The Russell-Einstein Manifesto
Issued in London, 9 July 1955
Bertrand Russell
and Albert Einstein
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