A friend has told me that the Soviets were proven to have supported
propaganda in the U.S. during the cold war against nuclear power.  The
purpose, supposedly, was to hinder the development of U.S. nuclear
capabilities.

This sounds like bunk to me.  Is it true or not?

Dear Nick37, 

Your friend's argument is a very popular one among objectors of the
anti-nuclear movements (See examples bellow).

Clearly, this is plausible, of several reasons: 
(1) It is well known that both superpowers used their power to finance
opposition to the other side.
(2) It is well known that both powers used rhetoric aimed at
presenting them positively. (see Daniel Deudney, Political Fission:
State Structure, Civil Society, and Nuclear Weapons in the United
States from On Security, by Ronnie D. Lipschutz ,
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:41G9GhGWji0J:www.ciaonet.org/book/lipschutz/lipschutz14.html+%22anti+nuclear+propaganda%22+soviet+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

In a very interesting article in the CNN web-site, one could find
evidences to the Soviet support of the anti-nuclear movement in the
West, while trying to infiltrate the one in the East: "In 1982, John
McMahon, deputy director of the CIA, testified before Congress that
the U.S.S.R. had channelled $100 million annually to the Western
disarmament movement, and that such funds "enabled the movement to
grow beyond its own capabilities." (Source: Bruce Kennedy, "Opposition
to The Bomb: The fear, and occasional political intrigue, behind the
ban-the-bomb movements", CNN Interactive,
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/opposition/).

Jeffrey Herf, the Author of "War by Other Means: Soviet Power, West
German Resistance, and the Battle of the Euromissiles [sic.]"
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029150302/qid=1057227530/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-6479845-4328016?v=glance&s=books&n=507846),
claims that the Soviets were satisfied by the activity of the
anti-nuclear movement, as undermining the Western nuclear power. Herf
says, that "the most important aspects of Soviet peace policy in
Europe, especially in West Germany, were public." He adds (in the same
CNN article), "Everybody knew the Soviet Union was financing peace
events, saying the United States was going to blow up the world. Were
(anti-nuclear groups) tools of the Soviet Union? If so, only
unconsciously. The mood of the peace movement was 'a plague on both
your houses.'" (ibid).


The argument in various "pro"-nuclear publications (examples)
=============================================================
"A former British Intelligence Officer turned newspaper correspondent,
Donald McCormick, has written histories of many of the world’s secret
services under the pen-name, Richard Deacon. In his book ‘The Truth
Twisters’, published shortly after Chernobyl, he presents evidence of
deep Soviet involvement in ‘sabotaging nuclear development for
industrial purposes in the West’, and names several Moscow-funded
organisations spreading Soviet-inspired nuclear disinformation. By
then I had quietly gathered a number of examples of this
disinformation as promulgated by various Green groups and similarly
motivated individuals. A visit to the Chernobyl fall-out zone in 1990
let me see at first hand how badly the Soviet authorities had dealt
with the disaster and by their actions, or lack of, had greatly
magnified its death toll. So I was not at all surprised that the
United Nation’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation has set the actual Chernobyl radiation death toll at not
much over 40. Not 40,000 or more, as anti-nuclear activists would have
you believe." (Source: Williams, Robyn, 2002, A Perspective on Nuclear
Energy - Interview with nuclear scientist Colin Keay,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/razorfeb02.htm).

"Back in the 50's, and probably all the way into the 80's as well,
many of the infiltrators in THIS MOVEMENT in America were actually
Russian secret agents! The U.S. Government let this happen, because
they wanted our movement disrupted anyway! By letting the Russian
agents become many of the leaders of the anti-nuke movement, the
Americans knew they could be sure the movement wouldn't get anywhere,
simply because they could, at any time, expose many -- if not MOST --
of the leaders as Russian agents, if they wanted to. But they figured,
why should they? And push never came to shove, in part because the
Russian agents weren't supposed to succeed anyway, on orders from
Moscow -- Moscow wanted our nuclear policy disrupted and REDUCED, but
not ELIMINATED because then they would look bad, as the only crazy
nuclear nation." (Source: Russell Hoffman's newsletter, as quoted in
http://pub97.ezboard.com/fnuclearspacefrm5.showMessage?topicID=68.topic).

"At this time, however, CND was anxious to conceal its links with the
Soviet-controlled "peace" machine. For example, Bruce Kent attacked
Lord Chalfont for having stated in Parliament in July 1981 that in
most anti-nuclear movements "it is not difficult, if you look far
enough, to identify the hand of the World Peace Council". Though Kent
gloated that Lord Chalfont had "failed to produce any evidence which
would connect us [the CND] with the World Peace Council", internal CND
documents later proved that there were numerous contacts between CND
and the WPC's Soviet and East European branches." (Source: MP Julian
Lewis, Conservative, Home Page,
http://www.keysys.net/JulianLewis/essays/ESSAYS&7.HTM).

Press release of the "Center for Security"
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=89-P_35


Counter Activities
==================
"Pacifist sentiments calling for banning the bomb were not welcome.
The American embassy in Tehran was joined by the Iranian government in
waging a coordinated campaign against a Stockholm-based anti-nuclear
peace petition. The campaign included plans for Iranian army
prosecution of an individual who signed the petition."
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB78/propaganda%20010.pdf)

I hope that answered your question. If you need any clarifications on
this answer, please let me know. I'd be pleased to clarify my answer
before you rate it.

Search strategy: To search for expressions that could appear in a
publication that deals with the question, such as "soviet/s",
"Russian" "anti nuclear/movement" etc.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by nick37-ga on 06 Jul 2003 11:35 PDT

Politicalguru, thank you for for the range of sources below.  It makes
sense to me that the USSR would have been involved in a whole range of
activities to undermine U.S. nuclear weaponry and related
capabilities.  My question relates very specifically to undermining
U.S.use of "nuclear power".  If the sources referenced (or other
sources you can identify) address that specifically, please highlight
that for me.

To give you a flavor of my perspective, there seems to be an ongoing
debate regarding the degree of distinction between nuclear power (i.e.
nuclear powered electric plants) and nuclear weaponry.  At one point
the U.S. agreed to aid N. Korea in establishing nuclear power plants
in exchange for abandoning nuclear military applications.  Is that
like giving N. Korea a bazooka with a cork on the end?  Some would say
'no, nuclear power and nuclear weaponry are such different
technologies that we need have no fear of a country with just nuclear
power'.  Russia makes similar claims with respect to their nuclear
assistance to Iran and other countries. 'This is a BB gun, not a
Bazooka with a cork' appears to be the attitude.

Personally, I don't know enough about the technology to have an
opinion.  Just enough to be generally concerned that nuclear power in
evil, clever hands soon turns into nuclear weaponry.

Here's the connection:  If the USSR had made a concerted effort to
undermine specifically U.S. nuclear power, that would indicate to me
that the distinction between the two is less than that implied by
countries assisting in the proliferation of nuclear power.  If,
however, the efforts are focused on military applications of nuclear
energy (as your sources seem to indicate), then maybe they really are
more distinct.

---

Clarification of Answer by politicalguru-ga on 08 Jul 2003 02:43 PDT

Dear Nick37,  

Thank you for your clarification request. It took me time to find some
reputable information for you that would stand alongside Williams'
claim of an "evidence of deep Soviet involvement in ‘sabotaging
nuclear development for industrial purposes in the West’, and names
several Moscow-funded organisations spreading Soviet-inspired nuclear
disinformation." (see abovementioned).

However, in an article by David Holloway in the Cold War International
History Project Bulletin, he writes, that the Soviet reaction to
Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" speech (1953), in which he proclaimed
that the US would aim to develop nuclear technology for peace purposes
(and proposed that the other nuclear superpowers would do the same),
was "tepid".  The soviets clearly saw the development of nuclear power
plants as leading to the accumulation of nuclear military power (see
p. 14-15):

"The spread and development of "peaceful" atomic energy technology,
they noted sharply, leads "not to a reduction in, but to a
proliferation of atomic weapons supplies." Expertise in operating
nuclear power plants" can also serve as a means for the further
perfection of methods for the production of atomic energy for military
purposes," they pointed out, and atomic electric power stations "`for
peaceful purposes' may at the same time be an industrial and
sufficiently cheap way to produce large amounts of explosive
substances for atomic and hydrogen bombs" [...]" (Source: Holloway,
David "Sources for Stalin and the Bomb" Cold War International History
Project Bulletin, pp. 14-15,
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/CWIHP/BULLETINS/PDF/bull4a.pdf).

Further reading: 
John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton "Spin Doctor Strangelove, or How
We Learned to Love the Bomb" PR Watch,
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1995Q4/strangelove.html

Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd "Nuclear Power: A Cold War Propaganda
Tool" (Editorial) Based on the book The Nuclear Power Deception by
Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska1,
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_8/8-3/npower.html

It is very difficult to find negative evidences to any fact, including
the one that the Soviets promoted propaganda against "civil" usage of
nuclear power. However, I think that in this case, both Williams'
reference (to Deacon's book) and Holloway's article suggest that the
Soviets were also active (at least in the rhetoric/propaganda level)
against "peaceful" nuclear power, amidst developing such power plants
themselves.