This article is interesting; I would say that it is crucial that such warnings and such "celebrity" scientists enter the public debate (expecting backlash and s

This article is interesting; I would say that it is crucial that such warnings and such "celebrity" scientists enter the public debate (expecting backlash and support and discussion - is this not similar to sharing research within one's academic community?). The public can have their existential dread soothed by the idea of nuclear weapons as defense, but it seems that their understanding of their usage is not sufficient. Sagan or someone needed to provide thoughtful discourse on the repercussions of using the weapon. It does seem great to think your nation can use this powerful tool to attack / ultimately defend its and your existence, but the power of and nature of the weapon requires understanding it. The scale of the weapon is not comprehensible, as much as say a simpler explosive device could be to layperson (voter?). The advocates of SDI and nuclear did not seem to discuss the repercussions of use, rather the fact that the power is a deterrent and useful against enemies. The repercussions are what limit the use of nuclear as a strategic weapon. Excerpt from the article: '“People didn’t want to change the way they were thinking of [nuclear] weapons,” he says. “I see an echo of that now. What nuclear winter shows is that they’re not really weapons in the sense that other things are weapons: that you can use them to harm your adversary without harming yourself. People are not really considering that if there really were to be a nuclear conflagration, in addition to how unthinkably horrible it would be in the direct theater of the use of those weapons—say in the Korean peninsula and surrounding areas—there would also be global effects.”' - Grinspoon