In the tragic situation which confronts
humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to
appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development
of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the
spirit of the appended draft.
We are speaking
on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent,
or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued
existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing
all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-
Communism.
Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings
about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to
set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of
a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose
disappearance none of us can desire.
We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group
rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril
is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.
We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves,
not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group
we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have
to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military
contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?
The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have
not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The
general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities.
It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old,
and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb
could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and
Moscow.
No doubt in an
H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the
minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London,
New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course
of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially
since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction
over a very much wider area than had been supposed.
It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured
which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima.
Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active
particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface
of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust
which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.
No one knows how widely such lethal radioactive particles might be
diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a
war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is
feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death,
sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of
disease and disintegration.
Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities
in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results
are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible,
and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not
yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any
degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far
as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular
expert's knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the
most gloomy.
Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful
and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind
renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is
so difficult to abolish war.
The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national
sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation
more than anything else is that the term "mankind" feels vague and
abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is
to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not
only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves
to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in
imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps
war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.
This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had
been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered
binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture
H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the
bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would
inevitably be victorious.
Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general
reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would
serve certain important purposes. First: any agreement between East
and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension.
Second: the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed
that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear
of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present
keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore,
welcome such an agreement though only as a first step. Most of us
are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember
that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any
manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether
Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American,
whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war.
We should wish this to be understood, both in the East andin the West.
There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness,
knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we
cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings:
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the
way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before
you the risk of universal death.
Resolution
We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world
and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:
"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons
will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued
existence of mankind, we urge the Governments of the world to realize,
and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered
by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means
for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."
Max Born, Perry W. Bridgman, Albert
Einstein, Leopold Infeld, Frederic Joliot-Curie,
Herman J. Muller, Linus Pauling, Cecil
F. Powell, Joseph Rotblat, Bertrand Russell,
Hideki Yukawa
|