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.”
1.
Max Born
2.
Perry W.
Bridgman
3.
Albert
Einstein
4.
Leopold
Infeld
5.
Frederic
Joliot-Curie
6.
Herman J.
Muller
7.
Linus Pauling
8.
Cecil F.
Powell
9.
Joseph
Rotblat
10.
Bertrand
Russell
11.
Hideki Yukawa
No comments:
Post a Comment