figure
Metaphysics
The idea of a thing, say a house, is, according to Aristotle, in this thing itself as a general thing that is inherent in all individual houses. This is general and science understands it. Cognition of the most general that is in things, ne
The founder of Stoicism was Zeno (c. 336-264 BC) from Kitium, a Greek city in Cyprus. Awkward, weak, with a crooked neck, when he got to Athens, he was delighted when he read in
Pleasures and pains
At the same time, contrary to Aristotle, the Stoics believed that the true purpose of reason is not to find the “golden mean” between opposing feelings, but to free oneself from passions
Skeptics
Over time, in Ancient Greece, skeptics who denied the opportunity to prove anything (literally translated - “lookouts”), who, as Diogenes Lae wrote, began to gain more and more influence.
Lucretius
The popularity of Epicurus was facilitated by the poem “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius Cara (c. 99 - c. 55 BC) (Lucretius - name, Car - nickname), a native of Rome, who lived during the era of civil war between supporters
Epictetus
Epictetus (c. 50 - c. 140 AD) is the first famous philosopher who was a slave. But for the Stoics, who recognize all people as equal, this is not surprising. The owner who mocked him broke his leg, and
Marcus Aurelius
Unusually for a philosopher, but completely opposite to that of Epictetus, the social position of Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180 AD) was emperor. Nevertheless, his pessimism and the courage of despair are just as expressive
Sextus Empiricus
Skeptics opposed the Stoics and Epicureans in Rome, as in Greece, and their importance increased as the creative potential of philosophy weakened. Skepticism is inevitable
Features of medieval philosophy
Medieval philosophy arose after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Cultural periods, however, do not coincide exactly with historical periods. Although Rome was captured by barbarians in 476, medieval history
Augustine
Augustine (354-430) was born in North Africa and came to Christianity through Manichaeism, a religious doctrine that originated in Iran, skepticism and Neoplatonism. Manichaeism and, to a greater extent, Neoplatonism
Muslim philosophy
Medieval Arab-Muslim philosophy is similar to medieval European philosophy in that it is also built on the basis of religion, only not Christianity, but Islam, the main book of which is the Koran.
Thomas Aquinas
Augustine's works belong to the era of patristics, or the activities of the holy fathers of the church, which continued through the 9th century. The era that followed it was called scholasticism and was characterized by
Realists and nominalists
The dispute in the Middle Ages began between the realists, who recognized the existence of ideas, or, as they were then called, universals, and the nominalists, who believed that ideas are formed in the human brain
Skepticism
The Renaissance began with doubts about the truth of religious dogmas. How in Ancient Greece the opposing schools of followers of Socrates could not agree on the foundations of morality
The meaning of medieval philosophy
The role of philosophy in the Middle Ages was a service one. Hegel explained the limitations of medieval philosophy as follows: “...Greek philosophy thought freely, but scholasticism did not think freely, since the latter took
Subject and object
In the philosophy of modern times, the concepts of subject and object appear, about which K. Fischer wrote this: “The world and “I” relate to each other not as a whole to a part and not as two opposites that exclude others.
Theory of knowledge
For ancient philosophy, the main thing was ethics, for medieval philosophy - theology, for modern European philosophy - the theory of knowledge. Not how to behave in the world, but how to cognize it - this is the main question of the new philosophy. Bo
R. Descartes
The founder of modern European philosophy, Rene Descartes (1596-1650), like Socrates, abandoned “all judgments previously accepted by man on faith,” and wrote, “that the little that I have learned so far
B. Spinoza
After Descartes identified two substances, the problem of their connection arose. Solving it, Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) suggested that thought and extension are two attributes of one substance.
G. Leibniz
The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) in “New Experiments on the Human Mind” criticized the substances of Descartes and Spinoza for passivity, arguing that it is impossible to understand substances (
Continental rationalism and English empiricism
Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz belonged to a movement called continental rationalism, since all three philosophers lived on the European continent and
F. Bacon
For Descartes' senior contemporary, Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626), the best of all evidence is experience, and feelings are the basis of knowledge. Bacon believed that the cause of error was false ideas, which he called idols.
D. Locke
The next representative of English empiricism, John Locke (1632-1704), was the first in modern philosophy to single out the theory of knowledge as a special discipline. Locke owns the doctrine of primary and secondary
I. Kant
Hume's agnosticism, which questioned the justification for the possibility of objective scientific knowledge, stimulated the creation of the transcendental philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1727-1804). Descartes and Spinoza had
The relationship between rational and sensory knowledge
Kant rethought the problem of the truth of sensory perceptions, which came from antiquity. Democritus believed that perceptions are false, and extrasensory atoms are true. Epicurus considered sensory data
F. Schelling
Another German philosopher, Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854), criticized Kant's idea of phenomena. They may be determined by the forms of human perception, but perhaps they are in the same exact
G. W. F. Hegel
Like Schelling, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) is close to Parmenides, who argued that “thought and being are one and the same thing”1. But Parmenides, on the basis of this, denied movement, and Hege
Laws of dialectics
Logic occupies a central place in Hegel’s system, and its subject is the Absolute Idea, which unfolds its moments as categories that form the basis of reality.
Hegel G.
Materialism
The beginnings of the materialist trend in philosophy are present in Anaximander’s idea of an infinite beginning (apeiron) and in Democritus’ idea of atoms. In modern times, materialism has been revived
Positivism
Aposte Comte (1789-1857) suggested after Hegel that the era of metaphysics was over. Hegel followed Descartes and Kant in making thinking the subject of philosophy. But thinking in pro
Evolutionism
Hegel believed that the principle of becoming has force only in the realm of the spirit; although nature exists in time, it does not develop, but only diversifies in space: “between the spiritual and the natural
Will to power
Believing that the basis of human behavior is not the will to live, as Darwin believed, but the will to power, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) saw in it the source of development from ape to super
Philosophy of the unconscious
At the end of the 19th century. skepticism increased. Truth, according to Nietzsche, is “a kind of error.” The denial of a higher principle and truth gave rise to irrationalism. The rejection of the Hegelian omnipotence of logic led
Existentialism
In the 20th century Universal systems are being replaced by philosophy of science as a methodology of knowledge, pragmatism as a philosophy of action and hermeneutics as the interpretation of texts, etc. One of the main differences
Liberty
Sartre emphasizes the importance of personal choices, which we can only make for ourselves, because there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Even if there is the best one
Humanism
A controversial question in the philosophy of the 20th century: does man create his own scientific, technical and industrial existence, or does existence act through man? The second point of view is significantly closer to the East, and Heidegger with
Deep penetration of 20th century psychology. into the inner world of man gave reason to doubt that behavior is completely determined and controlled by consciousness. A concept was formed, in many
Archetype
Freud saw the subconscious psychic principle in sexual energy. His student Carl Jung (1875-1961) considered the hierarchy of archetypes - universal unconscious
Behavior patterns
Erich Fromm (1900-1980) developed the idea of two models of behavior chosen by an individual. Or he follows the path of acquisition, trying to get as many things as possible into his
Neopositivism
Positivism in the 20th century. under the influence of the achievements of natural science and mathematical logic, it was transformed into neopositivism, which recognized the logical analysis of language as the main subject of philosophical research
Pragmatism
If existentialists cared about the freedom of human individuality and its authenticity (identity with oneself), and psychoanalysts cared about identifying subconscious motives of activity, then
Skepticism
The philosophy of the 20th century, like late antique and early Renaissance philosophy, returned to man. At the peak of the development of scientific and technical thought, philosophy in the person of Heidegger and Schweitzer calls on man to return
Features of Russian philosophy
The philosophy of each nation is determined by a number of circumstances, among which national character is of no small importance. We noted this in the examples of India, China, Greece, Rome, European and Muslim
The evolution of the Russian idea
In historical terms, for the first time we can talk about the Russian idea in connection with the creation by the monk Philotheus in the 16th century. the concept of Moscow as the “third Rome”. She ideologically helped the formation of a great state
I.V. Kireevsky
Of the significant number of Russian philosophers of the 19th-20th centuries. Let us highlight three who played, perhaps, the main role in the development of original Russian philosophy. The first of them is Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky (
V.S. Soloviev
The path outlined by Kireevsky was followed by the greatest Russian philosopher Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853-1900), the son of the famous historian S.M. Solovyova. He also believed that truth can only be achieved through
H.A. Berdyaev
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev (1874-1948) is another representative of Russian religious philosophy, who, however, lived in different historical conditions. Therefore, religious motives in his works
Soviet and post-Soviet philosophy
The ideological nature of Soviet philosophy returns to the concept of grace, which is important for Russian philosophy, but to grace not divine, but atheistic. This is the grace of objective laws of development, which
The meaning of Russian philosophy
Russian philosophy stands apart from Western philosophy, and the philosophy of Kant became the watershed. Russian philosophy did not follow the path of substantiating science by contrasting phenomena
The main stages and patterns of development of philosophy
Summing up the main result of philosophy at the beginning of the 3rd millennium - what has been done over almost 2500 years of its history and almost as much of its prehistory - we will try to highlight and formulate in
Antiquity
Ancient philosophy can be distinguished by the dilemma of the Eleatics and Heraclitus, on the one hand, Plato and Aristotle, idealism and realism, on the other. Realism, unlike materialism, recognizes
Christianity
In the Middle Ages, philosophy was the “handmaiden of theology”, called upon to substantiate the truths of religion. The philosopher could not doubt the existence of God and had to look for evidence of his existence. Christian
New time
The difference between modern European philosophy and ancient Greek philosophy is that the idea of good as the highest disappears. Ethics is replaced by epistemology (theory of knowledge), and instead of the question “what is truth?” becomes the main thing
Progress of philosophy
As Hegel wrote, “each part of philosophy is a philosophical whole, a closed circle in itself, but each of these parts contains a philosophical idea in its special determination or as a special moment of the whole.”
Methods and internal structure of philosophy
Philosophy has a specific subject of study, therefore, it must have its own methods. Hegel was the first to clearly speak about the correspondence between the philosophy of method and the subject, promoting dialogue
Dialectical method
The dialectical method is usually contrasted with the formal-logical method that dominates natural scientific knowledge. We can say that the dialectical method is closer to life, the formal-logical method is closer to
Pragmatic method
Among the methods that reflect the specific features of the subject of philosophy, one of the important places is occupied by pragmatic (from the Greek “pragma” - action, practice). He proceeds from the fact that the synthesis of knowledge
Method and principle
Essentially, the basic methods of philosophizing are rather principles that are discovered in the world and thinking and then recommended to be applied everywhere. The results of cognition themselves to some extent determine the outcome
Special philosophical disciplines
In previous chapters we looked primarily at the “trunk” of philosophy. Now let's outline the contours of the entire tree as such. This logic of familiarization with the material determines that the chapters, having opened
Tree of Philosophy
If systematic philosophy is the study of ideas as such, then ethics is the study of moral ideas, aesthetics is the study of the idea of beauty, epistemology is the study of the idea of truth. On
Modern science
In modern times there was a great turn in the development of culture - science rose to its highest level. Since then, the importance of science has steadily increased until the 20th century, and faith in science was supported by its
Interaction of philosophy and science
The starting point of philosophy is myth, its comprehension, reasoning on its topic. Mythology answers the question about the beginning and origin of the world, philosophy - about its meaning, holistic functioning and meaning
Philosophy and art
If science expresses universal truth in a general form, philosophy expresses individual truth in a generalized form, then art is a branch of culture in which individual truth appears in the form of
Philosophy and religion
For a philosopher, two points are equally important: the ability to capture the spirit of the time and the ability to discover eternal content in oneself. These are two sides of a question that can be considered fundamental in philosophy -
Philosophy and ideology
The main achievement of philosophy is the development of the concept of an idea. But when they move from an idea as such to specific ideas that they try to instill in everyone, this is ideology. Yugoslav philosopher M. Mark
Philosophy as a synthesis of science, art and religion
The closeness of philosophy to science, art and religion follows from the fact that philosophy is a view of the world as a whole, and science, art and religion represent certain projections on the world. Omniparticipant
Ecological problem
Nowadays, the problem of man's relationship to nature attracts close attention. There are important reasons for this. The unprecedented increase in scientific and technical potential has raised the quality
Ecological philosophy: fiction or reality?
Philosophy is the search for absolute truth in a rational form, and historically it is the first branch of culture that realized the rational nature of human culture, trying to reproduce
The meaning of philosophy
Within the framework of this manual, the development of basic philosophical systems and philosophy as a general discipline is traced. The specificity of philosophy as a branch of culture is shown, in contrast to science, art, and religion.
Philosophy and truth
The development of philosophy was inspired by the belief that the truth of the highest order of integrity is philosophical truth and, therefore, philosophy is the most adequate way of comprehending truth, the organ of expression
Philosophy and philosophies
Human activity is based on certain philosophical views that guide a person, consciously or unconsciously, freely or under the pressure of external circumstances. Along the way
Philosophy and life
Despite its seemingly abstract nature, philosophy is closer to life than other branches of culture, since it gives the answer to the question of how to live. Art sometimes gets lost in dreams. Science is walled off
Philosophy as a doctrine of the integral personality
The philosopher is characterized by a love of wisdom and the fact that in a wide variety of life situations he remains true to his convictions. This is how the philosophers of Ancient Greece, the birthplace of philosophy, behaved. More recent definition
The future of philosophy
It is impossible to rationally predict the future, you can only think about it. Anyone who wants to see and not think about it should go to another address. Revealing the meaning of philosophy allows us only to hope
Conclusion
Let us draw four main conclusions.
1. Philosophy originated approximately 2500 years ago in Ancient Greece. The branch of culture that preceded it and on the basis of which it arose was myth
Mandatory
Aristotle. Metaphysics // Works: In 4 vols. - M., 1976. - T. 1. Hegel G. Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences: In 3 vols. - M., 1975-1977. - T. 1. Tao Te Ching. Lun Yu. Mo Tzu // D
Additional
Berdyaev N.A. Russian idea // About Russia and Russian philosophical culture / Comp. M.A. Maslin. - M., 1990. Bhagavad Gita. - St. Petersburg, 1994. Dhammapada. - M., 1960. Lossk
Brief Glossary of Terms
Agnosticism is a philosophical trend, according to which the truth about the world is unattainable for humans.
Altruism is the opposite concept of egoism, when
Book one
Philosophy is philosophy [philosophy], and Pythagoras first began to call himself a philosopher [philosophy] when he argued in Sikyon with Leontes, the tyrant of Sikyon or Phliunt (as Hercules and Pontus writes
Book two
1. ANAXIMANDER Anaximander of Miletus, son of Praxiades. He taught that the infinite (apeiron) is the origin and basis, and did not define it either as air or as
Book eight
1. HERACLITES Heraclitus, son of Bloson (or, according to others, Heracontus), from Ephesus. It flourished during the 69th Olympiad.
He was highly intelligent and arrogant
After the accusatory speeches
I don’t know how my accusers affected you, Athenians, but because of them, I really almost forgot myself: they spoke so convincingly. However, strictly speaking, they don’t say anything true
Two Kinds of Accusers
And it would be right, Athenians, if I first defend myself against the former false accusations and against my first accusers, and only then against the present accusations and the present accusers. Me
Criticism of previous accusers
Therefore, Athenians, I should defend myself and try in a short time to refute the slander that has been circulating among you for a long time. I would like this to come true for the benefit of both you and me
They made thermonuclear war a threat to the very existence of civilization. This is the enormous destructive power of a thermonuclear explosion, the relative cheapness of thermonuclear missile weapons and the practical impossibility of effective defense against a massive nuclear missile attack.
Today, the “typical” thermonuclear charge can be considered three-megaton (this is a cross between the charge of a Minuteman missile and a Titan II missile). The area of the fire zone during the explosion of such a charge is 150 times larger, and the area of the destruction zone is 30 times larger than that of the Hiroshima bomb. When one such charge explodes over a city over an area of 100 square meters. km, a zone of complete destruction and fire appears, tens of millions of square meters of living space are destroyed, at least 1 million people die under the rubble of buildings, from fire and radiation, suffocate in brick dust and smoke, die in littered shelters. In the event of a ground explosion, the fallout of radioactive dust creates the risk of fatal exposure over an area of tens of thousands of square kilometers.
Now about the cost and possible number of explosions. After the stage of search and research has passed, the mass production of thermonuclear weapons and launch vehicles turns out to be no more difficult and expensive than, for example, the production of military aircraft, which were produced in tens of thousands during the war.
We call the third technical aspect of the thermonuclear danger (along with the power and low cost of charges) the practical irresistibility of a massive missile attack. This circumstance is well known to specialists; in the popular science literature, see, for example, the recent article by Bethe and Garvin in Scientific American (No. 3, 1968). Now attack technology and tactics have far outstripped defense technology, despite the creation of very maneuverable and powerful anti-missile missiles with nuclear charges, despite other technical ideas (such as the use of a laser beam, etc.).
Increasing the resistance of charges to the effects of a shock wave, to the radiation effects of neutron and X-ray irradiation, the possibility of widespread use of relatively light and cheap “false targets”, almost indistinguishable from combat charges and depleting the enemy’s missile defense equipment, improving the tactics of massive, concentrated in time and in the space of thermonuclear missile attacks exceeding the capacity of detection, guidance and calculation stations, the use of orbital and flat attack trajectories, active and passive jamming and a number of other techniques not yet covered in print - all this has created technical and economic obstacles to the creation of effective missile defense , which are currently practically insurmountable.
The exception is the case of a very large difference in the technical and economic potentials of two opposing opponents. In this case, the stronger party, having created a missile defense system with a multiple safety margin, is tempted to try to get rid of the dangerous unstable balance forever - to go on a preventive adventure, spending part of its attack potential on destroying most of the enemy’s missile launch positions and counting on impunity in the latter stages of escalation, that is, when destroying enemy cities and industry.
Fortunately for the stability of the world, the difference in the technical and economic potentials of the USSR and the USA is not so great that for one of these parties such “preventive aggression” would not be associated with an almost inevitable risk of a crushing retaliatory blow, and this situation will not change with the expansion of the arms race for the construction of missile defense systems. In the opinion of many, shared by the author, the diplomatic formalization of this mutually understood situation (for example, in the form of an agreement on a moratorium on the construction of missile defense) would be a useful demonstration of the desire of the United States and the USSR to maintain the status quo and not expand the arms race to insanely expensive anti-missile systems, a demonstration of the desire to cooperate, and not to fight.
Thermonuclear war cannot be considered as a continuation of politics by military means (according to Clausewitz's formula), but is a means of global suicide. Complete destruction of cities, industry, transport, education systems, poisoning of fields, water and air with radioactivity, physical destruction of most of humanity, poverty, barbarism, savagery and genetic degeneration under the influence of radiation of the rest, destruction of the material and information base of civilization - this is the measure of the danger, which the world is faced with by the disunity of the two world superpowers.
Every rational being, finding itself on the edge of an abyss, first tries to move away from this edge, and only then thinks about satisfying all other needs. For humanity, moving back from the brink means overcoming disunity. A necessary step on this path is a revision of the traditional method in international politics, which can be called “empirical-conjunctural.” Simply, it is a method of maximizing one’s position wherever possible, and at the same time a method of causing maximum trouble to opposing forces without taking into account the common good and common interests.
If politics is a game of two players, then this is the only possible method. But what does such a method lead to in today's unprecedented situation? In Vietnam, the forces of reaction do not hope for the outcome of the popular will they desire; they use military pressure, violate all legal and moral norms, and commit flagrant crimes against humanity. An entire people is sacrificed for the supposed purpose of stopping the “communist flood.”
They are trying to hide from the American people the role of considerations of personal and party prestige, cynicism and cruelty, the futility and ineffectiveness of the anti-communist goals of American policy in Vietnam, the harm of this war for the true goals of the American people, which coincide with the universal goals of strengthening peaceful coexistence. Ending the war in Vietnam is primarily a matter of saving the people dying there. But it is also a matter of saving world peace. Nothing undermines the possibility of peaceful coexistence more than the continuation of the war in Vietnam.
Another tragic example is the Middle East. If in Vietnam the most direct responsibility lies with the United States, then in this case indirect responsibility falls with both the United States and the USSR (and in 1948 and 1956, also with England). On the one hand, there was an irresponsible encouragement of the so-called Arab unity (which was in no way socialist in nature - just remember Jordan - but was purely nationalist, anti-Israel); At the same time, it was argued that, at its core, the Arab struggle was anti-imperialist in nature. On the other hand, there has been an equally irresponsible encouragement of Israeli extremists.
“War is not a toy, war is an unheard of thing, war costs millions of victims, and it is not so easy to end it,” noted V.I. Lenin in the years when the measure of military casualties was the First World War.
In the era of nuclear missile weapons, the consequences of war are only very conditionally amenable to a priori calculations. The assessment of the scale of the impact of weapons of mass destruction has changed dramatically. Even the figures from the times of the Hiroshima tragedy now seem relatively small, not to mention the battles of past world wars. Meanwhile, neither the accumulation nor further development of nuclear weapons has stopped.
Marxist-Leninists, while remaining consistent in their materialist positions, cannot help but be aware of what a thermonuclear war would objectively mean for the prospects of human progress, for the destinies of entire countries and peoples, for the world revolutionary process. That is why Marxist-Leninist theoretical thought came to the conclusion about the historical need to exclude world war from the life of society, considering it an absolutely unacceptable argument in the competition between two systems at the modern historical stage.
The nature of the weapons that would undoubtedly be used in World War III dramatically changes the face of the war and the nature of its social consequences. In this sense, thermonuclear war cannot even be compared with the second, much less the first world war. The past world wars, despite the enormous sacrifices suffered by peoples from imperialism and militarism, were objectively accompanied by the development of revolutionary forces that achieved the separation of vast areas of the globe from imperialism. However, with regard to a world thermonuclear war, one cannot even think about any remote possibilities for accelerating social progress, so deadening would be the stamp that this war would leave on the entire development of mankind.
Knowing the capabilities of nuclear missile weapons and being aware of the “logic” of armed struggle using these weapons, it is possible to determine with a certain accuracy the arena of thermonuclear war and the eventual objects of destruction by nuclear weapons. In the event of war, the bulk of the impact of thermonuclear weapons would, in all likelihood, fall primarily on the concentration zones of the main material and human reserves, and the cultural wealth of humanity.
Marxism-Leninism believes that the main value of humanity, the main goal and condition of its progress, the development of the world revolutionary process is the life of current generations and those generations that will inherit the earth. However, thermonuclear war would, in all likelihood, destroy a cluster of the world's population of 1 billion people, causing irreparable genetic damage to billions of people in the present and future.
Marxism-Leninism considers the productive forces of modernity, especially industrial potential, to be the basis for the socio-economic and cultural progress of mankind, the basis for the construction of socialism and communism on a planetary scale. However, it is clear that the blow of a thermonuclear war would fall primarily on the most industrially developed areas of the globe, on the “world city”, where almost all the industrial potential and scientific and technical research institutions are concentrated, without which humanity could not move forward.
Marxism-Leninism proceeds from the fact that the socio-economic and cultural progress of mankind, its revolutionary development, are impossible in the absence of food and agricultural raw materials. However, in the event of a thermonuclear war, the areas of the most intensive agriculture, its main food supply, and the source of raw materials for industrial production would be destroyed.
Marxism-Leninism does not imagine the future of humanity, its revolutionary prospects, socialism and communism on earth without the use of the great cultural heritage of previous generations. But it is clear that a thermonuclear strike would hit areas where enormous cultural values of human civilization, accumulated over millennia of historical development, are concentrated.
Not a single Marxist can imagine the progress of mankind and the successful development of the world revolutionary process without the proletariat as the guiding force. But a thermonuclear war, without a doubt, would sweep through the areas where the most qualified, politically mature and experienced organized proletariat and its militant Marxist-Leninist parties are concentrated.
Marxist-Leninists believed and still believe that the socialist system is the main achievement of humanity in its entire history, the main basis for building socialism and communism on earth. But it cannot be guaranteed that the countries of victorious socialism, including the USSR, which is building a communist society, the backbone of the world revolutionary process, will remain outside the zone of defeat in a thermonuclear war.
It is naive, of course, to believe that if all these areas became the arena of thermonuclear warfare, then all other territories of the globe would be outside its impact. World thermonuclear war is determined not only by the fact that it destroys the concept of army and civilian population, front and rear, but also by the fact that it covers all continents and ocean spaces, without knowing geographically invulnerable areas. Neither the United States nor any other country relying on its large spaces or relatively lesser strategic value can practically remain outside of a thermonuclear strike if war breaks out.
Given the massive destruction of all these zones by nuclear missile weapons and radioactive poisonous fallout, it is at least pointless to count on the social progress of mankind, and even more so on its acceleration, on the successful development of the world revolutionary process. It is clear that thermonuclear war would have extremely severe negative consequences for humanity.
V.I. Lenin, developing the idea that in conditions of war all productive means become instruments of extermination of millions of people, came to the conclusion that at a certain stage a world war “can lead, and that it will inevitably lead, to the undermining of the conditions themselves.” existence of human society" Thermonuclear war, as far as it can be imagined from the available data, corresponds to this Leninist definition.
The “doctrines” of modern imperialism, which is trying to “retouch” the appearance of thermonuclear war, are extremely dangerous for humanity. Only imperialist ideologists and politicians, only blinded adventurers who rely on nuclear weapons, capable of inflicting a catastrophic destructive force on humanity, can consciously downplay the possible consequences of a thermonuclear war and proceed from its acceptability.
The undoubted death of imperialism* as a result of a thermonuclear war would not be able to balance the sacrifices that would have to be made to the peoples and all of humanity. Not a single Marxist-Leninist, not a single genuine communist can consider colossal and irreparable destruction, the death of entire generations and peoples, the undermining of the very conditions of existence of life in the colossal spaces of Europe, America, Africa, Asia, to be a “victory of socialism”. There is nothing further from the policy of socialism, from the goal of building a world socialist and communist society, than the destruction of hundreds of millions of people and productive forces on a large part of the earth.
The consequences of such a war would mean serious damage to the achievements of the socialist revolution in the USSR for almost half a century, the achievements of the socialist revolution in other countries for almost twenty years, for the pace and timing of the further construction of socialism and communism in these countries, for the main basis for the development of the world socialist revolution.
If a global thermonuclear conflict were to arise, it would be the greatest tragedy for humanity and would cause heavy damage to the cause of communism.
V.I. Lenin said in 1919: “We were thrown back to barbarism by the imperialist war, and if we save the working people, save the main productive force of humanity - the worker - we will return everything, but we will perish if we fail to save him ..."15 This Leninist instruction can under no circumstances be ignored when developing and carrying out the revolutionary strategy and tactics of the international working class.
The only scientific truth, the only revolutionary conclusion is that the dire consequences of thermonuclear war for the social progress of mankind, for the world revolutionary process create an urgent need to exclude it from the life of society.
The Marxist-Leninist parties consider it necessary to promptly curb the imperialists and deprive them of the opportunity to use deadly weapons. The main thing is to prevent war, not to let it break out. This is how the Communist Party of the Soviet Union sets the task, and this is the task of the world communist movement.
V.I. Lenin always demanded a concrete historical approach to wars, not limiting himself to just recognizing the indisputable fact that wars have a class character. It is necessary, he emphasized, “in each individual case, for each war specifically, to determine its political content”16. A concrete historical approach to war requires identifying its specifics. “In order to find out your attitude to this war,” noted V.I. Lenin, “you need to understand how it differs from previous wars, what are its features”17. This Leninist instruction on a concrete historical approach is especially important today, when the picture of the world has become extremely complicated, and the problem of eliminating world war from the life of society has become vitally important for the peoples of all continents, for the most diverse classes and social strata.
In modern conditions, Lenin’s teaching on types of wars, based on their goals and political content, fully retains its significance. The goals and content of war are determined by its objective role in the life of society, in the historical process. It would be “theoretically erroneous and practically harmful not to distinguish between types of wars,” 18 wrote V.I. Lenin.
Undoubtedly, today, as before, civil wars waged by the people to overthrow reactionary governments, national liberation wars of colonial peoples for their independence from imperialism, defensive wars of socialist countries against the aggression of imperialism, wars of various bourgeois states in protecting your independence. Unjust wars in our time are the armed export of counter-revolution, aggression against socialist countries, wars of imperialism to preserve and strengthen colonial positions, wars for the redistribution of markets and territories between imperialist states.
However, a concrete historical approach to wars cannot in any way be based only on determining the type of war, on determining whether it is fair or unfair, while ignoring everything new that the latest weapons and the current balance of power of the two systems bring into the world situation. It is not enough to determine the just or unjust nature of a war. It is also necessary to specifically understand the scale and nature of the weapons used, by what means - peaceful or military - can the side waging a just war be helped, and by what means - peaceful or military - should the side that started the unjust war be curbed and prevent the war from escalating into world
This clear position was expressed in the concrete, effective and efficient assistance of the USSR to the liberation struggle of Egypt in 1956, to Algeria during the years of its battles with French imperialism and after liberation, to Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, which was subjected to American aggression, and in many other cases .
The Soviet Union considered and considers sacred the right of oppressed peoples to a liberation revolution, to a just people's revolutionary war.
The CPSU program clearly stated the position of our party and state on the issue of wars, just and unjust, wars of aggression and liberation. “The CPSU and the entire Soviet people,” this document notes, “will continue to oppose all and any wars of aggression, including wars between capitalist states, against local wars aimed at strangling the liberation movements of the people, and consider it their duty to support the sacred struggle of the oppressed peoples, their just wars of liberation against imperialism" *.
As long as imperialism and colonialism exist in the world, revolutionary wars of liberation will arise. It is clear that such wars are not only permissible, but also probable, since there is no reason to believe that the colonialists will in all cases renounce the use of violence in the struggle against the movement of peoples for their independence. Only through struggle, including armed struggle when it becomes necessary, can peoples win and will win freedom and independence.
HELL. Sakharov
THE DANGER OF THERMONUCLEAR WAR
An Open Letter to Dr. Sidney Drell
Dear friend!
I read your wonderful reports “Talking about Nuclear Weapons”; Statement to Hearings on the Consequences of Nuclear War before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. What you say and write about the monstrous danger of nuclear war is very close to me and has deeply worried me for many years. I decided to write to you with an open letter, feeling the need to take part in a discussion on this issue - one of the most important issues facing humanity. While I fully agree with your general theses, I express some considerations of a more specific nature, which, it seems to me, must be taken into account when making decisions. These considerations partially contradict some of your statements, and partially complement and, possibly, strengthen them. It seems to me that my opinion, reported here in a discussion manner, may be of interest due to my scientific, technical and psychological experience acquired during the period of participation in work on thermonuclear weapons, and also because I am one of the few in the USSR independent from authorities and political considerations of the participants in this discussion.
I completely agree with your assessment of the danger of nuclear war. In view of the critical importance of this thesis, I will dwell on it in more detail, perhaps repeating what is well known.
Here and below I use the terms “nuclear war” and “thermonuclear war” as practical synonyms. Nuclear weapons are atomic and thermonuclear weapons; conventional weapons - any, with the exception of three types of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical, bacteriological.
A major thermonuclear war is a disaster of indescribable proportions and completely unpredictable consequences, with all uncertainty for the worse.
According to UN commission experts, by the end of 1980 the total stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world was 50 thousand nuclear warheads. The total power (mainly attributable to thermonuclear charges with a power of 0.04 megatons to 20 megatons) was, according to experts, 13 thousand megatons. The figures you provide do not contradict these estimates. At the same time, you remind us that the total power of all explosives used in the Second World War did not exceed 6 megatons (according to the estimate known to me - 3 megatons). True, in this comparison it is necessary to take into account the greater relative efficiency of smaller charges with the same total power, but this does not change the qualitative conclusion about the colossal destructive power of accumulated nuclear charges. You also provide data according to which the USSR currently (1982) has in its strategic arsenal 8,000 thermonuclear charges, the USA - 9,000 thermonuclear charges. A significant part of these charges are in the warheads of missiles with multiple independently targetable warheads (MIRV - I will write RBIN). It is necessary to clarify that the USSR's arsenal (70%, according to one TASS statement) consists of giant ground-based missiles (in silos, and somewhat smaller, medium-range missiles with a mobile launch). In the United States, 80% are much smaller, but less vulnerable than silos, missile charges on submarines, as well as aerial bombs, among which there are apparently very powerful ones. Massive penetration of aircraft deep into USSR territory is doubtful - this last remark must be clarified taking into account the capabilities of cruise missiles - they will probably be able to overcome enemy air defenses.
The largest US missiles currently in existence (I'm not talking about the planned MX) have several times less payload than the main Soviet missiles, that is, they carry fewer multiple warheads, or the power of each charge is less. (It is assumed that when the weight of one charge is divided between several, say, ten RBIN warheads, the total power decreases several times, but the tactical capabilities when attacking compact targets increase sharply; and the destructive ability when firing at areas, that is, mainly at large cities , - decreases slightly, mainly due to the factor of thermal radiation; I dwelled on these details, since they may turn out to be significant in further discussion.)
You cite an estimate from the international journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, according to which dropping 5,000 charges with a total capacity of 2,000 megatons on the main cities of the northern hemisphere will lead to the death of 750 million people from only one of the factors of destruction - the shock wave.
To this assessment I would like to add the following:
1. The total number of thermonuclear charges currently available in the five nuclear countries is approximately 5 times greater than the figure used in the assessment, the total power is 6-7 times greater. The accepted average number of victims per charge - 250 thousand people - cannot be considered overestimated if we compare the accepted average power of a thermonuclear charge of 400 kilotons with the power of the explosion in Hiroshima of 17 kilotons and the number of victims from the shock wave of at least 40 thousand people.
2. An extremely important factor in the damaging effect of nuclear explosions is thermal radiation. Fires in Hiroshima were responsible for a significant portion (up to 50%) of deaths. With increasing charge power, the relative role of thermal action increases. Therefore, taking this factor into account should significantly increase the number of direct victims.
3. When attacking particularly hard, compact enemy targets (such as enemy missile launch silos, command posts, communications centers, government offices and shelters, and other critical facilities), it should be assumed that a significant portion of the explosions will be ground or low. In this case, the appearance of radioactive “traces” is inevitable - bands of dust raised by the explosion from the surface, “saturated” with uranium fission products. Therefore, although the direct radioactive impact of a thermonuclear charge takes place in a zone where all living things are already destroyed by a shock wave and fire, the indirect impact - through fallout - turns out to be very significant. The area contaminated by fallout so that the total radiation dose exceeds the dangerous limit of 300 roentgens, for a typical thermonuclear charge of 1 megaton, will be thousands of square kilometers!
During ground testing of a Soviet thermonuclear charge in August 1953, tens of thousands of people were evacuated in advance from the area of possible fallout. People were able to return to the village of Kara-aul only in the spring of 1954! In war conditions, systematic evacuation is impossible. There will be a stampede of millions of people, often from one infected area to another. Hundreds of millions of people will inevitably become victims of radioactive radiation, mass migrations of people will contribute to increased chaos, violation of sanitary conditions, and hunger. The genetic consequences of radiation will threaten the preservation of the biological species of humans and other inhabitants of the Earth - animals and plants.
I completely agree with your main idea that humanity never have not encountered anything even remotely approaching a major thermonuclear war in scale and horror.
No matter how monstrous the immediate consequences of thermonuclear explosions may be, we cannot exclude the possibility that indirect consequences will become even more significant. For an extraordinary and therefore very vulnerable modern society, the indirect consequences can be fatal. The general environmental consequences are just as dangerous. Due to the complex nature of the relationships, forecasts and assessments here are extremely difficult. I will mention some of the problems discussed in the literature (in particular, in your reports) without assessing their seriousness, although I am convinced that many of these dangers are quite real:
1. Complete forest fires can destroy most of the forests on the planet. The smoke will disrupt the transparency of the atmosphere. On Earth there will be a night that lasts many weeks, and then there will be a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere. As a result, this one factor, if real, can destroy life on the planet. In a less pronounced form, this factor will lead to important environmental, economic and psychological consequences.
