Date

Nov 5, 1963

Description

Hollister justified the TAB study by arguing that a "better understanding of the biological and environmental consequences of nuclear war should contribute to more enlightened decisions on strategy and foreign policy, military operations, weapons systems evaluation, nuclear stockpile composition, civil defense, arms control, and postattack recovery." For Hollister, the proper focus should be "full appraisals of the longer-term consequences of nuclear attacks on the health of people or on their living environment," which "to our knowledge [have] never been made in this country."

Besides emphasizing the importance of systems analysis, Hollister called for "major improvement in the analysis of existing information" and the systematization of knowledge on a range of subjects. "Properly systematized current knowledge in agriculture, forest and range management, soil conservation, wildlife management, water resource management, public health, and vital statistics can ... help to provide an adequate background description of the preattack (undisturbed) environment and thus give a basis for estimating the effects of a nuclear attack." Hollister was not yet considering broader impacts, such as the effect of nuclear war on the climate, as Seaborg had proposed in his original plan, although eventually TAB would sponsor such research.

Source

Record Group 330, Records of the Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy), Accession 69-A-2243, "AW- Ecological Study, Volumes I and II"

Document published in following posting(s):

"Clean" Nukes and the Ecology of Nuclear War

Aug 30, 2017

Hal Hollister, Chief, Technical Analysis Branch, Division of Biology and Medicine, Note on Enclosure, 5 November 1963, "The TAB Study of the Biological and Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War: A Note on Scope and Approach," 13 September 1963, Official Use Only