Russell-Einstein Manifesto
COLLECTED BY
Organization:
Alexa Crawls
Starting in 1996,
Alexa Internet
has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the
Wayback Machine
after an embargo period.
Crawl AUG from Alexa Internet. This data is currently not publicly accessible.
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20000816025545/http://www.pugwash.org:80/about/manifesto.htm
The Russell-Einstein Manifesto
Issued in London, 9 July 1955
Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein
I
N 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:
W
E 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
- Perry W. Bridgman
- Albert Einstein
- Leopold Infeld
- Frederic Joliot-Curie
- Herman J. Muller
- Linus Pauling
- Cecil F. Powell
- Joseph Rotblat
- Bertrand Russell
- Hideki Yukawa