In 1982, 30 percent of American voters considered nuclear freeze referenda in ten states and thirty-seven cities and counties. The nuclear freeze movement called on the United States and the Soviet Union to mutually halt the production, testing, and deployment of nuclear weapons. A nonbinding referendum in New Jersey passed overwhelmingly in every county. In addition to initiating ballot measures, the nuclear freeze campaign won the support of the Catholic Church, which issued a pastoral letter in 1983.
| 28.2 | New Jersey Referendum on Nuclear Freeze, 1982 |
Public Question No. 1: Freeze on Nuclear Arms Escalation
Do you support a mutual United States–Soviet Union nuclear weapons “freeze” and urge the government of the United States:
(1) to propose to the government of the Soviet Union that both countries immediately agree to a mutual, verifiable halt of all further testing, production, and deployment of nuclear warheads, missiles, and delivery systems as a first step toward mutual, balanced reduction, and
(2) to apply the money saved to human needs and tax reduction?
Interpretive Statement
“This non-binding referendum, if approved by the public, would demonstrate the voters’ support of a nuclear weapons freeze and would direct the Secretary of State to transmit the results of these voters’ opinions on this question to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and President of the United States Senate no later than twenty (20) days after the conclusion of the election.”
Source: “New Jersey Nuclear Freeze Ballot,” 1982, http://www.initiativeforchange.org/ProtestOnBallot.htm.
| 28.3 | United States Conference of Catholic Bishops | Pastoral Letter on War and Peace, 1983 |
What are we saying? Fundamentally, we are saying that the decisions about nuclear weapons are among the most pressing moral questions of our age. While these decisions have obvious military and political aspects, they involve fundamental moral choices. In simple terms, we are saying that good ends (defending one’s country, protecting freedom, etc.) cannot justify immoral means (the use of weapons which kill indiscriminately and threaten whole societies). We fear that our world and nation are headed in the wrong direction. More weapons with greater destructive potential are produced every day. More and more nations are seeking to become nuclear powers. In our quest for more and more security we fear we are actually becoming less and less secure. . . .
On Promoting Peace
1. We support immediate, bilateral verifiable agreements to halt the testing, production, and deployment of new nuclear weapons systems. This recommendation is not to be identified with any specific political initiative.
2. We support efforts to achieve deep cuts in the arsenals of both superpowers; efforts should concentrate first on systems which threaten the retaliatory forces of either major power.
3. We support early and successful conclusion of negotiations of a comprehensive test ban treaty.
4. We urge new efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the world, and to control the conventional arms race, particularly the conventional arms trade.
5. We support, in an increasingly interdependent world, political and economic policies designed to protect human dignity and to promote the human rights of every person, especially the least among us.
Source: “The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response,” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1983.
Interpret the Evidence
Put It in Context