A WAR-FREE WORLD
Joseph Rotblat
I am a man of peace. This, of course, would be expected from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, though not always fulfilled. I am also a pacifist: I abhor war, I dislike any resorting to violence - but I am not an absolute pacifist. I do not exclude the possibility that in some circumstances I might find myself becoming involved in activities which contravene my principles. I would describe myself as a realistic pacifist, although this sounds like an oxymoron.
I am not an absolute pacifist because I do not believe in absolutes. Nature is so immensely rich in its variety, with an infinite number of possibilities, that nothing can be excluded. By the same token anything we may aim at should be possible. Even a concept which seems out of this world can materialize if sufficient faith and effort are put into it. An example is the concept of a world without war, which is the central theme of my address.
My abhorrence of war stems from personal experience of the two world wars of this century. In the first, as a young child, I suffered extreme privation: hunger, cold, filth, contagious diseases, in the literal meaning of these words. Such experience in one's formative years is never forgotten. In the Second World War, worse than the danger of being hit by a German bomb in the nightly air raids on Liverpool, was the mental anguish, the abrogation of moral values. More about this later.
But to these two reasons for my call to abolish war - gross physical suffering and the break down of moral standards - I have to add another overwhelming reason: the threat to human life on this planet.
* * * * * * * * * *
Whatever view we may hold about the origins of human life, whether we take literally the biblical version that it was the deed of God on the sixth day of creation, or the rationalist notion that it was the outcome of an infinite number of seemingly random changes in the configuration of chemical molecules over millions of years - either originating on this earth, or imported from another place in the Universe on the tail of a comet - we all agree that life is our most precious commodity. We don't dare to think that it might be brought to an end, least of all by the action of Man. Yet, the unthinkable is now possible. The continuation of the human species can no longer be taken for granted. The human species is now an endangered species.
Actually, the extinction of the human species has always been a possible but extremely unlikely event. It was thought of only as the result of some natural cataclysmic occurrence, such as a collision with an asteroid or a comet, or an exceptionally violent volcanic eruption. It is believed that the extinction of some animal species that once dominated the planet, such as the dinosaurs, was due to some such event, although views still differ about its precise nature. But the fact that this catastrophe occurred 65 million years ago, and none of such magnitude has been recorded since, means that for all practical purposes we can put it out of our minds.
That the extinction of the human race could be caused by the action of Man was never considered seriously. History is full of instances of terrible carnage in war. Moreover, although we are supposed to become ever more civilized, the largest slaughters in absolute terms have taken place in this century. Eight and a half million deaths, the direct result of the First World War. In the Second, some 55 million people perished. Between 20 and 40 million lives are estimated to have been lost in the many wars since then, mostly in the developing countries. Above all, the greatest ever single crime of genocide was committed during the Second World War, when the Nazis carried out their programme: a scientifically designed programme of systematic elimination of a whole category of people for no reason other than that they were members of a certain race.
However, even such heinous designs never succeeded in full for various reasons, mainly technical. But the technical obstacles have been removed by the onset of the omnicidal weapons first demonstrated in 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The destruction of these cities heralded a new age, the nuclear age. The chief characteristic of the nuclear age is that for the first time in the history of civilization it has become possible for Man to destroy his own species, and to accomplish it, wilfully or inadvertently, in a single action.
There does not appear to be full realization in people's minds of the enormous significance of this development. We continue with our squabbles, which often lead to bloody wars, without due consideration of the possibility that trivial disputes might escalate into large scale hostilities, and eventually to a nuclear confrontation with the catastrophic consequences I have mentioned.
I would not be surprised if many of you in this audience think that I am exaggerating. I would not be surprised because it is very difficult for any rational person to imagine such a monstrous deed being allowed to happen. My colleagues and I on the Manhattan Project did not believe this either in the early years. When we began to work on the atom bomb we had a pretty good idea of its terrible destructive power. We even envisaged the hydrogen bomb with its destructive power a thousand times greater. But in our discussions about the effects of these weapons we did not for one moment contemplate the ultimate catastrophe that their use might bring. We did not envisage this because we knew that this would require the detonation of a very large number - perhaps a hundred thousand - of these weapons. Even in our most pessimistic scenarios we did not imagine that human society would be so stupid, or so mad, as to accumulate such huge arsenals, for which we could see no purpose. But human society was that stupid. Within a few decades this number of warheads was manufactured, and made ready for use. On several occasions we came very near to their actual use. I remember, in particular, one such occasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, when we were a hair's breadth away from disaster, when the whole future of our civilization hung on the decision of one man. Fortunately, Nikita Khrushchev was a sane man, but we may not be so lucky next time.
* * * * * * * * * *
Forty years ago, when we began to apprehend the magnitude of the threat arising from the invention of nuclear weapons, we tried to warn the public. In the Russell-Einstein Manifesto we said: "We are speaking on this occasion, not as members ofthis or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt." And we went on: "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?"
As the sole survivor of the eleven signatories to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto it is my duty - even a mission - to keep on posing this question to the public. With the end of the Cold War, and the cessation - for all practical purposes - of the titanic struggle between communism and anti-communism, a sensible response to this fundamental choice is more likely. The removal of one source of danger, by the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free world, is no longer seen as pure fantasy: it is now the subject of serious study. In the long-term, however, new sources of danger may arise: scientists may devise other means of wholesale destruction, perhaps more easily attainable.
Once again, you may think that I am exaggerating. Why should scientists apply their skills to inventing more efficient ways of putting us out of existence? Once again, it will be salutary to be reminded of past history.
The atom bomb was the invention of scientists. They started work on it on their own volition and - as I said - they were fully aware of its potential for destruction. If so, you may well ask: why did they do it? Most of the scientists who initiated the atom bomb project during the Second World War, first in England and then in the United States, were highly responsible members of the community. If so, why did they embark on what appears to have been a highly irresponsible activity?
I can best answer this question by using a concrete example, my own involvement: how did it happen that I, on my own initiative, went in 1939 to the head of my department at Liverpool University, James Chadwick, the discoverer of the neutron, and suggest to him that we start research work on the atom bomb?
From my early youth, I associated science with benefit to mankind. Work on a weapon of mass destruction does not fall into this category, so why did I take this step? In answering this question it is necessary to recall that by an accident of history the crucial discovery which led to the atom bomb was made shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.
When I read about it in the journal Nature, it occurred to me that it might open the way for a nuclear chain reaction, with the release of the vast energy stored in the atomic nucleus. It took me only a few days to carry out the experiment that confirmed this.
I should add quickly that the same observation was made simultaneously and independently in several other laboratories.
From this observations, another idea followed. If all this large amount of energy came out in a very short time - and the calculations had shown that this could occur in less than a microsecond - there would be a mighty explosion, in fact, an atom bomb.
When this idea occurred to me, my immediate conscious decision was to put it out of my mind. Making atom bombs was not my conception of science. It was unthinkable that I should be involved in any work on a weapon of mass destruction, indeed on any weapon. But in the back of my mind a fear kept gnawing away, the fear that other scientists might not have the same moral scruples. In particular, I was worried that German scientists might develop the bomb and that this would enable Hitler to win the war, which I knew was imminent.
This created a frightful dilemma, the most difficult quandary that a scientist had to face, truly a choice between the devil and the deep sea. On the one hand, the idea of working on a weapon of mass destruction went against the basic ideals of science. On the other hand, these very ideals were in danger of being eradicated if the malignant doctrine of Nazism were to prevail by Hitler's possession of the bomb.
Throughout the summer of 1939 I struggled with this moral dilemma. It was an agonizing time for me, but in the end external events made my mind up: the outbreak of the war, on September first, with Hitler's invasion of my native country. The rapid conquest of Poland had revealed the huge military strength of Germany. I could see that if, in addition, Hitler acquired the atom bomb, he would undoubtedly win the war. As is usually the case with human behaviour, the immediate danger took precedence. I decided to start work on the atom bomb.
However, in taking this decision, I had not abandoned my humanitarian principles. On the contrary, I used these principles as a justification for my decision. My rationale was that the only way to stop Hitler from using the bomb against us would be for us too to have the bomb and threaten him with retaliation. In other words, the classic concept of nuclear deterrence, which is still today the main reason that nuclear arsenals are maintained.
Later I found out that nearly all the scientists in Britain and America who initiated the atom bomb project had the same motivation: we needed the bomb not to use it, but in order to prevent Hitler from using his. And we needed it very quickly, before the German scientists made it.
As it turned out, this fear was unfounded. German scientists did start an atom bomb project at about the same time as we did, but due to wrong calculations and faulty experiments they came to the conclusion that the bomb would have to be so large and heavy as to make it useless as a weapon, and that in any case it could not be manufactured during the war. For all practical purposes, they abandoned the project quite early, in 1942, even before the Manhattan Project started in earnest. But we did not know this until much later.
Later on I also realized that the rationale for starting the work was not valid. The concept of nuclear deterrence is basically flawed, because it rests on the assumption that national leaders are rational persons, that the policies of both sides in a dispute are governed by rational thinking. Recent history has provided several examples that this is not always the case. Even rational leaders may behave irrationally at time of war, particularly if they face defeat. I am convinced that if Hitler had had the bomb, his last order from the bunker in Berlin, in April 1945, would have been to drop it on London, even if it brought terrible retribution on Germany. It would have been in the spirit of his philosophy of Gitterdnmmerung, the Twilight of the Gods.
But perhaps the main mistake that we made was the assumption that the political and military leaders would listen to us once they got hold of the weapon. In fact, the military leaders directly involved in the project had from the start decided that the bomb would be used, and even how it would be used.
I noticed that there will be a panel discussion after my talk on the Cold War. I presume that it will include the motivation for the first use of the atom bomb. I am not a historian but I have personal experience. I will never forget the casual remark made by General Leslie Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project, at a private dinner.
He said, "You realize of course that the main purpose of the project is to subdue the Russians." He said this in March 1944, long before the bomb was made. He repeated it ten years later and this was published. I quote, "There was never from about two weeks from the time I took charge of the project any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy and that the project was conducted on that basis."
In my mind there was no doubt that the bomb on Hiroshima was the start of the nuclear arms race. It demonstrated to the Soviet Union the newly acquired enormous military power of the United States, and this provoked the Soviets to attempt to restore the military balance by making their own atom bombs. And when the United States reacted to this by developing the hydrogen bomb, the Soviets caught up immediately and detonated even larger hydrogen bombs. Thus, nuclear weapons became a tool in the ideological struggle between East and West. The initial intention of scientists, to have the bomb in order that it would not be used, had failed miserably: not only was the bomb used, as soon as it was made, against civilian populations, but it also led to an obscene accumulation of nuclear arsenals in the insane arms race, which - as I mentioned earlier - nearly brought our civilization to an end.
It would be wrong, however, to interpret these events in terms of scientists versus the military and the politicians. The scientific community itself was divided on this issue, particularly about the use of the bomb. Some scientists, like the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr, foresaw the nuclear arms race and its dire consequences long before the bomb was made, and tried to prevent its use. Nearer the date, many scientists on the Manhattan project, led by the Hungarian Leo Szilard, came out very strongly against the use of the bomb on a populated city. But other scientists were in favour of such use. This group included the Director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, J Robert Oppenheimer. And, after the success of the Manhattan Project, many scientists continued on its follow-up. Indeed, it is scientists who were largely responsible for the momentum of the nuclear arms race, leading to the accumulation of some 70,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive power of more than a million Hiroshima bombs. Even if one believes in nuclear deterrence, this was a 100 times more than needed for any conceivable deterrence purpose. How did this happen? To a large extent because the scientists on both sides of the Iron Curtain kept inventing new ways to make their own weapons more powerful and those of the other side more vulnerable. And often they brought in new designs, not for any real need but simply because of the exhilaration from inventing new gadgets. It became a kind of addiction.
These are not just my own views; they are the views of scientists directly involved in the nuclear laboratories. Herbert York was the first Director of the Livermore National Laboratory, the brainchild of Edward Teller. Herbert York said: "The various individual promoters of the arms race are stimulated sometimes by patriotic zeal, sometimes by a desire to go along with the gang, sometimes by crass opportunism. . Some have been lured by the siren call of rapid advancement, personal recognition, and unlimited opportunity, and some have sought out and even made up problems to fit the solutions they have spent most of their lives discovering and developing."
Theodore Taylor was a chief designer of atom bombs in the Los Alamos Laboratory but has since become an ardent anti-nuclear campaigner. He said: ". . . the most stimulating factor of all was simply the intense exhilaration that every scientist and engineer experiences when he or she has the freedom to explore completely new technical concepts and then to bring them into reality."
I have dwelt at some length on the history of the atom bomb and the subsequent nuclear arms race because it is central to my theme. I have posed two questions: is it possible for humanitarian scientists to become involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction?, and is it conceivable for a group of scientists to produce collectively the means to bring our civilization, and even the existence of the human species, to an end? In regard to the first I have shown that in some circumstances it can happen, and my answer to the second question is also yes. It happened once and it could happen again. The danger that I described does exist; it is real.
What can we do to prevent it? It will require action from everybody, from the whole world community, but I'll mention two groups with special roles: us, the scientists, and you, the communicators. The final action will of course depend on the politicians.
Science and technology are becoming the dominant factor shaping the life of individuals and the destiny of humankind. Further advances in science can provide the means to improve enormously the lot of people: better health; more wealth; greater opportunities for cultural enrichment. It can also provide the means to more efficient and cheaper extermination; the means to end civilization, indeed to bring about the extinction of the human species. As I have said, this has already been made possible by the massive use of nuclear weapons, but other means of wholesale destruction, more readily available, are likely to be invented in the course of time. It is of the utmost importance that scientists are fully conscious of the impact of their work on the world community and that they fulfil their moral responsibilities. It is also of the utmost importance that the world community is fully aware of the awesome potential of science, by providing objective information on both the progress of science and technology, and the way it may affect everybody's life. And this is the job of the communicators.
I have spent a large part of my life since the Second World War arousing the social conscience of scientists. I did this, together with a number of other scientists, first in national organizations, in the Atomic Scientists Association in Britain, which was similar to the Federation of American Scientists, and later on - when it became possible for Soviet scientists to travel abroad - in an international organization, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.
The origin of the Pugwash Movement is the Russell-Einstein Manifesto which was proclaimed in London in July 1955. This was the time of the development of the hydrogen bomb and ballistic missiles. It was the time of the Cold War which created an atmosphere of fear, mistrust and hostile propaganda. It was also the time when scientists realized the dangers to mankind that I described earlier, and decided to take action. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto included a call to scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain to get together in a conference to discuss ways to avert the danger.
It took two years to organize the first conference of scientists, which was held in the Nova Scotia village, Pugwash. We took a gamble in calling it. This was the first time that eminent scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain got together to discuss what essentially were political matters. In the climate of the Cold War there was more than an even chance that the meeting would break up in disarray. This did not happen; in fact, the meeting was a great success. The main reason for this was that it was a meeting of scientists; this made it possible for the discussion to be conducted in the spirit of scientific objectivity, allowing rational analysis, without prejudices and preconceived ideas. This is our main strength; this is why we managed to continue our work for nearly 40 years during which time there were several serious political crises.
Now that Pugwash has become highly respectable, following the award of the Nobel Peace Prize, it is hard to believe the difficulties we had in the early years. It required a great deal of courage for scientists in the West to attend the Pugwash Conferences. Anybody who was willing to sit down with Soviet scientists and talk about nuclear disarmament, especially about peace, was immediately labelled as a fellow traveller. In the American Senate we were branded a Communist Front organization. Others, somewhat more kindly, thought we were merely halfwits, Soviet dupes. Echoes of this attitude still prevail. Last December, on the day CNN joined us in Oslo for the Nobel ceremony, an English peer, a member of the House of Lords, published an article in a serious newspaper, in which it was suggested that I should be in jail instead of having tea with the King of Norway.
Yes, it is true that the Soviet Government tried to make use of us for their purposes, but we were fully aware of these attempts, and fought them off resolutely. Later on, when the importance of the Pugwash channel of communications was appreciated in the West, governments there tried the same; they attempted to influence our discussions, and we had to fend them off as well. We stand tall, our heads unbowed, having successfully maintained our integrity and independence.
During the Cold War period our main effort was concentrated on preventing the outbreak of a nuclear war and on halting the nuclear arms race.
After the end of the Cold War, the elimination of nuclear weapons became a realistic proposition, and Pugwash started a comprehensive study on the desirability and feasibility of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Our findings were published in a book, which has now appeared in eight languages including Russian, Chinese and French. One direct outcome of that publication was the initiative of the Australian Government - endorsed by the new government, after the recent elections - to set up the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The Commission has just completed its second meeting and is due to present its final report in August. But the goal of our work, getting rid of all nuclear weapons, was clearly stated by the convener of the Commission, Richard Butler, in a press statement after the first session: "I emphasize again . . . that the goal of this is zero. I can't emphasize to you strongly enough how important that is; not reduction, not down to a chosen few to hold on even to a few weapons, but zero."
The setting up of a Commission with such a mandate, by the government of a country which is not particularly renowned for its pacifism, is evidence that the concept of a nuclear-weapon-free world is no longer a fanciful idea of a fringe group. The prospects of achieving such a world are now much brighter, and I am hopeful that it will come about early in the next century.
When this task has been achieved, the world will be much safer than it is now, but it will not be absolutely safe: the threat to the continued existence of humankind will not be removed. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. The knowledge of how to make them cannot be erased. Even in a nuclear-weapon-free world, should the great powers of the time become involved in a military confrontation, they may be tempted to rebuild their nuclear arsenals. Moreover, as I mentioned several times, other means of wholesale destruction may emerge from further scientific research.
The only way to remove permanently the risk of the ultimate catastrophe is to abolish war altogether. War must cease to be an admissible social institution. We must learn to resolve our disputes by means other than military confrontation.
Many will say that elimination of war is complete fantasy, a Utopian dream that will never by fulfilled. There are even schools of thought - one example being the Konrad Lorenz school - which maintain that aggressiveness is genetically built in to our behaviour. I do not accept this; I do not know of any scientific evidence that biology condemns humanity to war. I am not an authority on this subject, but simple observations tell me that Lorenz cannot be right. If war were a natural phenomenon, determined by our genetic make up, why does it not apply universally and at all times?
Take the example of Sweden. This country was once among the most militant and aggressive nations, yet it has not been involved in any war for nearly two centuries.
In my own lifetime, I have seen a dramatic change in Europe. In both World Wars, France and Germany fought each other, they were mortal enemies. But now a war between France and Germany is inconceivable. The same applies to the other members of the European Union. If this could be achieved in the continent of Europe, racked by war throughout history, why not ultimately in the rest of the world? Despite the many military conflicts still going on, mostly intranational, there is a growing realization of the futility of war; there is a genuine desire to avoid military confrontations.
For the concept of a war-free world to become a reality a process of education will be required, aiming at making people think about security in global terms. Our traditional upbringing has taught us to think of security in terms of our nation. We accept the need for a strong military force to protect our nation from attack by another nation. As it happens this frequently involves the employment of our military forces even when we are not threatened directly, in a conflict in some remote country, because of the potential danger of the conflict escalating and affecting our security. However, in the new situation, when a conflict anywhere may escalate and endanger all humanity, it is in everybody's interest, including our national interests, to prevent any conflict, in any part of the world, from developing into a military confrontation. No nation can be allowed to start a war, because any war may become a threat to the whole of humanity. Protection of the human race must take precedence over other interests, even if it entails giving up some national sovereignty.
Surrender of some sovereign rights is going on all the time, in the ever increasing interdependence of the modern world. Every international treaty we sign, every agreement on tariffs or other economic measures, is a surrender of sovereignty in the general interest of the world community. To this equation we must now add the protection of humankind. This requires the development in each of us of a new loyalty, a loyalty to mankind. It calls for the nurturing of a new feeling, a feeling of belonging to the human race. In a sense, we have to become world citizens.
The prospects for this becoming generally accepted are better now than at the time we wrote the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. This is largely due to the progress made since then in science and technology. The same science and technology that have provided the means to cause a global catastrophe, have also provided the means of our salvation,for the attainment of global peace and harmony. The fantastic advances in communication and transportation have shrunk our globe and made us all close neighbours. We are creating a truly interdependent world community. We have acquired the means to establish close cultural bonds. We can get to know each other better, thanks to the ease of travel and - more important - we can converse with each other via the many electronic networks. Further advances in computer technology are likely to come, particularly in developing a system for automatic translation of text, which will help to overcome the language barrier. All this will be conducive to overcoming chauvinism and xenophobia, the fomenters of strife and war. We have the technical tools to foster the feeling of belonging to humankind, to pave the way towards the main goal, a world of peace.
But we have to use the tools wisely. In this respect the role of communicators is paramount. We have a plethora of channels of communication; no single person can absorb all, or even a significant fraction, of the available information. We have to select the material and for this we depend on the communicators, on their choice of what to show us on the screen, or in the radio news bulletins. This puts a great responsibility on them. Just as we, the scientists, have the obligation to ensure that science is not misused, that it is applied for the benefit of the world community, so it is their duty to ensure that you present to the public a judicious selection of information, an objective and comprehensive survey of world events. CNN has been highly successful in this respect. By this very success you are acquiring an ever increasing audience, and this puts an extra responsibility on you.
In this talk I drew your attention to the new situation, the threat of the extinction of the human species, brought on by the work of scientists. I have also outlined the ways by which scientists, as well as communicators, can help to avert this catastrophe by a process of education, to create the conditions for a world without war.
But ultimately the decisions about world security will be made by politicians, and it is they - particularly the leaders of the nuclear weapon states - who seem to be in need of education in these matters. There is an urgent need for a change in their mindset, for a new approach to security. They are still basing their policies on the old Roman dictum: "Si vis pacem para bellum", 'if you want peace, prepare for war'.
Throughout the centuries, we have tried to ensure that we have peace by preparing for war, and throughout the centuries we have had war. Even in the nuclear age, when any war carries the threat of the ultimate catastrophe, the nuclear powers followed the same concept of preparing for peace by the accumulation of enormous nuclear arsenals.
It is of the utmost importance to recognize the folly of this policy, and adopt a new policy: 'Si vis pacem, para pacem', 'if you want peace, prepare for peace.' This is the way to safeguard our common, most precious property: humankind. This must be our motto. Somehow we have got to convince our political leaders that the only way to ensure peace is by preparing for peace. We have to educate ourselves to acquire an allegiance to humankind. The creation of a war-free world is an awesome task and will take a very long time to achieve, but it will never be achieved unless we make a start. I appeal to my fellow citizens of the world: Remember your humanity.
