This title is sometimes given to a document that was the
outcome of a long standing collaboration between Einstein and Russell. It was
published in 1955 after Einstein's death, and laid the foundations for the
modern Peace Movement, particularly the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and
Pugwash. In 1955, Russell communicated by mail with Einstein at Princeton and
they discussed publishing this document to be signed by leading scientists of
the time. A few days later Einstein died, but had already sent to Russell his
last letter, confirming his support for their joint statement:
Einstein’s last letter:
Dear Bertrand Russell,
Thank you for your letter of April 5. I am gladly
willing to sign your excellent statement. I also agree with your choice of the
prospective signers.
With kind regards, A. Einstein
Russell presented this document to the public
with signatures in July 9, 1955. It was the basis of his BBC broadcasts and
lectures, and inspired citizen action in various ways. The impact of this
statement also made possible Russell's mediation on behalf of Nikita Khrushchev
during the Cuban Missile Crisis, his "victory without violence." 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 not politically conscious has strong feelings about one or
more of these issue; 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 we 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 military 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 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 his 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 from 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
underwater, sends radioactive particles into the upper air. They sink gradually
and reach the surface of the earth in a 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 quite 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
milit ary strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What
they do say is that these results are possible, and that no one can be sure that
they will not be realized. We have not
yet found that the views of experts depend in any way 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 grand childre n, and
not only to their 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 the H -bombs had been reached in time
of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both
side would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if
one side manufactured H-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 because it serves to diminish tension. Second:
The abolition of thermonuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other
had carried it out sincerely, would lessen 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 feelings, 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
Euro pean or American, whether white of 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 the congress [to be convened], 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 governments of the world to
realize, and to acknowledge publicly that their purposes 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." Besides Einstein and Russell, eight
scientists had signed the declaration at the time of its release. They were:
Percy B. Bridgeman and Herman Muller of the USA; Cecil F. Powel and Joseph
Rotblat of England; Frederick Joliot-Curie of France, Leopold Infeld of Poland;
Hideki Yukawa of Japan and Max Born of Germany. Linus Pauling's name was soon
added. Of the eleven 9 were Nobel Prize winners, and Rotblat would later
receive the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions including founding the
Pugwash movement.
0 сэтгэгдэл:
Post a Comment