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
radio-active 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 and in 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
Percy W. Bridgman
Albert Einstein
Leopold Infeld
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Herman J. Muller
Linus Pauling
Cecil F. Powell
Joseph Rotblat
Bertrand Russell
Hideki Yukawa