The Nuclear Freeze Generation: The Early 1980s Anti-nuclear Movement between ‘Carter’s Vietnam’ and ‘Euroshima’

  • Dario Fazzi
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements book series (PSHSM)


In the early 1980s, a wave of varied discontent emerged in the Western world. Western Europe and the United States witnessed massive demonstrations that took the shape of peaceful marches as well as alarming riots. The protesters alternately aimed to challenge capitalism, support different models of economic development, promote anti-militarism and non-violence or redefine urban and social spaces. Large portions of them, however, heralded safeguarding the environment as their primary goal and identified nuclear energy as their main object of concern. The quest for a cleaner and safer environment, which was the essential feature of a broad array of criticisms of nuclear power, mobilized large sections of society and provided people with new tools of civic expression.


Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Weapon Sierra Club Peace Movement Institutionalize Violence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See W. Burr and D.A. Rosenberg (2010) ‘Nuclear Competition in an Era of Stalemate, 1963–1975’, in M.P. Leffler and O.A. Westad (eds) The Cambridge History of the Cold War. Vol. 2. Crises and Détente (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 88–111;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. F.J. Gavin (2010) ‘Nuclear proliferation and non-proliferation during the Cold War’, in Leffler and Westad, The Cambridge History of the Cold War. Vol. 2, pp. 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. See also R.D. Schulzinger (2010) ‘Détente in the Nixon-Ford years, 1969–1976’, in The Cambridge History of the Cold War. Vol. 2. Crises and Détente (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 374, where the author argues that détente ‘succeeded at first, because it reduced popular anxieties about the dangers of war between the United States and the Soviet Union’. Francis Gavin has recently explained to what extent disarmament and non-proliferation have been a shared interest of both the superpowers;Google Scholar
  4. see F.J. Gavin (2012) Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America’s Atomic Age (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  5. A good explanation of the crisis of American hegemony and its broader consequences is given in T. Engelhard (2007) The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press). As regards interpretations focusing on the individual actors,Google Scholar
  6. see L.S. Wittner (2003) The Struggle Against the Bomb. Vol. 3. Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971–Present (Stanford: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    See R. Keohane and J. Nye (1991) ‘Interdependence in World Politics’, in G.T. Crane and A. Amawi (eds) The Theoretical Evolution of International Political Economy: A Reader (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 122–40.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    J.B. Price (1989) The Antinuclear Movement (London: Cengage Gale), p. 138. According to Helena Flam, ‘The contestation of the antinuclear movements was directed against a sensitive central policy area which depended on the dominant materialist, technocratic and growth-oriented world-view …. The antinuclear movements questioned this world-view. They exposed it as political myth and challenged the interests that had a stake in it’.Google Scholar
  9. See H. Flam (1994) States and Anti-Nuclear Movements (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), p. 3.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    See T.R. Rochon and D.S. Meyer (1997) ‘Introduction: The Nuclear Freeze in Theory and Action’, in T.R. Rochon and D.S. Meyer (eds) Coalitions and Political Movements: The Lessons of the Nuclear Freeze (London: Lynne Rienner), p. 4.Google Scholar
  11. See also B.A. Miller (2000) Geography and Social Movements: Comparing Antinuclear Activism in the Boston Area (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Finally, see TAM 127, Box 2, 2–11 December 1977 conference evaluation.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Flam, States and Anti-Nuclear Movements, p. 144; J-C. Simoën (1977) Chroniqu d’une lute: Le combat antinucléaire à Flamanville et dans La Hague (Didier Anger: Paris).Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    J.R. McNeill (2010) ‘The Biosphere and the Cold War’, in M.P. Leffler and O.A. Westad (eds) The Cambridge History of the Cold War. Vol. 3. Endings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. See also E.J. Walsh (1988) Democracy in the Shadows: Citizen Mobilization in the Wake of the Accident at Three Mile Island (New York: Greenwood). A contemporary ABC News survey showed that 71 per cent of Americans wanted further reassurances from the US administration. See Price The Antinuclear Movement, p. 132.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    T. Judt (2005) Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 (New York, The Penguin Press), p. 590.Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    T.R. Rochon (1988) Mobilizing for Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press), p. 3.Google Scholar
  17. 32.
    See M.J. Hogan (1994) The Nuclear Freeze Campaign: Rhetoric and Foreign Policy in the Telepolitical Age (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  18. See also K.D. Rose (2001) One Nation Underground. The Fallout Shelter in American Culture (New York: New York University Press), p. 222.Google Scholar
  19. 33.
    R.E. Powaski, (2000) Return to Armageddon, The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1981–1999 (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  20. See also D. Cortright and R. Pagnucco, ‘Transnational Activism in Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign’, in Rochon and Meyer, Coalitions and Political Movements, p. 83. Finally, see N. Tannenwald (2007) The Nuclear Taboo. The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press), p. 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 35.
    M. Lumsden (1983) ‘Nuclear Weapons and the New Peace Movement’, in World Armaments and Disarmament: SIPRI Yearbook 1983 (London: Taylor & Francis), pp. 101–26.Google Scholar
  22. 36.
    See B. Thompson, (1982) Comiso, END Special Report (London: European Nuclear Disarmament and the Merlin Press), online at, date accessed 15 April 2015.Google Scholar
  23. 39.
    D.S. Meyer ‘Institutionalizing Dissent: The United States Structure of Political Opportunity and the End of the Nuclear Freeze Movement’, p. 159; J.P. Knopf, ‘The Nuclear Freeze Movement’s Effects on Policy’, in Rochon and Meyer, Coalitions and Political Movements, p. 127. For a critical review of the Reagan administration’s nuclear strategy, see R. Jervis (1984) The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  24. See also R. Scheer (1982) With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War (New York: Random House).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dario Fazzi 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dario Fazzi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations