Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace

Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace Edited by Reiner Braun, Robert Hinde, David Krieger, Harold Kroto, and Sally Milne

Reiner Braun, Robert Hinde, David Krieger, Harold Kroto, and Sally Milne (Eds.) Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace

Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace Edited by Reiner Braun, Robert Hinde, David Krieger, Harold Kroto, and Sally Milne

The Editors Reiner Braun IALANA Glinkastr. 5–7 10117 Berlin Germany Prof. Robert Hinde St. John’s College Cambridge CB2 1TP UK Dr. David Krieger Nuclear Age Peace Foundation PMB 121 1187, Coast Village Road Santa Barbara, CA 93108-2794 USA Prof. Harold Kroto Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry The Florida State University Tallahassee, FL32306-4390 USA Sally Milne Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs Ground Floor Flat 63A Great Russell Street London WC1B 3BJ UK Cover picture Joseph Rotblat Photograph 8 Micheline Pelletier, Paris, France

All books published by Wiley-VCH are carefully produced. Nevertheless, authors, editors, and publisher do not warrant the information contained in these books, including this book, to be free of errors. Readers are advised to keep in mind that statements, data, illustrations, procedural details or other items may inadvertently be inaccurate. Library of Congress Card No.: applied for British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at hhttp://dnb.d-nb.dei. 8 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim All rights reserved (including those of translation into other languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form – by photoprinting, microfilm, or any other means – nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publishers. Registered names, trademarks, etc. used in this book, even when not specifically marked as such, are not to be considered unprotected by law. Typesetting Asco Typesetters, Hong Kong Printing and Binding Ebner & Spiegel GmbH, Ulm Cover Design Himmelfarb, Eppelheim, www.himmelfarb.de Wiley Bicentennial Logo Richard J. Pacifico Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany Printed on acid-free paper ISBN: 978-3-527-40690-6

Table of Contents

Portrait J. Rotblat

X

Dedication XI Robert A. Hinde Preface XIII The Editors Part 1: Joseph Rotblat 1 Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash Jack Harris

3

Joseph Rotblat: the Nuclear Physicist John Finney

15

Joseph Rotblat: Professor of Physics at Bart’s Hospital Medical School, 1949–1973 31 Christopher R. Hill Joseph Rotblat and Individual Responsibility Robert A. Hinde Joseph Rotblat and Peace David Krieger

35

43

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences Francesco Calogero

57

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War Sandra Ionno Butcher

71

V

Part 2: In Memory of Joseph Rotblat 97 Jo Rotblat: Man With a Cause Michael Atiyah Jo´zef Rotblat: My Friend Joyce Bazire ‘‘I Have Lived Two Lives’’ Reiner Braun

99

103

105

An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat Sandra Ionno Butcher

111

Si Vis Pacem Para Pacem: On the Contribution of Joseph Rotblat to the Broader Pugwash Agenda 119 Ana Marı´a Cetto Remembrances: In Memory of Joseph Rotblat Paolo Cotta-Ramusino 125

Sir Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace Kim Dae-jung Encounters With Sir Joseph Rotblat Jayantha Dhanapala

123

127

Recollections 131 Freeman Dyson Comment on the Contribution of Sir Joseph Rotblat Mohamed ElBaradei A Personal Tribute to Joseph Rotblat Michael Foot A Letter to Joseph Rotblat Johan Galtung

VI

Table of Contents

141

139

137

Recollections of Joseph Rotblat Richard L. Garwin

143

Joseph Rotblat: a Great and Eventful Life Mikhail S. Gorbachev Professor Rotblat and the Atom Train Bryce Halliday

149

Retrospective: Joseph Rotblat (1908–2005) John P. Holdren Sir Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool John R. Holt Memories of Dr. Rotblat Daisaku Ikeda

145

155

159

167

Jo Rotblat 173 Fred Jerome Sir Joseph Rotblat: From Nuclear Disarmament to the Abolition of War 177 Bruce Kent Personal Contacts With Sir Joseph Rotblat Michiji Konuma An Exceptional Human Being Harold Kroto

183

189

Sir Joseph Rotblat: A Few Strokes to the Portrait of a Great Scientist and Humanist 195 Mikhail A. Lebedev Sir Joseph Rotblat: A Man of Vision Mairead Corrigan Maguire A Tribute to Sir Joseph Rotblat Ronald S. McCoy

199

201

Table of Contents

VII

Joseph Rotblat Tom Milne

207

A Great Man and a Close Friend Maciej Nalecz

211

Joseph Rotblat: The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists: ‘‘Above all – remember your humanity’’ 215 Go¨tz Neuneck How Many Minutes to Midnight? A High-Level Panel Convenes to Check the State of the ‘‘Doomsday Clock’’ 225 John Polanyi Joseph Rotblat: Peacemaker Martin Rees Rotblat Appreciation Douglas Roche

229

233

The Elder Niece’s Tale Halina Sand

237

Einstein on the Military Mentality, and Rotblat on the Culture of Violence 241 John Stachel In Recognition of the Legacy of Joseph Rotblat Jack Steinberger Rotblat and Korea Mark B. M. Suh

247

Jo Rotblat and Enduring Human Security M. S. Swaminathan Joseph Rotblat 255 Maj Britt Theorin

VIII

Table of Contents

253

245

Sir Joseph 259 Jody Williams Part 3: Appendix 261 The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

263

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace Joseph Rotblat Leaving the Bomb Project Joseph Rotblat

267

281

Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge Joseph Rotblat Remember Your Humanity Joseph Rotblat

289

299

315

The Crime and Punishment of Mordechai Vanunu 323 Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies Joseph Rotblat Curriculum Vitae

345

List of Contributors Acknowledgments

329

349 355

Table of Contents

IX

Fig. 1 Joseph Rotblat speaking at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, 1997. Courtesy of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. (Richard A. Carter Photography.)

Dedication

We, members of the Executive Committee of the British Pugwash Group, having worked closely with Jo over the years, are conscious that he is irreplaceable. We miss his almost unfailing perception of the right way forward, his courage and his kindness, his modesty, and his sense of humor. We miss his dedication and his singleness of purpose, which led so often to heated debate. We miss his absolute integrity. We shall never be able to reconcile his clearheadedness with the ever-growing pile of unsorted papers which built up on his desk, or his old-fashioned politeness with his unswerving obstinacy over issues that mattered. We shall do our best to carry on his work, aiming for the elimination of nuclear weapons and ultimately of war itself. London, January 2007

Robert A. Hinde

XI

Preface

Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat died at the age of 96 on August 31, 2005. This is a book about his life and work. In it friends and colleagues write about his life as a human being, as a scientist and a peace activist, and about his efforts to build a more peaceful and fair-minded world. He was the last living signatory of the visionary Russell– Einstein Manifesto, which he and Bertrand Russell presented to the world at a press conference on July 9, 1955. In the spirit of this Manifesto he became the founder and longterm guiding light of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. With his expertise as a natural scientist he opposed the nuclear arms race, and during the Cold War Pugwash made a substantial contribution to the treaties that helped prevent the use of nuclear weapons. In 1995 he received, jointly with the Pugwash Conferences, the Nobel Peace Prize. His tireless engagement with peace and nuclear disarmament, continuing until he died, remains legendary. For decades his courage and optimism inspired the actions of scientists and citizens working to prevent nuclear catastrophe. His optimism was contagious. His name was, and still is, synonymous with moral courage and ethically responsible action, both as a person and as a scientist. A modest man, he provides us with a shining example of how to live one’s life. We hope that this book will help to perpetuate his example. In one of the last papers he wrote, he portrayed his peace philosophy in the following way: In the course of many thousands of years, the human species has established a great civilization; it has developed a rich and multifarious culture; it has accumulated enormous treasures in arts and literature; Preface

XIII

and it has created the magnificent edifice of science. It is indeed the supreme irony that the very intellectual achievements of humankind have provided the tools of self-destruction, in a social system ready to contemplate such destruction. Surely, we must not allow this to happen. As human beings it is our paramount duty to preserve human life, to ensure the continuity of the human race. A nuclear holocaust does not appear imminent. Having come close to it on several occasions during the Cold War, we are now somewhat more cautious. But war is still a recognized social institution, and every war carries with it the potential of escalation with fatal consequences for our species. In a world armed with weapons of mass destruction, the use of which might bring the whole civilization to an end, we cannot afford a polarized community, with its inherent threat of military confrontations. In this scientific era, a global equitable community, to which we all belong as world citizens, has become a vital necessity.

London, January 2007

XIV

Preface

Reiner Braun, Robert Hinde, David Krieger, Harold Kroto, Sally Milne

Part 1 Joseph Rotblat

Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash Jack Harris

One of Joseph Rotblat’s few indulgences was his membership of the Athenaeum Club, which was a useful venue when he had to invite one of his many visitors for lunch or dinner. He also used to organize dinner parties for distinguished guest speakers from abroad after they had addressed a Pugwash meeting. It was on such an occasion that I happened to be sitting next to Rotblat when he turned down a waiter’s offer of some boiled potatoes. Noticing my surprise, he explained that so strong was his memory of the bitter taste of frost-damaged potatoes which was often all he had to eat as a child during World War I, that he could no longer bear the taste of even the Athenaeum’s most excellently prepared potatoes. He went on to tell us of his almost idyllic childhood in pre-war Warsaw and at country retreats, enjoying the comfort so generously provided by his wealthy father. But then disaster struck; with the outbreak of war, his father’s business collapsed and they literally faced starvation – the family’s only source of income was from the sale of illicit vodka distilled in their cellar. After the war the family’s fortunes did not recover and Joseph was forced to leave school early and train and practice as a domestic electrician. By studying in the evening he eventually passed enough examinations to follow a degree course in physics at university level and in 1932 he gained a Masters from the Free University of Poland in Warsaw. Subsequently, while working for his PhD, he carried out research at the Radiological Laboratory of the Polish Science Society under the guidance of its Director, Professor Ludwik Wertenstein, and in 1938 was awarded a Doctorate in Physics by the University of Warsaw. During these years a young Polish nuclear physicist, such as Rotblat, could hardly escape being influenced by the work and achievements of Marie Curie. He in fact lived in the same street as Madame Curie, but separated in time

3

by 40 years. Wertenstein had been an assistant to Curie and the good lady was an Honorary Director of the Warsaw Radiological Laboratory, though she rarely visited it. In addition, Rotblat was to receive an invitation to work in Paris with Marie Curie’s son-in-law and daughter, Pierre and Irene Joliot-Curie possibly at the newly opened Marie Curie Radium Institute. In spite of these links Rotblat only met Marie Curie once, when she was quite elderly. I once asked him what he thought of the great lady and he replied that he was not greeted with any degree of warmth. I was reminded of Einstein’s description of her as ‘‘highly intelligent but has the soul of a herring, which means that she is poor when it comes to the art of either joy or pain’’. The 1930s was a propitious period to launch an up-and-coming nuclear physicist, such as Rotblat. The decade began with the German scientists Bothe and Becker publishing their findings that when beryllium is bombarded with alpha particles from a polonium source it emits astonishingly penetrating rays or particles which, two years later, Chadwick and Webster identified as neutrons (the fundamental particles with zero electrical charge and mass close to that of a proton, the existence of which had been predicted by Rutherford in his 1920 Bakerian Lecture). Like Bothe and Becker, Chadwick and Webster used a polonium/beryllium couple as a neutron generator: such a couple was also used, incidentally, to detonate the atomic bombs some 13 years later. However, for his experiments at the Warsaw Radiological Laboratory Rotblat did not have a sample of polonium and he was forced to carry out his radiation experiments using just 30 milligrams of radium in a phial. Every few days he pumped into a tube filled with beryllium powder the radon which had accumulated in the phial by the radioactive decay of the radium. The subsequent decay of the radon over a few days bombarded the beryllium making it an, albeit shortlived, neutron source. How Rotblat must have envied the Rutherford and the Joliot-Curie schools with their plentiful stocks of polonium, and the Fermi group with its one gram of radium. Nevertheless, Rotbat succeeded in carrying out valuable experiments involving the neutron irradiation of a number of elements. A main line of research, which became the subject of his doctoral thesis, was based on his investigation of the fact that neutrons are scattered inelastically (that is to say that when a neutron strikes the nu-

4

Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

cleus of an atom it not only changes direction but also loses energy – consistent with the Bohr model of a complex nucleus). At that time, from the mid to late 1930s, confusing messages were coming through about the consequences of neutron irradiation of uranium from the studies carried out by the Curies, the Fermi group and Hahn and his associates at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute at Dahlem. Much of the confusion was resolved when Frisch and Meitner realized that what Hahn and Strassman had been observing during their slow neutron bombardment of uranium was nuclear fission. Rotblat independently discovered that during the fissioning of uranium neutron multiplication occurred – he thought the multiplication factor was as high as 6 whereas the actual value was later found to be about 2.5. Nevertheless multiplication did occur, and as Rotblat himself remarked, it did not take a great intellectual leap to realize that the huge energy released by fission together with neutron multiplication led inevitably to the possibility of a chain reaction and hence to an ‘‘atomic’’ explosion of unimaginable power. This was a Pauline moment for Rotblat – the possibility of developing an atomic bomb, and the consequences of any such development, affected the whole of the remainder of his very long life. Although the Rotblat–Wertenstein partnership was successful, they did not have the good fortune of a big stroke of luck as has been experienced by other investigators. For a short account of the role of luck in atomic research, see the Appendix. Rotblat must have shown much promise as a research scientist because when he completed his PhD he was offered positions with two of the leading research centers – with the Joliot-Curies in Paris or with James Chadwick at Liverpool University. Although he could speak French quite well, his command of English was rudimentary. Nevertheless, he elected to take up a position in Liverpool, drawn there no doubt by the relatively advanced stage of construction of their cyclotron. In 1930 Rotblat had met Tola Gryn, a student of Polish literature and they fell in love and in 1937 they were married. Unfortunately, the salary offered by Chadwick was insufficient to support both Rotblat and Tola, so he was forced to leave his wife behind when he first moved to Liverpool in March 1939. However, so impressed was Chadwick by Rotblat’s performance as a research scientist that in August he offered him the Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

5

Oliver Lodge Fellowship which carried a higher stipend, which meant that Tola could join him. Rotblat returned to Warsaw to make arrangements for Tola to accompany him on his return journey to Liverpool, but tragically she suffered an attack of acute appendicitis and was too ill to travel so Rotblat returned to Liverpool alone. A few days later, on September 1 Germany invaded Poland. During the following months Rotblat made several desperate attempts to arrange for Tola to leave Poland. He recruited Niels Bohr’s help for her to travel to Denmark, sought the assistance of relatives for her to reach Britain via Belgium and arranged for her to travel to Italy, but all in vain – Denmark and Belgium were invaded by the Germans and Italy joined the Axis cause. In due course both Tola and her mother died in a Nazi concentration camp, but Rotblat was unaware of their fate until after the end of hostilities. During his brief visit to Warsaw Rotblat had a discussion with his friend and mentor Ludwik Wertenstein at the Radiological Laboratory and showed him his calculations which gave the strong indication that an atomic weapon was feasible. He sought guidance from Wertenstein on whether the fear that Nazi Germany might develop such a weapon would justify the Allies embarking on an atomic bomb program. Wertenstein was reluctant to commit an opinion but merely replied that he would not himself get involved in such a program. Back at Liverpool, Chadwick too was at first noncommittal on the subject of nuclear weapons, but he did provide Rotblat with some research assistance so that he could explore the feasibility of such a possible development. The initiating event for the UK nuclear weapon program was, however, a simple calculation by Peierls and Frisch carried out at Birmingham University in February 1940. They demonstrated that the critical mass of the uranium-235 isotope for fast neutrons was only a matter of kilograms, so that an atom bomb capable of being carried by an aircraft was feasible. Oliphant, the then head of the Birmingham Physics Department, recommended that they send their report containing this information to Sir Henry Tizard, who set up the Maud Committee under the chairmanship of Sir George Thomson to study this matter further. Paradoxically, Peierls and Frisch, being enemy nationals, were not allowed to sit on the committee, but could only act as advisers. Subsequently Frisch, at-

6

Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

tracted by Liverpool’s cyclotron, moved to Chadwick’s team to carry out research on methods of separating the uranium-235 isotope from uranium-238 (natural uranium consists of 99.3% uranium238 and 0.7% uranium-235). He became a friend of Rotblat, and drew an affectionate caricature of him which he included in his autobiography What Little I Remember. The Maud Committee deliberated for 15 months and issued its final report in July 1941. It became obvious that having done much of the groundwork it was clearly beyond Britain’s capability actually to manufacture an atom bomb under wartime conditions (the diffusion plant at Oak Ridge used more electricity than the whole of the UK). In July 1942 Sir John Anderson sent Churchill a minute proposing that the bomb project be a joint US/British effort but carried out in the USA. Churchill agreed and steps were put in place for the British team to move to the USA. Chadwick was to become the leader of the British team. There was an Americanimposed rule that all members of the Manhattan Project in the USA should hold either American or British passports. Rotblat did not want to lose his Polish nationality and refused to be made a British citizen so was excluded from the initial party which set sail for the USA (if their ship had been sunk think of the loss of all that brain power and expertise). However, the nationality requirement was later waived in Rotblat’s case so he followed the rest of the British team a few weeks later and eventually arrived in Los Alamos. Rotblat was never particularly happy at Los Alamos. As well as being frustrated that his experience and talents were not used usefully, he had worries about the morality of the whole enterprise. His doubts were reinforced when he heard the project administrator, General Groves, declare that the real reason to develop the bomb was to subdue the Russians! When it became clear towards the end of 1944 that Germany could not possibly develop an atomic bomb he decided to resign from the project and return to Liverpool. Chadwick was sorry that a member of his team wished to leave but assisted with the arrangements for his return, only to discover that the authorities had been monitoring Rotblat as a potential spy! Back in Liverpool Rotblat decided to devote the rest of his working life to nuclear medicine and, after the explosion of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, to the abolition of atomic weapons. Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

7

The origins of the British Pugwash group date back to early 1946 when Peierls, Rotblat and others formed the Atomic Scientists Association (ASA), most of whom had worked on atomic weapons during the war. Their objectives were to bring before the public information about atomic energy and its implications, to explore possibilities about the international control of atomic energy and to help shape the policy of the UK in all matters relating to atomic energy. The chairman of the Association was Professor Massey with Rotblat as its Executive Vice President. The members of the Executive Committee, all of whom were Fellows of the Royal Society, were: Bates, Blackett, Chadwick, Cockcroft, Darwin, Lonsdale, Moon, Mott, Oliphant, Paneth, Peierls, Powell, Pryce, Schonland, Simon, Skinner, Taylor and Thomson. Perhaps the ASA’s most notable achievement, which Rotblat took a large part in organizing, was the creation of the Atom Train Exhibition designed to educate the public about the military and peaceful applications of nuclear energy. It comprised two complete carriages of exhibitions and live experiments and there were associated public lectures by eminent scientists, such as Chadwick, Oliphant, Peierls, Cockcroft and Flowers. It went on a 26-week tour of England, Wales and Scotland visiting 25 venues and informing 150,000 visitors. The demand was so great the train did another 20-week tour and later its equipment was loaned to UNESCO for conferences in Lebanon, Paris and Scandinavia. In 1949 Rotblat was offered the Chair of Medical Physics at the medical school at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, but his appointment was not well received by some of the medical staff. He started to take an interest in radiotherapy and began to be involved with the design and operation of linear accelerators and to write papers relating to the potential diagnostic and therapeutic applications of radio-iodine. He developed a happy working relationship with his friend and colleague, Professor Patricia Lindop. Rotblat became a leading authority on nuclear fallout following atomic tests in the atmosphere. He took an especial interest in the explosion of America’s second hydrogen bomb at the Bikini Atoll in March 1954, the fallout from which contaminated a Japanese fishing boat, ironically named ‘‘The Lucky Dragon’’, causing the delayed death of one of the crew. He calculated that the Bikini bomb must have been a three-tage device (fission–fusion–fission)

8

Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

with its outer casing consisting of a great deal of uranium-238 which would fission when struck by the fast neutrons from the fusion explosion. It was hence a very ‘‘dirty’’ bomb. Rotblat drafted a note for Nature on his findings but first consulted Sir John Cockcroft who advised delay for fear of upsetting the Americans. Soon a US physicist, Ralph Lapp, published similar conclusions so Rotblat published his paper, which had a controversial reception and made Rotblat a nationally known figure. Rotblat met Bertrand Russell at the BBC when they both appeared on a Panorama TV program, and they became friends, Russell often asking Rotblat for advice on nuclear matters. By 1955 both the USA and the Soviet Union had exploded thermonuclear weapons which were a thousand times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russell became fearful for the future of humankind and drafted a text calling on scientists to help combat this danger. In one of the last acts of his life Albert Einstein signed this document, which became known as the Russell–Einstein Manifesto. Russell wanted the Manifesto to be launched at a major public meeting and this was arranged at Caxton Hall, London, on July 9, 1955 – a crowded gathering which was chaired by Rotblat. The Pugwash Conferences began two years later in response to the Manifesto. Of the signatories of the Manifesto all were scientists, except Russell, and ten of the total were Nobel Laureates (NLs) or were to become Laureates subsequently. They were: Max Born, Germany (NL Physics 1954); Percy Bridgeman, USA (NL Physics 1946); Albert Einstein, Germany (NL Physics 1921); Leopold Infeld, Poland; Frederic Joliot-Curie, France (NL Chemistry 1935); Herman Muller, USA (NL Physiology or Medicine 1946); Linus Pauling, USA (NL Chemistry 1954, NL Peace 1962); Cecil Powell, UK (NL Physics 1950); Joseph Rotblat, UK (NL Peace 1995); Bertrand Russell, UK (NL Literature 1950) and Hideki Yukawa, Japan (NL Physics 1949). With the passing of Rotblat all the signatories are now dead; we can only hope their spirit lives on. Here are some extracts from the Manifesto: 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 . . . Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

9

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. 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? . . . 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.

The first of the conferences advocated in the Manifesto took a great deal of organizing and had a long, two-year, gestation period. Initially it was planned to hold it in Delhi but there were political difficulties and it was doubtful if many scientists from Western Europe and America would be able to raise the travel funds for such a long journey. Cyrus Eaton, a US–Canadian industrialist and philanthropist came to the rescue. He wrote to Russell offering to host and finance the first conference of the new organization providing the venue was his home town of Pugwash in Nova Scotia and that the name ‘‘Pugwash’’ should appear in the title of the conference. (Incidentally, Pugwash takes its name from the Indian word pagwechk which means ‘‘shallow waters’’ – perhaps not entirely appropriate for an organization which so frequently, figuratively speaking, gets into deep waters!). Eaton’s offer was gratefully accepted and Rotblat and Cecil Powell set about organizing the conference which was held in July 1957 and attracted 22 delegates – sixteen were physicists, two chemists, one biologist, two physicians and a lawyer. Ten countries were represented including the USA, UK, Japan and China. Unfortunately, Bernard Russell was too ill to attend, but among the notable delegates was Eugene Rabinowitch, the founder of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Leo Szilard, the first person to envisage the atomic bomb, and a vice-president of the Soviet Academy of Science. Amongst the ‘‘staff ’’ members was Ruth Adams, who became editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and played an important part in the Pugwash movement, particularly in the creation of the International Student/Young Pugwash organization. A report of the conference conclusions was sent to leaders

10

Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

in the USA, Canada, the USSR, the UK and the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Since 1957 there has been at least one major Pugwash conference every year and until 2004 Rotblat attended every one of them. From 1957 to 1972 he was Secretary-General of the movement (with Patricia Lindop as Assistant Secretary-General from 1964 to 1970), and President (later Emeritus) from 1988 to 1997 and chair of British Pugwash from 1978 to 1988. Following Rotblat’s death in 2005 the current Secretary-General Cotta-Ramusino said that without Rotblat there would have been no Pugwash. It is difficult to answer the question ‘‘What has Pugwash actually achieved?’’ When a government takes what is obviously a wise decision, or signs a sensible treaty, it likes to create the impression that the wisdom arises from the ministers themselves or their advisers. The last thing they want is for some peace organization brashly to attempt to take the credit. That is why Pugwash meetings take place quietly in the background. At the end of each annual conference the Pugwash Council issues a statement which it sends to governments and from time to time the Council issues statements on topical issues, or writes a public letter to a prime minister or president. For the most part though, conclusions from Pugwash meetings are transmitted in person to decision-makers. After a suitable interval of time credit for Pugwash initiatives can be claimed; for example, it is known that Soviet Pugwash scientists influenced their government to support the Anti-Missile Treaty. At the 1990 Pugwash conference Lord Zuckerman, for many years the chief scientific adviser to the British government, revealed that the pressure brought to bear by Pugwash had played an important part in achieving the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963. At the same conference, a message from Mikhail Gorbachev contained the following message: ‘‘Through its activities, due to scientific and moral authority, Pugwash has contributed in a unique way to averting the military danger, has helped to stop the ‘Cold War’ and to achieve profound positive changes in the development of the world.’’ It is believed on good authority that Pugwash has laid important groundwork for a number of international treaties, including: Treaty of Tlatelolco, 1967; Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1968; Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 1972; Biological Weapons Convention, 1972; Chemical Weapons Convention, 1993. Pugwash also played a Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

11

part in the setting up of the Canberra Commission against the concept of nuclear deterrence. The year 1995 was an eventful one for Rotblat. To mark the 50 th anniversary of the dropping of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs the Pugwash annual conference was held in Hiroshima, at which Rotblat delivered a controversial address. A short time later he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and then heard that he and the Pugwash organization were to share the 1995 Nobel Peace prize. In his acceptance speech entitled ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’ he urged his fellow scientists to refuse to help develop weapons of mass destruction. He was knighted two years later and used his extra ‘‘weight’’ to advocate a Hippocratic Oath for scientists and intensified his demands for the release of the Israeli technician Mordechai Vanunu. Right to the end of his life Rotblat was expansive and creative. Quite recently he began to think that Pugwash might be somewhat introspective and might be failing to communicate enough with the general public. Accordingly, he has advocated that a number of non-government organizations could usefully collaborate and communicate better with the general public. In 2004 he persuaded Mikhail Gorbachev to launch jointly with him a ‘‘Nuclear Weapons Awareness Program’’. Rotblat has shown he had not lost his perceptiveness by inviting Professor John Finney to take charge of this enterprise. It is a sobering fact that most of us will die well before we reach the age of 87. It follows that if Rotblat had lived an average lifespan or even quite a long one but nevertheless had died before his 87 th birthday, he would not have been elected to the Royal Society, not have been knighted, and not become a Nobel Laureate. Does that say something about those responsible for bestowing honors? A couple of years ago Rotblat appeared on the BBC radio program Desert Island Discs and one of his choices was Pete Seeger singing ‘‘Last Night I had the Strangest Dream’’ and I would like to reproduce the opening lines here. You might feel this is a rather frivolous way to end this appreciation, but at least it is not stuffy . . . and Jo could not bear stuffiness: Last night I had the strangest dream I’ve ever had before, I dreamt the world had all agreed to put an end to war. I dreamt I saw a mighty room and the room was filled with men, And the papers they were signing said they’d never fight again.

12

Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

In his explanation of his choice Jo said that this song was written in 1956 and he took the positive view and thought that putting an end to war was in more people’s minds today than it was in those far-off days. I am not sure he is right, but if he is, then it is in no small measure due to his own remarkable achievements.

Acknowledgments I have had the benefit of reading Mrs. June Clayton’s excellent thesis on Joseph Rotblat and Robert Hinde has kindly shown me his draft of Rotblat’s Royal Society Biographical Memoir.

Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash

13

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist John Finney

‘‘I don’t know if you have met Rotblat, a Pole who has been here about nine months. He is an extremely able man, one of the best I have come across for some years.’’1) So wrote the discoverer of the neutron, James Chadwick, to John Cockcroft at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, in 1940. Over the ten years or so that Rotblat spent working with Chadwick and in the Liverpool University Physics Department, Chadwick’s initial assessment only grew. So much so that Chadwick tried hard to dissuade Rotblat from taking the Chair in Physics at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London in 1950. Rotblat’s moving the focus of his work to medical applications would, he said, be a great loss to nuclear physics. Moreover, it would mean, argued Chadwick, that Rotblat would never be elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. In the light of this very positive assessment of Rotblat’s work in nuclear physics from one of the ‘‘greats’’ of the field, it is perhaps a little surprising that, apart from his work on the atomic bomb in the early 1940s, his contributions to the early developments of nuclear physics are little appreciated. Both his early nuclear physics and later medical physics achievements tend to be overshadowed by his tireless work aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons. But his achievements in nuclear physics were also major. They deserve to be noted and recognized. What were his main achievements as an early nuclear physicist?

1) Letter from J. Chadwick to J. Cockcroft 8/1/40. Cockcroft’s papers, 20/5. Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge. Quoted in Andrew Brown: The Neutron and the Bomb, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 185.

15

The Warsaw Years Nuclear physics was a very young science when Rotblat began his research life in the Radiological Laboratory in Warsaw in 1932. This was the year in which Chadwick had published his discovery of the neutron, uncharged particles that, together with the charged proton of about the same mass, make up the nuclei of atoms. It was a time when the field was essentially uncharted, and techniques to begin the mapping of the area had to be developed from scratch. The field was wide open; no one knew what there was to be discovered, let alone how to go about making those discoveries. Artificial or induced radioactivity was discovered in 1934 by the Joliot-Curies. There were other big players in the field, one of the foremost being Enrico Fermi and his group in Rome. Already by the middle of 1934, Fermi’s group had bombarded most of the elements in the periodic table and measured the lifetimes of over 40 artificial radioisotopes. The facilities of the Warsaw laboratory, with only a relatively small amount of radium available to use to produce neutrons for bombarding other atoms, were nowhere near those available to the likes of Fermi. Nevertheless, the Warsaw laboratory focused on using neutrons to produce artificial radioactivity and to study related nuclear phenomena. As Rotblat commented: ‘‘We had to compensate for the lack of facilities with ingenuity . . .’’ And there was plenty of that. Indeed, the first nuclear physics paper Rotblat published was to turn out to be, in his own judgment, one of his main achievements. At the time, many thought that a neutron could undergo only elastic collisions with a nucleus – it would bounce off the nucleus with no change in energy. Against this view, Niels Bohr had hypothesized that the bombarding neutron and the bombarded nucleus could form a ‘‘compound nucleus’’ which could then break up, with a neutron ejected with a different amount of energy from that of the incident neutron. As there was a change in energy between the incoming and outgoing neutron, this was called an inelastic collision. Rotblat’s first paper demonstrated experimentally that this inelastic scattering process indeed occurred. In so doing, he added an important building block to the young, growing nuclear physics edifice. This paper has a particularly interesting acknowledgement that must be unique. The work used a block of gold, which was obvi-

16

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

ously not easily available. Perhaps as a further demonstration of the ingenuity that Rotblat said they needed to compensate for lack of facilities, the paper acknowledges: ‘‘The block of gold weighing 963 grams was kindly prepared for us by the Polish State Mint and the gold was lent by the Bank of Poland.’’ Perhaps one of the earliest collaborations between commerce and science? Rotblat’s Warsaw research during the five or so years before he joined Chadwick in Liverpool produced 15 papers on different aspects of nuclear physics. Some of these took further the work on inelastic collisions. Another examined the production of artificial radioactivity by fast (high energy) neutrons. Being a relatively inefficient process, the signal that had to be detected experimentally was very weak and so difficult to measure with the techniques then available. Again, Rotblat ‘‘. . . had to compensate for the lack of facilities with ingenuity . . .’’ and devised a clever, but inherently simple, way of effectively increasing the weak signal that needed to be measured. In other experiments, a method was found for measuring the ranges in air of particles emitted in the disintegration of nuclei. From these data, the energy released in the nuclear processes concerned could be determined, as could the probability that a bombarding neutron would be captured by the bombarded nucleus (the neutron capture cross-section). Bombardment of nickel uncovered induced radioactivity in nickel and cobalt, phenomena that Fermi’s team with their greater resources had failed to find. Another example of what ingenuity could do. In fact, reading these early papers gives interesting insight into the subtle reasoning that was used, both to design clever experiments and to interpret the results. Just as Rotblat’s first published nuclear physics paper on inelastic scattering reported a major advance, his final piece of work before leaving Warsaw was also a celebrated one. In early 1939, Otto Frisch and Lise Meitner had discovered the fission process, in which a neutron incident on a uranium nucleus caused this very heavy nucleus to break up into smaller fragments. Following an interesting and subtle argument – which according to Rotblat was ‘‘a fairly simple intellectual exercise’’ – he reasoned that this fission process would produce more neutrons than were required to initiate the fission process itself. He was able to perform an experiment to test his reasoning very soon after the discovery of the fission Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

17

process for an intriguing reason. The gold that was important in many of his experimental measurements had to be taken back to the Bank of Poland vaults every evening. The commuting involved led him to use another heavy element instead. As this element happened to be uranium, he was very well placed to undertake, essentially immediately, the crucial experiment to confirm his prediction about excess neutron production. It was done and dusted within a week. As is well known, he also realized the potential implications of this discovery for the production of a terrifying new weapon.

Liverpool Ludwik Wertenstein, the director of the Warsaw laboratory, obtained funds for Rotblat to spend a year abroad. Invitations from both Joliot in Paris and Chadwick in Liverpool followed. Given the choice between spending a year in Paris or Liverpool, surely no young man could choose other than Paris? Interestingly, Rotblat chose Liverpool for a reason that reflects on his attitude to science and its importance. By this time, it was becoming clear that real further progress in his area of interest required more intense particle beams than could be produced from the disintegration of radium. The way forward was seen to be the cyclotron, a machine that accelerated charged particles to high energy. These highenergy particles could then be used to either bombard other nuclei directly or produce other particles through an intermediate interaction. Although the Warsaw laboratory had been able to compete effectively with Fermi’s group in the discovery of radionuclides, a better source of particles was needed if it was to develop further. Rotblat saw the Liverpool cyclotron as being in the ‘‘right’’ stage of building. If he could be there for the critical completion and commissioning periods, he would be able to bring back this expertise to Warsaw to help establish a world-class nuclear physics facility in Poland. So Liverpool it was. This was 1939. It was just before war was declared, and at a time when the Liverpool laboratory’s research and staff were about to

18

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

be disrupted by diversion to measurements related to the development of the atomic bomb. Before this happened, however, Rotblat was able to complete an imaginative piece of work that particularly impressed his new boss Chadwick. Rotblat’s previous measurements in Poland involved activating the sample and then transferring the newly radioactive sample to a detector – usually a Geiger counter – in order to complete the measurements. If the lifetime of the artificial nucleus was reasonably long, this was in principle no problem, but if it was short compared to the time taken to perform the measurement, then by the time the sample had been transferred to the counter, the activity would have fallen below the threshold at which it could be measured effectively. Thus this technique was inherently limited to examining radioactive nuclei with lifetimes of at least seconds. Rotblat’s first Liverpool experiment involved the adaptation of an electronic circuit that converted the signal emitted from the radionuclide into an electrical signal. The circuit itself could be tuned to give a pulse of a given length (in time) for every particle detected. By varying this time period, it was possible to set up the detector system to discriminate between particles arriving at slightly different times. This opened the way to studying radionuclides with very short lifetimes indeed. The one on which this system was developed by Rotblat – an isotope of polonium ( 214 Po) – had a half-life of less than a thousandth of a second (1:4  104 s), though this ‘‘coincidence method’’ was expected to be effective for lifetimes between a tenth and a ten millionth of a second. Thus the way was opened up to detecting artificial isotopes with very short lifetimes. This development in instrumentation was also particularly useful in determining absolute intensities of sources – particularly weak ones – and in measuring the efficiency of the more traditional Geiger counters. On the basis of this work, Chadwick offered Rotblat the Oliver Lodge Fellowship. This was the most prestigious fellowship the department had to offer, and it promised to double his income. In 1939, the month before the coincidence technique was published, the cyclotron produced its first beam. The window was now open to lots of new nuclear physics, such as Rotblat’s study of radioactive bromine. Stimulated by other published work which was

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

19

not in agreement with his own results, a preliminary report of this work was finally published in 1941. The first paragraph of that paper told a story in itself: It was intended to carry out the investigations in some detail, but the work had to be abandoned in the spring of 1940 for more urgent duties, and it seems unlikely I shall be able to resume it for some time.

The ‘‘more urgent duties’’ were of course related to the development of the atomic bomb. The bromine work was never resumed.

The Bomb The 1939 experiments of Rotblat, Joliot, Fermi and Szilard demonstrated that fission of uranium produced more neutrons than it took to initiate the process. A chain, or divergent reaction was therefore possible in principle. However, uncertainties remained. There was no agreement about whether the process could be engineered to work. Late in November 1939, in a meeting with Chadwick, Rotblat suggested that, for an effective bomb, the chain reaction would have to be propagated by fast rather than slow neutrons. The latter would be unlikely to produce the catastrophic outcome required. Rotblat thought he had no significant response from Chadwick and left the meeting discouraged. Whether Rotblat seeded this idea into Chadwick’s mind or whether it was there already is unclear. Whatever the genesis of the insight, a few days later Chadwick found Rotblat to discuss the experiments that needed to be done to answer the outstanding scientific feasibility questions. Accurate measurements were needed of many of the quantities that Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls had only been able to estimate in their highly influential 1940 memorandum on the feasibility of a uranium bomb. The critical experiments were ones that could be done using the cyclotron and Rotblat was eminently capable of undertaking them. Little was known about the energies of the neutrons that would be produced by fission. Little was known about the fraction of neutrons that would be captured without producing fission. The fission cross-section for fast neutrons was unknown, though contemporary calculations

20

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

of the critical mass of uranium required for a runaway chain reaction suggested that one was unlikely to be sustained in this way. Rotblat was also concerned that the inelastic scattering of the neutrons might slow them down so much that the chain reaction could not be sustained: it was important to find out ‘‘how fast the neutrons will slow down’’. So Chadwick gave Rotblat and two assistants the job of answering these questions. In a letter dated December 5, 1939 to Sir Edward Appleton, the Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Chadwick set out the technical issues concerning the feasibility of an atomic bomb as he saw them:2) ‘‘I think it would be desirable to get some information on the mechanism, and if I can get enough uranium dioxide I will do so. I have here a Polish research man who is very quick.’’ And very quick he was. The work was completed by Rotblat, Flanders and Wilson by mid-1941. The Maud report, written in July mainly by Chadwick, summarized all the work done under his direction relating to the use of uranium both as a bomb and a source of power. This work was critical in stimulating a serious bomb program. Moreover, the slow neutron measurements made contributed to Fermi’s realization of controlled nuclear fission in December 1942, with its clear relevance to fission as a source of power. With accuracy essential if an effective weapon was to be produced, related work continued on the cyclotron. Rotblat considered the measurement of the energy spectrum of fission neutrons from uranium as among his major achievements. During this intense period of work on the cyclotron, Rotblat had a scientific insight which he never published. In June 1940 a paper written by McMillan and Abelson appeared, reporting their discovery of a new radioactive element heavier even than uranium. This new element itself decayed into another heavy element with a very long half-life of the order of a million years. Rotblat reasoned that this element – which came to be called plutonium – would probably be fissile under neutron bombardment and therefore

2) Letter from J. Chadwick to E. Appleton 5/12/39. Cabinet Office Files 21/1262, Public Record Office, Kew, London. Quoted in Andrew Brown: The Neutron and the Bomb, Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 183. Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

21

might be an alternative to uranium as a nuclear fuel. Although Rotblat wanted to make this new element with the cyclotron and measure its fission properties, the uranium work had to take priority. So Rotblat’s plutonium ideas were dropped, to be taken up later by others.

The Post-War Period Rotblat joined the Manhattan Project and moved to Los Alamos in early 1944. As is well known, when it became clear to him that the Germans were not in the race for building a nuclear weapon, his rationale for being involved was no longer valid and he famously left the project. Chadwick saw some scientific advantages in Rotblat returning to Liverpool as his close knowledge of ‘‘all branches of nuclear physics’’ would prove useful in the post-war period. Rotblat therefore returned with instructions to restart the cyclotron. In addition to his work at Liverpool, on his return to the UK Rotblat played a key role in the wider development of nuclear physics in the UK. The new British prime minister, Clement Attlee, recognized that the emergence of the atomic bomb had ‘‘rendered much of our post-war planning out of date’’. In addition to the bomb itself and its possible implications with respect to Britain’s position in the post-war world, there was the tantalizing possibility of nuclear energy from controlled nuclear fission. The Advisory Committee on Atomic Energy was therefore set up, with Chadwick as a member. A healthy and advanced nuclear physics research infrastructure was considered important to the UK’s future, and an early meeting of the Advisory Committee proposed that a Nuclear Physics Subcommittee be set up to ‘‘make recommendations regarding the programme of nuclear physics to be pursued in this country as a whole’’. It was in two areas of the work of this committee that Rotblat took leading roles: in the development of more powerful particle accelerators and of improved photographic emulsions for detecting elementary particles. Since the earliest cyclotrons had begun to operate, one of their key inherent limitations had been realized. As a particle is speeded up to a significant fraction of the speed of light, the effect of rela-

22

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

tivity is that the particle mass increases. This in turn means that it takes the particle longer to travel round the cyclotron, resulting in its getting out of step, or phase, with the accelerating potential. The practical consequence for the cyclotron was that particle energies were limited to about 25 MeV (million electron volts). By 1945, a way round this problem had been proposed: the frequency of the accelerating voltage could be varied so as to compensate for this increase in mass. Chadwick and Rotblat both wanted such a machine – a synchrocyclotron – to be built in Liverpool. Rotblat took on much of the responsibility for the planning of this new machine. By late 1946, the Nuclear Physics Subcommittee approved the ambitious proposal that had been put to it, and gave the go-ahead for a synchrocyclotron in Liverpool. Interestingly, they suggested that the possibility of an even more powerful machine should be investigated. There was a good scientific reason for this, though it may not have been appreciated at the time. In 1947 Cecil Powell, using photographic emulsions to detect particles (of which more later), had discovered a new elementary particle through studies of the cosmic rays from outer space that hit the earth. This p-meson was quickly accepted to be the particle that the Japanese physicist Yukawa had predicted in 1935, and hypothesized would be responsible for the strong interaction between protons and neutrons. Now that this particle had been discovered, there was a clear need to study it further, and for this a more reproducible and intense source of p-mesons was needed. Although the originally planned synchrocyclotron was designed to produce protons with energies of about 250 MeV, this was not comfortably above the threshold for p-meson production. There was a need to build a machine that could produce particles at even higher energies. Rotblat set about pushing the limits of the machine design in the characteristic fashion that underlined his practical skills and engineering expertise. The maximum energy of the accelerated particles is determined mainly by the size of the largest steel casting that could be produced for the magnet. The original 250 MeV design called for pole pieces of 120 inches in diameter. Direct discussions between Rotblat and the steel manufacturers resulted in increasing the diameter to 156 inches, with the resulting machine capable of producing 400 MeV protons. It was this design which Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

23

was finally decided on. The ‘‘dynamic team’’ of Rotblat and Mike Moore – the young engineer who had solved many of the problems of the first cyclotron and had been a leading member of the team that ran the old machine – set about solving the outstanding problems. In addition to the scientific and engineering ones, these included somehow procuring the materials (for example 1500 tons of steel) and power that were in very short supply in the immediate post-war period. One of the major, very practical, problems concerned the radiation shielding of the machine. Whatever the material chosen, large amounts of it would be necessary and it would almost certainly also be in short supply. Rotblat’s creative imagination worked again. Close to the university was a derelict piece of land that was earmarked for the new Metropolitan Catholic Cathedral. Although work had started on the crypt, the building had been stopped by the Vatican as the plans indicated that the new building would be larger than St. Peter’s in Rome. Walking the site, Rotblat realized that the sunken crypt and the ground topography would be a significant help in solving the radiation protection problem. The university Estates Department was instructed to open negotiations with the Catholic Church to try to secure a lease on the consecrated ground concerned. Experimental physics might be simply thought of as doing something to something and measuring the results with something else. In the kind of nuclear physics experiments we are concerned with here, high-energy particles are produced by a source (for example a cyclotron). These collide with a nucleus of a particular element or material (the sample) and the results of this collision process are measured by a detector system. Clearly each of these three elements of the experiment must be up to the job – it is no good having a superb source and a poor detector or vice versa. Ideally, source, sample and detector must be matched to get the best out of the experiment. As often happens in experimental physics, advances in one element of the experiment stimulate advances in another. And the best experimentalists are often those who can deliver these advances in an imaginative way. We have already noted Rotblat’s work on the production of artificial radioactivity by high-energy neutrons that required improving the effective sensitivity of the

24

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

detector in order to obtain adequate results. Similarly, his work developing the coincidence counter on his arrival in Liverpool might be thought of as a response to the need to measure much shorter time intervals that was possible using the existing detector systems. In the early post-war period, Rotblat played a further key role in developing particle detector systems that were to make possible more sophisticated particle scattering experiments that the developing field and the more powerful accelerator sources made necessary. He was put in charge of a small panel, set up as a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Atomic Energy, to interact with the photographic companies to develop more efficient photographic emulsions for detecting particles. The originator of the use of photographic plates to detect elementary particles was Cecil Powell in Bristol, who had published a paper in 1939 that showed that photographic plates could be used to measure the energies of neutrons. Chadwick invited Powell to Liverpool, and a collaboration was set up which was to develop and exploit the use of photographic emulsions to detect and track not only neutrons but other nuclear particles as well. Realizing the potential of this detection technique from the work early in the war, on his return to Liverpool Rotblat decided to capitalize on the use of photographic emulsions and set up an organization to do this effectively. As a look at the published papers soon reveals, the work was tiring, intensive and extensive, entailing the microscopic measurement and appropriate correction of sometimes thousands of particle tracks for a single study. Clearly too much for a single observer: ‘‘some half a dozen ladies’’ were trained to make the measurements. Earlier work using photographic emulsion particle detection, including use in the critical experiments on uranium in 1940–41, had indicated the improvements that were needed on the emulsions. Under Rotblat’s chairing, the work of the emulsions panel resulted in these major improvements being realized. Working to a program outlined by the panel, Ilford and Kodak produced a number of different kinds of ‘‘nuclear research emulsions’’ to meet the different requirements of the experimental nuclear physics community. Offering a range of sensitivities and grain sizes to meet various demands, the photographic detection method became a standard experimental technique. Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

25

Rotblat’s hand can be seen also in the refinement of the use of the technique and in enhancing its reproducibility and reliability. Results could vary depending on whether there was significant water in the emulsion, there could be shrinkage on plate development, and in order to use the technique for reliable energy measurement, accurate calibration was needed of the relationship between track length and particle energy. Several of Rotblat’s postwar papers address apparently humdrum instrumental issues like these, but this kind of work was essential if the technique was to produce reliable results. His expertise in the technique is attested to by his writing a major review on the photoemulsion technique in 1950. Rotblat’s contribution to the development of emulsion detection was not however limited to the optimization of the emulsions themselves. The photographic plates had to be placed so as to intercept the beam of particles that is to be detected – in essence some sort of ‘‘camera’’ is needed in which to mount the film. The instrument or ‘‘camera’’ that was developed at Liverpool, and later improved for work on the Birmingham cyclotron, provided the workhorse for a range of important experiments in the 1950s. Although Rotblat’s published scientific output in terms of ‘‘hard core’’ nuclear physics was very limited during this period in Liverpool between 1945 and 1950, he was clearly active on the experimental front, as well as being effectively in charge of the laboratory’s research direction in the periodic absences of Chadwick. From Chadwick’s move to Cambridge in 1948 until the new department head took over in 1950, Rotblat was fully in charge of the research direction of the Liverpool laboratory. In September 1947, a conference on nuclear physics was held at Harwell, which ‘‘celebrated . . . the restarting of nuclear physics research in Britain after the war’’. Reports on research both in the UK and abroad were given, with Rotblat reporting on an extensive range of work at Liverpool, largely based on the (recently improved) cyclotron. These included elastic and inelastic collisions of protons, deuterons, and neutrons with a range of nuclei. This and other fundamental and new research was to see the light of day in a series of papers published between 1950 and 1952. The power of the photographic emulsion detection technique is clearly evident from these papers, which illustrate what was now possible in this developing field in

26

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

terms of measuring the energies of a range of different particles, cross-sections of nuclear processes, and, given certain model assumptions, obtaining information on spins and parities of different nuclear states. The whole field was growing, and Rotblat was at the heart of it.

Bart’s From the earliest days in Liverpool, the possible medical applications of nuclear physics had been recognized by both Rotblat and Chadwick. Some of Rotblat’s experiments at Liverpool had begun to explore specific medical possibilities. For example, he made what has been thought to be the first major step in nuclear medicine in the UK with the use in 1948 of radioiodine in the location of a thoracic goitre. The distribution of lead in an organism was studied using the photographic emulsion technique he was instrumental in optimizing. One of the earliest papers he authored from St. Bartholomew’s Medical School was very much a nuclear physics paper with strong medical implications – the use of nuclear emulsions to locate a radioactive atom by tracing the origin of the tracks emanating from it. Although his work at Bart’s focused on medical applications, he continued to be involved in fundamental nuclear physics for over a decade. The Liverpool work he had undertaken since returning from Los Alamos was published in the first three years of his time in London. He also worked collaboratively with others on the cyclotron in Birmingham. A series of fundamental nuclear physics papers on this latter work continued to be published between 1953 and 1964. The state of the field had by this time changed significantly, not only from his earliest days in Warsaw when the field was only just beginning to be charted, but also from the early days of the Liverpool cyclotron. The continued development of particle sources, detectors, and the arrival of computers enabled more complex problems to be addressed and sophisticated theoretical models of nuclear processes tested by precise experiments. The fundamental work he was involved in during this period covered a wide range of problems relating to nuclear interactions. Nuclear probes with low charges (for example protons, deuterons, 3 He and 4 He) could Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

27

come close enough to light nuclear targets to sample the potential due to nuclear forces. The experiments also used extensively the emulsion technique he had been instrumental in optimizing, as well as further improvements to the plate camera, which may have been one of the best of its kind in the early 1950s. Although this fundamental work was not central to his primary nuclear medicine interests of the time, he himself did consider this ‘‘systematic study of energy levels and other properties of nuclei, by the bombardment of various targets with high energy beams of protons, deuterons, 3 He and 4 He particles . . . and using the photographic emulsion technique’’ as another of his main achievements.

An End Note I met Rotblat first in 1997, and worked with him in Pugwash from late 1998 until his death. Then I knew little of the details of his scientific work, apart from a consciousness of that which was related to the bomb, but the sharpness and creativity of his mind was obvious and impressive from the first time we talked. Chadwick tried to prevent him from going to Bart’s to focus on medical applications, telling him that he would be a great loss to nuclear physics and would never become a Fellow of the Royal Society. Looking at the work he did even after leaving Liverpool, his contributions to nuclear physics continued to be significant. He was not lost to nuclear physics; rather he added the medical applications to his portfolio of work. And of course he was elected to the Royal Society, thus proving Chadwick wrong on both counts. On welcoming him to the Warsaw Radiological Laboratory in 1932, his mentor Wertenstein, commenting on the examination Rotblat had just taken and thought he had failed, told him that the examiner ‘‘was impressed by the originality of your reasoning’’. This originality was demonstrated throughout his life, from the early highly imaginative work under poor conditions in Warsaw (‘‘We had to compensate for the lack of facilities with ingenuity’’ – remember his borrowing nearly a kilogram of gold from the Bank of Poland!), through his scientific work in Liverpool, to his contributions to nuclear physics in the 1950s and early 1960s. His responsibilities in the Liverpool laboratory on returning from Los

28

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

Alamos were wider than pure science, and here again ‘‘the originality of your reasoning’’ resulted in advances in techniques that others have exploited and built upon. It also led him to imaginative solutions to constrained problems, perhaps illustrated rather nicely by his idea of locating the Liverpool synchrocyclotron in the crypt space of the then unbuilt Catholic cathedral. And this suggestion came from a citizen of a Catholic country! The originality of his reasoning was fully exploited also in his work within the Pugwash movement. ‘‘You should do well with us,’’ commented Wertenstein in that first interview. He certainly did do well with them. But he also did well with us all – whether we are nuclear physicists or citizens of the world.

Acknowledgments I thank Andrew Brown for his biography of James Chadwick (The Neutron and the Bomb, Oxford University Press, 1997) and for a copy of the transcript of his interview with Joseph Rotblat in 1994; John Holt for a copy of his reflections on Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool; Adrian Allan, Liverpool University Archivist for supplying copies of a number of documents relating to Joseph Rotblat’s years in Liverpool; Bill Toner for enlightening me on certain aspects of nuclear physics, discussions on the scattering camera, emulsion development and the Birmingham experiments; and University College London Library for help in providing copies of Joseph Rotblat’s scientific papers.

Joseph Rotblat: The Nuclear Physicist

29

Joseph Rotblat: Professor of Physics at Bart’s Hospital Medical School, 1949–19731) Christopher R. Hill

I know my physic will work with him. (Shakespeare, Twelfth Night) Physics had its origin, of course, as the science of medicine, and this relationship was greatly strengthened by discoveries in the late 19 th century, particularly those of x-rays and radioactivity. Remarkable progress in the science and application of x-rays, in particular, took place in the early years of the 20 th century but it was the impact of the 1939–45 war that stimulated a phenomenal investment in science and technology worldwide (of which the Manhattan Project was just a part), predominantly for military purposes but resulting also in potential applications in medicine. There was promise, in particular, in two areas of medical technology: reactorproduced radioisotopes offered exciting possibilities in what was to become known as ‘‘nuclear medicine’’, both as diagnostic tracers and for targeted cancer therapy; and particle accelerator technology opened the way to deep-penetration radiotherapy. During his years at Liverpool Rotblat’s research interests had turned in these directions, and it was a natural progression, in 1949, for him to be appointed professor of physics at the medical school of St Bartholomew’s Hospital, in London. Bart’s, as it is generally known, had a good record in this field. Rotblat’s predecessor, F. L. Hopwood, was well respected and, writing in his autobiography about his experience in the 1920s as a Bart’s surgeon learning the new art of radiotherapy, Geoffrey Keynes (brother of Maynard, the economist) remarks that: ‘‘. . . I gladly put myself in the hands of the physicists.’’ 1) Memoir for presentation at the Conference on the Life and Work of Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat, FRS; University of Liverpool, October 2006.

31

Rotblat’s reception, however, was not so warm. Although his appointment had been made jointly by the University of London and the hospital, it subsequently met with such objection amongst some senior medical staff that it became impossible, for several months, for him physically to move down from Liverpool. Whatever the reason behind this, it seems to have had a major influence on the pattern of his work at Bart’s, and on his subsequent professional career. In general, British medical physicists have had good working relationships with their clinical colleagues, particularly in radiotherapy and diagnostic radiology. It was, for instance, within weeks of Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays that the world’s first radiological society was founded, in London, as a joint society for scientists and clinicians, the British Institute of Radiology, of which Rotblat was subsequently a president. The political atmosphere was much more positive at some other London hospitals, such as the Royal Cancer Hospital (now Royal Marsden), where W. V. Mayneord had come, from Bart’s, in 1926, as professor of physics and had been able to build up a broad-based and substantially clinically oriented department. Thus, Rotblat may have been particularly unfortunate in his reception at Bart’s. A major part of his job there, as professor, was to teach physics to medical students, and to this activity he soon added what became a very successful Masters course for medical scientists. On the research and development side, undeterred by hospital problems, he built up work in two related directions. Prior to about 1950 cancer radiotherapy had to be carried out using either the mixed gamma rays from sources of radium or high-voltage x-rays, with which Bart’s had for long been one of the leaders. Back in the 1930s the Metropolitan Vickers company had developed, and installed at Bart’s, together with one of their engineers, George Innes, a therapy x-ray machine with the exceptionally high rating of 1 MV. Even this, however, could not satisfactorily treat deep-seated tumors without inflicting considerable damage to skin and overlying tissues. Some improvement came from using sources of reactor-produced cobalt-60 or caesium-137, but much better performance was in prospect from linear accelerators. At that stage, however, linear accelerators were somewhat idiosyncratic laboratory instruments, rather than the smart commercial products that they subsequently became. Bart’s acquired one of

32

Joseph Rotblat: Professor of Physics at Bart’s Hospital Medical School, 1949–1973

these early units – with a design that had an energy, very high for that time, of some 15 MeV. It was to be in clinical use during the day and Rotblat started work on the nightshift, together with Innes, studying the physics and dosimetry of the electron and x-ray beams that it could produce. Like many such pioneering projects, it produced useful scientific data but also a wealth of stories about the problems and calamities encountered on the way. Radiotherapy had for long been an art with only a somewhat tenuous scientific basis. It was this, together with growing concerns over the threat of nuclear weapons, that started Rotblat (together at that time with a number of others in the UK and internationally) in what became the second major interest of his Bart’s years – radiobiology. In this he was working with a close friend and colleague, Professor Patricia Lindop. Together with parallel studies with research students and others on aspects of radiation chemistry, this program resulted, over the period 1956–68, in some 30 archival journal publications. It is said (as, for example, in a flock of sheep) that the appropriate collective noun for professors is an absence. Although it would be unfair to imply that this applied particularly to Rotblat (indeed, he was reputed never to have missed a student lecture for which he was timetabled, and is still remembered by a contemporary hospital matron for the active professional oversight given to his radiotherapy patients), he had many outside interests and commitments, Pugwash being just one. In particular, the scientific journal Physics in Medicine and Biology grew up under his editorship to become the leading publication in the field. Through this, and his other, conscientiously undertaken professional activities, he became, over the last ten years of his professorship, one of the two or three leading figures in British medical physics. He was President, from 1971 to 1972, of the British Institute of Radiology, which was amongst the first to mark his exceptional talents, by the award, in 1990, of honorary membership.

Acknowledgments The author is grateful to Professors Jack Boag and Norman Kember for help in preparing this article. Joseph Rotblat: Professor of Physics at Bart’s Hospital Medical School, 1949–1973

33

Joseph Rotblat and Individual Responsibility Robert A. Hinde

It would be a mistake to distinguish Joseph Rotblat’s feelings about the responsibility of scientists from his feelings about responsibility in general. He was acutely conscious of the fact that we all live in a global community, and have responsibilities to others in all we do. However, his primary life-goal was to contribute to the abolition of nuclear weapons, and one naturally thinks of that first. He was one of the first to establish that a chain reaction could occur, and thus that a bomb of enormous destructive potential was possible. As one who had suffered as a child in Warsaw during World War I, and as a Pole whose country had been invaded by Nazi Germany in World War II, he realized that the Germans might make a bomb, and that the only certain counter to that would be possession of one or more bombs by the Allies. At the time he was working with Professor Chadwick in Liverpool, and with some hesitation he told Chadwick of his idea. Soon after that, as recorded elsewhere in this volume, both joined the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. Jo felt sure that the Nazis could recruit the scientific brain-power and acquire the materials to produce a bomb: the only way to prevent them using it was to threaten retaliation in kind, and it was therefore essential that the Allies should be able to make nuclear weapons. At that time deterrence seemed the only option, though later he saw that the deterrence idea is flawed. While working at Los Alamos, Jo heard General Groves, who was in charge of the Manhattan Project, say that the bomb was really intended as a counter to the Soviet Union. Jo was horrified by that remark, for the USSR was an ally, and had been suffering tremendous casualties on the eastern front. But his fear that the Germans would make one remained. Towards the end of 1944 infor-

35

mation from intelligence sources indicated that Germany was in no position to make a bomb and could not possibly do so before it was defeated. Rotblat immediately submitted his resignation: for him there was no longer any reason to make a weapon with such destructive power. It is easy to underestimate the bravery and unselfishness in that decision. His motives were suspected, and he was accused of being a spy on manufactured evidence – an accusation that he was fortunately able to refute. Eventually his resignation was accepted, but he was not allowed any further communication with his Los Alamos colleagues. All his personal papers mysteriously disappeared from a train when he was on his way back to England. He has described his horror when he learned that the bomb had been used against civilian targets in Japan. It is easy to ascribe the manner in which he devoted the rest of his life to research on the medical effects of radiation, to efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and later to eliminating war itself, to feelings of conscience resulting from his involvement in the invention of the bomb. That would be a very superficial view. But these were in fact the projects on which he focused most of his energies for the rest of his life, and his motivation was both moral and pragmatic. In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize he emphasized both the immorality of nuclear weapons and the need to abolish war if humankind was not to be extinguished: The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn to achieve it by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task.

The events that led to the signing of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, and the achievements of Pugwash behind the scenes during the Cold War, are described by Francesco Calogero in his chapter in this volume. But eliminating nuclear weapons and war were by no means the only areas in which he emphasized the responsibility of scientists. His disgust at the way in which the work of the Los Alamos scientists had been misused was generalized to the misuse of science in general, and to the responsibility of scientists not to pursue research along lines that would be to the detriment of hu-

36

Joseph Rotblat and Individual Responsibility

mankind. In an important paper, given in Rome to the Nobel Peace Laureates, he outlined the manner in which science had developed from the pursuit of gentlemen of leisure, of little practical importance, to a profession providing knowledge which might find application a very few days later. He was scornful of those ‘‘ivory tower’’ scientists who excused themselves by claiming that the application of their discoveries was no concern of theirs. Such attitudes are unreal: scientists are part of society and their work affects, and is affected by, the context in which they live. Instead he argued that scientists must endeavor to work for the benefit of humankind, and avoid research that might lead to harmful applications. ‘‘While the main purpose is to push forward the frontiers of knowledge, this pursuit should contain an element . . . of benefit to the human community.’’ Just because science now plays such a central role in modern society, and scientists understand the technical issues and problems of probabilistic interpretation so much better than politicians, administrators or other nonscientists, they must play a leading role in controlling science and its applications. Of course he recognized that there are strong arguments against any restrictions on research in pure science. Scientists should be allowed to pursue their own interests: that they should be able to do so is conducive to the progress of knowledge. Any advance in understanding the nature of the universe, or of ourselves, helps us to gain a more valid perspective on the nature of the world and of our place within it. The contributions of science to human welfare have been immense, and often unpredictable. But there is a difficulty in knowing where a given line of research would lead, and sometimes it is impossible to do so. Pure research on the nature of matter led to the atom bomb. Science has led to pollution of the environment, squandering of natural resources, and threats to the continued existence of the human species. But Jo argued that difficulties of prediction do not lessen the responsibility of the scientist to guide his research as best he can for the good of all. And the research in nuclear weapons laboratories he saw as a clear-cut case. Indeed he described the latter as not only immoral but also as a scandalous waste of resources, and launched a study on the conversion of the nuclear weapon laboratories into research on techniques for verifying nuclear weapon treaties and other peaceful purposes. Joseph Rotblat and Individual Responsibility

37

Indeed he sought not only for the abolition of nuclear weapons, but also of war itself. This was partly as the only certain way of eliminating nuclear weapons, but also because he was fully conscious of the horrors of war itself. He endured hardship and nearstarvation as a boy in Warsaw in World War I. His wife and nearly all his colleagues died in the nazi concentration camps of World War II. He saw war as an immoral and also an unpragmatic way of solving disputes. War could corrupt the whole of society. His concern over scientific research on nuclear weapons extended to weapons of every description. Joseph Rotblat foresaw that controlling the direction of scientific research would be no easy task. First, he felt, one should rely on the consciences of individual scientists. He was therefore a strong advocate for asking graduating scientists to take an oath that they would not engage in research potentially harmful to humankind. The form of words adopted by the Student/Young Pugwash movement in the USA is as follows: I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands made on me may be great, I sign this document because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace.

Some may feel that the unpredictability of the consequences of scientific research make such a pledge problematic, and it would be better phrased as a strong statement of intent. Be that as it may, such a statement can be meaningful only on the basis of some knowledge of ethics. Unfortunately, courses on ethics for scientists are conspicuous by their absence in most UK universities. Rotblat thought that they should be an intrinsic part of science education. But that in itself would be insufficient if more senior scientists were unaware of, or did not acknowledge, their own ethical responsibilities. For that purpose, national academies of science should have explicit references to ethical issues in their terms of reference. But human nature is fallible, and checks are necessary. Rotblat proposed that a system of ethical committees should be set up to vet applications relevant to human subjects, comparable to those

38

Joseph Rotblat and Individual Responsibility

already operating in the UK in the medical and social sciences. Ethical permission to carry out any research work should be obtained from a local ethical committee, and it should be necessary to obtain ethical approval from any funding body. In addition, journals should refuse to publish studies that do not satisfy ethical guidelines. Rotblat also advocated coordination between these committees by a national body, usually the academy of sciences, and internationally, perhaps by the International Council for Science (ICSU). Now that research is increasingly carried out by large teams of scientists, often financed by a government or large commercial enterprise, secrecy may surround what is actually going on. This is against the original purpose of the scientific enterprise, to push forward the boundaries of knowledge for the benefit of all humankind. New knowledge must be shared with other scientists that science may advance more efficiently. A scientist who sees that his work is not in the public interest is in a difficult position, for whistle-blowers can be severely penalized by the firm or government for revealing any malpractice. Joseph Rotblat sought to change this. He was deeply involved in the case of Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed that Israel was engaged in the clandestine manufacture of nuclear weapons. Vanunu has been imprisoned by the Israeli government for 18 years much of it in solitary confinement, and even now his movements are severely restricted. Rotblat was unsparing in his efforts to obtain his release or to improve the conditions in which he was kept. He made efforts at both the political and at the grassroots levels: he sat for many hours dressed in prison clothes in a mock-prison outside the Israeli Embassy in London as a demonstration. Rotblat’s concerns were not limited to control of the direction and the application of scientific research. He was deeply concerned with its conduct. He spoke out against the commercialization of science. Much research in universities is now financed by commercial bodies. In some ways, this is to the advantage of the scientists, the research, the universities, and one hopes the public. But it has a downside: adding a brick to the edifice of knowledge or the prosocial pursuit of knowledge for the common good can easily become less important as goals than financial gain. Furthermore, the direction of the research comes under the control of the commerJoseph Rotblat and Individual Responsibility

39

cial fund-giver, less concerned with ethical issues. In addition, fund-givers may insist that the results of the research are kept secret: for instance, pharmaceutical firms may fear that a rival will take advantage of knowledge that they have paid for and gain a commercial advantage. And beyond that, Rotblat abhorred the increasing practice of patenting the products of scientific research as contrary to one of the basic tenets of science – namely that new knowledge should be available to all. The practice of patenting is encouraged or even insisted upon by many universities, who may have a justifiable claim on profits from research carried out by their staff, but it may also result in exacting payment for the use of certain materials or technologies. Of course, secrecy is often imposed by scientists themselves to safeguard against other scientists stealing their ideas or techniques. This is related to an increasing emphasis on primacy in publication. Scientific recognition and scientific prizes tend to go to whoever is first past the post, however meritorious the work of others who later achieve the same results. Of course, it is almost inevitable that competition for recognition plays a role in scientific research, and no doubt it leads to the limits of our knowledge being advanced more rapidly. And no doubt the scientific academies play an important role in calling attention to the best research workers. But these issues again can pervert the course of science. Some of Rotblat’s goals seem almost too idealistic. Competition and financial rewards are now almost inseparable from scientific research. But their growing influence needs to be resisted, and it is essential that there be some who speak out against them. One must never abandon one’s goals because of difficulties that lie ahead. Joseph Rotblat’s attitude is encapsulated in an answer he gave, when nearing the end of his life, to being asked about his feelings about the continued existence, in spite of all his efforts, of nuclear weapons. He simply said: ‘‘Well, what is the alternative?’’ Jo Rotblat was a scientist, and I have focused on the responsibility of scientists. But, as Sandy Butcher’s letter in this volume shows, his feelings of responsibility went far beyond that. Indeed it would be true to say that feelings of responsibility governed nearly all that he did. When he came back to England to learn with near certainty that his wife had perished in a concentration camp, the first thing he did was to try to ensure the welfare of the rest of

40

Joseph Rotblat and Individual Responsibility

his family who were still in Poland. He found means to bring them to England, and helped them to become established there. Although he never re-married, his home in London became the center of family festivities. But this was not merely a matter of responsibility: the family gatherings are described by his nieces as full of happiness and love. Jo addressed the Nobel Peace Laureates on the question of morality in politics. This was triggered especially by the events leading up to the second Gulf War. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, he argued that Tony Blair should have resigned: In old-fashioned terms, that would have been the honourable thing to do. But he did not, and had no intention of doing so. He shrugged it off, and let ethics be damned.

He saw that the future lay in world governance, and saw that it is essential that the UN should be a truly independent body that could uphold international law. He cared passionately about the abolition of the death penalty, and addressed the Nobel Laureates about a young man then on death row in the USA. He saw education at every level in every country as an essential element in the route to peace and mutual understanding. In a radio program he used Paul Robeson singing ‘‘Ol Man River’’ to illustrate his philosophy of life, arguing that we master the forces of nature to our great benefit but also to our great peril. His sense of responsibility is encapsulated in the phrase from the Russell–Einstein Manifesto that he used so often: ‘‘Remember your humanity’’. But he saw responsibility to humankind not as an obligation, but as a matter of love.

Joseph Rotblat and Individual Responsibility

41

Joseph Rotblat and Peace David Krieger

Joseph Rotblat’s life spanned most of the 20 th century and directly influenced some of the great currents of war and peace in that century. There were three distinguishing aspects to Rotblat’s life that set him apart from other scientists and men of peace. First, he was the only scientist who chose to depart from the American atomic bomb project, the Manhattan Project, for reasons of conscience. Second, he was a guiding spirit to scientists working for a nuclear weapons-free world and an end to war. In doing so, he embodied the spirit of the 1955 Russell–Einstein Manifesto. Third, he spent most of his long life working for both the abolition of nuclear weapons and the abolition of war. He lived long enough to receive many honors for his efforts, including a knighthood and the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize, which he shared with the organization he helped found, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Rotblat was born in Warsaw, Poland in 1908. As a young boy he was deeply affected by his experience in World War I. He later described his early childhood as ‘‘a very unhappy one’’, due to the war.1) ‘‘My childhood was filled with the terrible things which happened during the war. My personal experience was of hunger and disease and cruelty and everything else which you can imagine that is negative about human nature, which shows itself in such a war. It’s not surprising that I am anti-war.’’2) He decided early in his life that he wanted to be a scientist in order ‘‘to use my science to help mankind’’.3) He explained, ‘‘from the very beginning I started not as a pure scientist just interested 1) Ernsting, Michele, ‘‘Building the Bomb: Michele Ernsting Interviews Joseph Rotblat’’, London: The Spokesman, 85, p. 10. 2) Ibid. 3) Ibid.

43

in knowledge; I also felt it should have a purpose as well and that purpose is to help mankind.’’4) Throughout his life Rotblat was guided by this approach to science. He sought to apply his scientific work to the benefit of humanity and became a strong advocate of the social responsibility of scientists. Rotblat remained in Warsaw until he was 30. By this time he had become a physicist and had received a fellowship from Liverpool University to work with Nobel Laureate James Chadwick. Just days before Hitler invaded Poland, Rotblat had come back to Warsaw to arrange for his wife to accompany him to Liverpool. As fate would have it, she had appendicitis and had to remain in Warsaw. Rotblat returned to Liverpool, and after the Nazi invasion of Poland was never able to contact his wife again. He presumed that she had perished in the Holocaust. He never remarried.

Working on the Bomb As a young physicist, Rotblat had come to the conclusion that the creation of an atomic bomb was possible. Additionally, he feared that it would be the Germans who would first succeed in creating this powerful weapon and that it would give them the ability to prevail in the coming war. Believing that the Germans were a threat to Europe and humanity, Rotblat thought that it was critical for the Allied powers to themselves develop an atomic weapon to deter the Germans from using such a weapon in warfare. At the time, he could not conceive of the Allies using the weapon for any reason other than deterring the Germans from using the weapon. Rotblat worked first for the British Maud Project and then came to Los Alamos to join the US Manhattan Project in 1944. Not long after arriving in Los Alamos, Rotblat was at a small dinner party at the home of James Chadwick, where he heard the director of the project, General Leslie Groves, state that the bomb was always meant to subdue the Soviets and was not for the Germans. Rotblat was shocked by what he heard, since at the time the Soviet Union was an ally working to defeat Hitler.

4) Ibid.

44

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

Rotblat later wrote: ‘‘It came as a terrible shock to me to hear what Groves said. I started work in order that the bomb should not be used, even against Germany, and here I am told that we are preparing to use it as a method of keeping the Russians subdued!’’5)

Resigning from the Manhattan Project By late 1944, Rotblat came to the conclusion that the Germans would not succeed in creating an atomic weapon, and made the decision to leave the project. He described his turning point in this way: ‘‘Chadwick, the head of the British mission went to Washington, but from time to time he would come to visit us in Los Alamos. One day in November 1944 he came to Los Alamos and he told me that he just received intelligence that the Germans had given up their (atomic) project. In fact, they gave it up a long time before, which we didn’t know. So, when he told me this, I had definite proof that the Germans were not working on this. I told him straight away, I’m leaving the project.’’6) Rotblat resigned from the Manhattan Project and returned to Liverpool, after a short stay with the Chadwicks in Washington. He left the project as a matter of conscience, in the conviction that there was no longer a reason to seek to create a weapon of this power. Rotblat would never work on atomic weapons again, and spent the remainder of his long life advocating to scientists and the public the need to abolish not only nuclear weapons but war itself. He heard about the destruction of Hiroshima on the BBC. He described his reaction: ‘‘Shock, fear. Oh it’s a terrible time because I still hoped. First of all, I thought maybe it wouldn’t work at all. Everything was pure speculation. There was a chance that it wouldn’t work, it wouldn’t be used against civilian populations. But they did. I was shocked. There was the fear about further developments.’’7) 5) Rotblat, Joseph, ‘‘An Allegiance to Humanity’’, Santa Barbara, CA: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Waging Peace Series, Booklet 39, June 1998, p. 8.

6) Ernsting, Michele, op. cit., p. 14. 7) Ernsting, op. cit., p. 15.

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

45

Shortly after the use of US atomic weapons against Japan, Rotblat took the lead in setting up the British Atomic Scientists Association (BASA). The society included atomic scientists who had played a role in the British and American bomb projects. It sought to stimulate debate through its journal, public statements and a traveling exhibition. The organization sought to be nonpolitical and included advisors covering the entire range of the political spectrum. It operated until 1959 with Rotblat as its leader. After returning to England, Rotblat was a lecturer and the director of research in nuclear physics at Liverpool University. He stayed in Liverpool until 1949, when he joined the staff at London University’s St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College. The following year he became professor of physics at St. Bartholomew’s, where he remained until 1976, working on the applications of nuclear physics to medicine.

The Russell–Einstein Manifesto In 1954, Rotblat was befriended by Lord Bertrand Russell, the famous mathematician and philosopher. Rotblat helped Russell launch one of the most important warnings and appeals of the 20 th century, the Russell–Einstein Manifesto. The Manifesto, which was released on July 9, 1955, was signed by Russell, Einstein and nine other prominent scientists, most of them Nobel Laureates. Rotblat was the youngest of the signers, and for the remainder of his life it was he who most fervently carried forward the spirit of the Manifesto. The Manifesto was a moral appeal to scientists everywhere to take the lead in confronting the new dangers of the Nuclear Age. It began, ‘‘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.’’8) The Manifesto asked people to set aside their affiliations to nationality and ideology and consider themselves ‘‘only 8) ‘‘The Russell–Einstein Manifesto’’ in Krieger, David (Ed.), Hope in a Dark Time, Santa Barbara, CA: Capra Press, 2003, p. 239.

46

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.’’ 9) After setting forth the serious risks posed by nuclear weapons and calling for the renunciation and abolition of war, the Manifesto concluded: ‘‘There lies before us, if we chose, 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.’’10) Throughout his life, Rotblat would continually return to the theme of remembering our humanity. When he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 at the age of 87, he would title his Nobel Lecture, ‘‘Remember Your Humanity,’’11) and would quote the final passage of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto. The concluding words of his Nobel Lecture were, ‘‘Above all, remember your humanity.’’12) Two years later, in receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, he would elaborate on the idea of an allegiance to humanity: ‘‘I think it is our duty, all of us, not just the scientists, but all of us – and in particular the young – to see to it that humankind continues. We owe a duty to our forefathers, to the past generations who bequeathed to us the enormous riches that we have in the world. In turn, we have to be able to pass on the duty to the young people. You should ensure that the next generations, your children and your grandchildren, will be able to follow, perhaps even enhance, these cultural riches. We owe an allegiance to humanity.’’13) The Pugwash Conferences The Russell–Einstein Manifesto led to an offer by Canadian– American industrialist Cyrus Eaton to convene a meeting of scien9) Ibid. 10) ‘‘The Russell–Einstein Manifesto’’, op. cit., p. 242. 11) Rotblat, Joseph, ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’, The Nobel Lecture given by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1995 Joseph Rotblat, Stockholm: The Nobel Foundation, 1995.

12) Rotblat, ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 12. 13) Rotblat, ‘‘An Allegiance to Humanity’’, op. cit., pp. 9–10.

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

47

tists from East and West in the small village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia. Rotblat organized the initial meeting of 22 eminent scientists who gathered to discuss a way out of the dangerous circumstances in which humanity found itself. It was the beginning of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs that continue through today. In 1995, forty years after its founding, the Pugwash Conferences would share the Nobel Peace Prize with its leading light, Joseph Rotblat. Rotblat would serve as the Secretary-General of Pugwash from 1957 until 1973, as chairman of the British Pugwash group from 1978 to 1988, and as president of Pugwash worldwide from 1988 to 1997. Throughout his life, he would inspire his colleagues, as the guiding conscience of the organization. Believing that most of the dangers in the world, and particularly nuclear weapons, resulted from the work of scientists, he continually exhorted scientists to make moral decisions for the good of humanity. Rotblat believed deeply in the social responsibility of scientists, and he led by example, beginning with his departure from the Manhattan Project when he realized that there was no need to create a nuclear weapon to deter a German nuclear weapon. He devoted his scientific work thereafter to finding lifesaving medical applications for nuclear science. He helped found a number of important scientific organizations, including the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which worked for peace and the social responsibility of scientists. He devoted himself to these organizations throughout his life.

A Philosophy of Peace Joseph Rotblat’s remarkable legacy flows from his distinguished and exemplary life dedicated to building a more peaceful world. His views were shaped by the two world wars of the 20 th century. World War I, which he experienced as a child, resulted in his family’s bankruptcy. He watched the rise of Hitler to power, and his initiation of World War II, which resulted in catastrophic losses of life throughout Europe, including the tragic death of his wife in Poland. World War II also created for Rotblat a unique moral dilemma in which he first worked to create an atomic weapon to

48

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

deter the Germans from using a similar weapon, and then chose to leave the US bomb project for reasons of conscience. Out of his life experiences, he forged a philosophy of peace. Much of his philosophy carried on the spirit of the Russell– Einstein Manifesto, but it went beyond this as well. I have used some key statements from his speeches and writings to provide an overview of this philosophy.

The Human Species is Endangered For Rotblat, the potential destruction of the human species was an unbearable possibility, but one that he recognized had become real. ‘‘We cannot bear the thought that human life can disappear from the planet, least of all, by the action of man,’’14) he wrote. ‘‘And yet the impossible, the unimaginable, has now become possible. The future existence of the human species can no longer be guaranteed. The human species is now an endangered species.’’15) In the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Rotblat recognized that the human species faced the prospect of annihilation by tools of its own making. He wrote, ‘‘The destruction of these cities heralded a new age, the Nuclear Age. The main characteristic of that age is that for the first time in our history we have acquired the technical means to bring the whole of the human race to an end in a single act.’’16) It was the understanding that nuclear weapons endangered the continuation of the human species and that science had played a significant role in creating this situation that gave Rotblat the impetus to work for peace. He began his Nobel Lecture by stating: ‘‘At this momentous event in my life – the acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize – I want to speak as a scientist, but also as a human being. From my earliest days I had a passion for science. But science, the exercise of the supreme power of the human intellect, was always linked in my mind with benefit to people. I saw science as being in harmony with humanity. I did not imagine that the sec14) Rotblat, ‘‘An Allegiance to Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 3. 15) Ibid. 16) Rotblat, ‘‘An Allegiance to Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 4. Joseph Rotblat and Peace

49

ond half of my life would be spent on efforts to avert a mortal danger to humanity created by science.’’17) Indeed, Rotblat did spend more than half his life speaking for peace, becoming a respected voice advocating the abolition of nuclear weapons and of war as an institution.

The Need to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Rotblat was a strong advocate of abolishing all nuclear weapons. He found that ‘‘there is no evidence that a world without nuclear weapons would be a dangerous world. On the contrary,’’ he stated, ‘‘it would be a safer world . . .’’18) He used his powerful intellect to reason away the arguments for keeping nuclear weapons. ‘‘We are told,’’ he said, ‘‘that the possession of nuclear weapons – in some cases even the testing of these weapons – is essential for national security. But this argument can be made by other countries as well. If the militarily most powerful – and least threatened – states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy of disaster. To prevent this disaster – for the sake of humanity – we must get rid of all nuclear weapons.’’19) He recognized that ridding the world of nuclear weapons would take time, but was uncompromising in his view that this was an essential goal for humanity.

The Need to Abolish War While a firm advocate of eliminating nuclear weapons, Rotblat believed this did not go far enough. He also advocated the abolition of war. The roots for this position were articulated in the Russell– Einstein Manifesto, which Rotblat had signed in 1955. The Manifesto stated: ‘‘Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the hu17) Rotblat, ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 1. 18) Rotblat, ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 5. 19) Ibid.

50

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

man race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.’’20) Rotblat reasoned in his Nobel Lecture: ‘‘I have argued that we must eliminate nuclear weapons. While this would remove the immediate threat, it will not provide permanent security. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. The knowledge of how to make them cannot be erased. Even in a nuclear-weapons-free world, should any of the great powers become involved in a military confrontation, they would be tempted to rebuild their nuclear arsenals. That would still be a better situation than the one we have now, because the rebuilding would take a considerable time, and in that time the dispute might be settled. A nuclear-weapon-free world would be safer than the present one. But the danger of the ultimate catastrophe would still be there.’’21) His logic led him to the conclusion: ‘‘The only way to prevent it 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.’’22) Rotblat believed that human survival demanded the elimination of war as well as the elimination of nuclear weapons. He advocated both as necessary steps to assure a human future.

An Allegiance to Humanity Rotblat saw allegiance to humanity as a means to get beyond war. One way of bringing war to an end was to achieve this broader identification with and allegiance to humanity. ‘‘When it comes to security, for example,’’ he wrote, ‘‘we think in terms of our own nation. We must be armed and prepared if we are attacked by another nation. These days, any war could escalate and bring about the death of all nations including our own; therefore, this is not the proper way of thinking about security.’’23) He continued: ‘‘We must develop in ourselves a new feeling, a feeling of belonging to humankind, a new loyalty, a loyalty to the 20) 21) 22) 23)

‘‘The Russell–Einstein Manifesto’’, op. cit., p. 241. Rotblat, Joseph, ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 10. Ibid. Rotblat, ‘‘An Allegiance to Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 11. Joseph Rotblat and Peace

51

human species. In doing this, I’m not suggesting that you should abandon loyalty to your nation. Each of us has a number of loyalties. We have loyalty to our family first, then a loyalty to a small community, and so on until you come to loyalty to the nation. This is where it ends now. What I am saying is that now you add another, a much larger circle of loyalty, to humankind. I think this is essential if we are to survive.’’24) Rotblat saw allegiance to humanity as a means to achieve the goal of a world without war and thus assure human survival. He believed that education to create a culture of peace was needed for individuals to develop an allegiance to humanity.

The Importance of a Culture of Peace Rotblat was well aware of the extent to which modern civilization followed the Roman dictum, Si vis pacem, para bellum – If you want peace, prepare for war. He advocated changing the dictum to Si vis pacem, para pacem – If you want peace, prepare for peace. He believed that ‘‘[t]his is the only way to secure our future.’’ 25) He concluded his Nobel Lecture by calling for a war-free world. He then added these poetic lines: ‘‘But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task.’’26)

The Special Responsibility of Scientists Rotblat believed that scientists have a special responsibility to work for peace. In reflecting upon the importance of developing an allegiance to humanity, he argued, ‘‘Nurturing such an allegiance is the duty of each of us, for every citizen, but the duty falls especially 24) Ibid. 25) Ibid. 26) Rotblat, ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 12.

52

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

heavily on the scientists because the main threat to humanity is likely to arise from the work of scientists.’’27) He called for a Hippocratic Oath for scientists to accept individual responsibility for how they used their training and talents. He wrote, ‘‘I acknowledge that any limitation on the scientist’s freedom will be strongly resisted. Every scientist has to realize that he or she is first of all a citizen; and that the interests of the world community must be paramount. In any case, if scientists do not put their house in order themselves it will be enforced on them by the state of popular demand.’’28) In his Nobel Lecture, Rotblat quoted with approval the statement made by Hans Bethe on the 50 th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. Bethe, a Nobel Laureate who had been a senior Manhattan Project scientist, called upon ‘‘all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons – and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.’’29) Rotblat commented on the Bethe statement: ‘‘If all scientists heeded this call there would be no more new nuclear warheads; no French scientists at Mururoa; no new chemical and biological poisons. The arms race would be truly over.’’30)

Never Give Up During Joseph Rotblat’s long life he demonstrated his ongoing commitment to creating a peaceful world. He was persistent in writing, lecturing and organizing scientists to work for peace. I was present with him on the occasion of his 90 th birthday, which he celebrated in San Francisco at a meeting of the State of the World Forum. He stood before a large audience and said, ‘‘My short-term goal is the abolition of nuclear weapons, and my longterm goal is the abolition of war.’’ At the age of 90, he was model-

27) 28) 29) 30)

Rotblat, ‘‘An Allegiance to Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 17. Rotblat, ‘‘An Allegiance to Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 18. Rotblat, ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’, op. cit., p. 8. Ibid. Joseph Rotblat and Peace

53

ing for those who would follow him the importance of never giving up.

Conclusions Joseph Rotblat’s life was shaped by the world in which he lived, but he also helped to shape this world. He was able to follow his passion for science, but he followed it only so far as his conscience allowed. He was initially able to justify his work in creating an atomic weapon because of the threat of the Germans developing such a weapon, but when he was convinced that the Germans would not do so, he ceased his work on the bomb. He then worked persistently and diligently to end the nuclear weapons threat to life on our planet. Rotblat was a scientist, but above all he was a human being with responsibilities to other human beings – past, present and future. For Rotblat, morality was key. In one of his final written statements, he sent an Appeal to the delegates to the 2005 NonProliferation Treaty Review Conference. In this Appeal, he sounded a theme that had guided his life. ‘‘Morality,’’ he wrote, ‘‘is at the core of the nuclear issue: are we going to base our world on a culture of peace or on a culture of violence? Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral: their action is indiscriminate, affecting civilians as well as military, innocents and aggressors alike, killing people alive now and generations yet unborn. And the consequences of their use might be to bring the human race to an end. All this makes nuclear weapons an unacceptable instrument for maintaining peace in the world.’’31) In addition to morality, there are other aspects to his character that made possible his life in the pursuit of peace. He was willing to stand apart and forge his own path, not allowing himself to follow the herd or to take the path of least resistance. He thought for himself and reached his own conclusions. In doing so, he applied his logical mind and powerful intellect to the great issues of our 31) Rotblat, Joseph, ‘‘An Appeal to Delegates to the Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’’, United Nations Headquarters, May 2–27, 2005, New York, USA.

54

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

time. He spoke directly and honestly to those who would listen. His integrity was unimpeachable. He was also persistent in his advocacy. He demonstrated by his many activities for peace that his was a long-term commitment, a commitment for life. Finally, he was good-hearted and generous with his warm and embracing smile. Rotblat was one of only a small number of scientists in modern times to be honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, an honor he richly deserved. He stands with such other great scientists and peacemakers as Linus Pauling and Andrei Sakharov. Rotblat was a powerful voice of conscience in a world endangered by the intertwined forces of science and militarism. Joseph Rotblat carried the message of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto with him throughout his life. It was his guiding light and he became its greatest proponent. His enduring message, which for him was the cornerstone on which the edifice of peace could be built, was quite simple: ‘‘Remember your humanity.’’ He believed that if we could begin by doing this one thing, we could end the nuclear threat to all life and build a culture of peace.

Joseph Rotblat and Peace

55

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences Francesco Calogero

I have been asked by the editors of this book to contribute some reminiscences of my interactions with Joseph Rotblat, as they occurred through our involvement in Pugwash. I agreed with pleasure, underlining the very personal character of these bits of memoirs. To his friends Joseph Rotblat was known as Jo (not Joe: he disliked this American spelling of his abbreviated name), and I will therefore refer hereafter to him in this fashion, even though I began to use this confidential nickname only after having known him for many years, when the difference between our ages (over 26 years) became less significant. Presumably (I can never fully rely on my memory, especially regarding dates) the first time I met Jo was in April 1965, at the 14 th Annual Pugwash Conference in Venice. This was the first Pugwash meeting I attended (and helped in a very minor way to organize). My interest in nuclear weapon matters had received a major boost from my chance presence in Washington – during a weekend tourist trip from Princeton – just at the peak of the Cuban missile crisis (October 1962). As a consequence I had committed myself to divert thereafter some of my time from scientific research in theoretical physics, which constitutes the primary focus of my intellectual activity, to acquire some competence in the issues of arms control and disarmament, especially concerning nuclear weapons. Returning from the USA to Italy in the summer 1963, I had mentioned this decision to Edoardo Amaldi, who had been my teacher when I was a student at Rome University and of whom I was to become a very junior colleague. Amaldi was then the senior scientist in Italy – indeed one of the senior scientists in Europe and in the world – and was himself very committed to nuclear disarmament. He of course knew Jo well, and was actually serving as member of

57

the Continuing Committee, as the Governing Board of International Pugwash was then called. At that time Jo was SecretaryGeneral of International Pugwash. Attendance to that 1965 Annual Pugwash Conference was the first opportunity for me to get in touch with colleagues who shared my concerns. Most of them – coming from all over the world, including East Europe and the Soviet Union – were more senior than myself. I thereby got my first experience of the Pugwash approach, which seemed to provide some leverage – even for a single individual such as me – to influence decisions that might affect the very survival of our civilization. Jo, who as Secretary-General had the main responsibility of running that Pugwash conference, was always a very friendly mentor, especially for junior participants, and went out of his way to help them overcome the timidity that was a natural consequence of finding themselves discussing serious world issues with personalities – some of them very eminent scientists – who might be going to influence decision-makers in their countries and worldwide. In 1972 I began my (as yet uninterrupted) service as member of the Pugwash Council. Amaldi had resigned to cut down his international travels in order to spend more time with his wife Ginestra, who had been physically (but not mentally) handicapped as a consequence of a cerebral hemorrhage. The membership of the Pugwash Council was then apportioned on a geopolitical basis, with a substantial representation of Western Europe – although in principle, according to the standard rules of Pugwash, every member was always supposed to represent only himself or herself. No seat was specifically allocated to Italy; but it was somehow natural that another Italian should replace Amaldi. I was the natural candidate, having collaborated closely with Amaldi on these matters: for instance, during the political debate that raged in Italy over the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) an interview by Amaldi and me made the front page in a major Italian newspaper (La Stampa, February 24, 1967). Since that time my interactions with Jo became rather frequent; and much more so when I served (1989–97) as Secretary-General of Pugwash and then as Chair of the Pugwash Council (1997– 2002). The rest of this contribution will be an unsystematic caval-

58

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

cade through some of these events, presented as a collection of vignettes. When I became Secretary-General I indicated my unwillingness to take care of maintaining an updated record of the participants in Pugwash meetings, and especially to edit the special issue of the Pugwash Newsletter that traditionally reported, every five years, a detailed record of all previous Pugwash events, including a list of all individuals who had attended these events and who therefore constituted, by definition, the membership of Pugwash. Jo volunteered to take on this cumbersome job himself, and continued to do it essentially until the end of his life. This was consistent with his selfimposed task to serve as historian of Pugwash: for instance the July 1997 issue of the Pugwash Newsletter – edited by Jo – bears the title The Eighth Pugwash Quinquennium, 1992–1997, and the subtitle Fifth Supplement to the History of the Pugwash Conferences. Putting all this material together was a really heavy task, and the willingness of Jo to make this effort is one more witness of his dedication to Pugwash, and as well of his generosity in coming to my help. As a hint of the meticulous care with which he carried it out I quote here the note on pagination that he appended to this issue. It reads: ‘‘This issue – as No. 2, volume 34 of the Pugwash Newsletter – should have started with page 73 and ended on page 196. However, this is a special edition, which should stand on its own, and be distinct from the other issues of the Newsletter. For this reason it is given a separate pagination, from 1 to 124. The next issue of the Newsletter, No. 3 volume 34, will start from page 197.’’ This meticulous care at keeping records was also, presumably, part of his professional training as an experimental nuclear physicist, and was consistent with his well-ordered forma mentis, including his phenomenal memory at recalling events, dates and individuals. And this episode provides an indication of the importance Jo always gave to what might be considered the institutional aspect of Pugwash, including the precise identification of the Pugwash membership – defined as it was by the fact of having attended at least one international Pugwash meeting, after having received a personal invitation issued by the Secretary-General on behalf of the Pugwash Council. Incidentally, the availability of this document, which – among a lot of other information – listed, for every Pugwashite, all the meetRotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

59

ings he or she had attended, made it quite easy to identify the individuals who had attended the largest number of Pugwash meetings to date. Jo held the record, and liked half-seriously to boast of it, for he had attended all Annual Pugwash Conferences, and was quite sorry to break it in the very last year of his life. He probably also held to the end of his life the record for having attended the largest number of international Pugwash meetings, including conferences, workshops and symposia. Over time Jo and I came to know each other quite well. For one thing we were both early risers, and at the innumerable meetings we both attended we generally met at breakfast before anybody else showed up. And of course – especially when I served as SecretaryGeneral of Pugwash, and he was running the London office and then also served as President of Pugwash – we talked to each other by telephone almost every day. We also, occasionally, disagreed. In particular, soon after I took over from Martin Kaplan as Secretary-General of Pugwash, I had to clarify to what extent my responsibility of running the Pugwash operation could be carried out independently from Jo’s oversight – which was rather detailed, although at that time Jo was not a Pugwash official (there were four such formal positions then: the President, the Chair of the Pugwash Council, the Chair of the Executive Committee, and the Secretary-General; Jo was of course always a member of the Pugwash Council). At one point we exchanged many messages by fax to clarify the situation – we preferred to make such exchanges in writing to avoid the possible emotional impact of impromptu dialogues; but because we wished to keep this discussion completely private – including the very fact we were having it – we managed every time to send and receive the faxes personally. To give a glimpse of the character of our exchanges I seem to remember that at one point I wrote him that his attitude to the SecretaryGeneral of Pugwash was analogous to that of a mother towards the wife of her much beloved son: sympathetic to begin with, but . . . ! Anyway our reciprocal misgivings were quickly clarified; indeed I believe we even managed to do so without anybody else being much aware of them. Our differences were indeed minor, because our overall look on life – including ideologies and political opinions, and also our conceptions of what Pugwash was all about – was remarkably similar.

60

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

It was only much later – during the last few years – that our views on Pugwash tended to diverge a bit: Jo becoming more and more convinced of the importance for Pugwash to ‘‘go public’’ and thereby try and reach public opinions at large rather than relying primarily on its traditional methodology to try and influence decision-makers via scientific and intellectual elites. (Incidentally, this intellectual trajectory of Jo was quite analogous to that which his mentor, Bertrand Russell, had gone through much earlier.) Anyway, on a personal level, I came to greatly appreciate, and admire, the human qualities of Jo. He was firm but never stubborn – provided one could convince him, he would change his mind. Convincing him was far from easy, because his opinions were usually arrived at after much thought; yet not impossible, because he had a great capacity to keep an open mind and listen to others. He was of course completely committed to his ultimate goals: the short term one – as he used to say – of eliminating nuclear weapons, and the long term one of eliminating war as a means of settling political disputes. In this context his dedication was total, but did not make a fanatic of him. He was naturally friendly, extraordinarily faithful to friends, open minded with all interlocutors and even quite patient with fools, and extraordinarily fond of junior colleagues and younger acquaintances. When I proposed that he should be the Pugwash Council member acting as liaison among Council and Student/Young Pugwash he accepted with enthusiasm, and after Council confirmed this appointment Jo served in this ‘‘official’’ capacity for many years. Going back to our joint involvement in the running of Pugwash during the period when I served as Secretary-General and he managed the London office, I remember that he never would take any initiative concerning Pugwash – including trivial matters of an organizational nature – without asking my advice and consent – which I would invariably give, since his suggestions were always eminently reasonable. Indeed he was so careful in striving to minimize the costs involved in the running of the London office, that in many cases I was the one advocating that he make some expense – in spite of the difficulty of balancing the Pugwash budget, which was of course my responsibility. For instance I remember that the very first administrative decision I had to make immediately after being appointed Secretary-General – before beginning Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

61

to organize a Pugwash office in Rome – was whether or not to make the major investment of buying a fax machine for the London office. Jo was doubtful that installing this new technological tool (this was only 17 years ago, yet before e-mail) was really affordable for Pugwash: of course I told him to go ahead! One important initiative of Jo was to organize the writing and publication, in 1993, of the Pugwash book A Nuclear-Weapon Free World: Desirable? Feasible? This multi-authored monograph was edited by him together with Jack Steinberger and Bhal Udgaonkar, but I think it is fair to say that it was mainly his doing – greatly helped by Frank Blackaby, who acted as technical editor. [This project was, in some sense, the follow-up of a previous, quite successful, Pugwash project, that culminated in the publication, two years earlier (1991), of another multi-authored monograph entitled Verification: Monitoring Disarmament, edited by Marvin Goldberger, Sergei Kapitza and myself. Indeed a chapter of that book, coauthored by Jo and Vitalii Goldanskii, is entitled ‘‘The elimination of nuclear arsenals: Is it desirable? Is it feasible?’’.] When we first discussed this project I suggested to Jo that it might be preferable to treat the elimination of nuclear weapons as an issue to be discussed rather than merely advocated. Jo agreed and, perhaps as a result of this discussion, the subsequent project – spearheaded by Jo, and focused just on this issue – took its final form, resulting in a book which – thanks to its very title, stressing argumentation rather than advocacy, and especially to its eminent contributors, many of them not identifiable as ‘‘a priori peaceniks’’ – did eventually play a significant role in putting the idea of the elimination of nuclear weapons back where it belongs: as a strategy to be examined and pursued within the context of the real world, rather than wishfully advocated as a goal without much concern about how realistically to get there. Presumably it also influenced public opinions at large: soon this book was translated and published in Arabic, Chinese, French, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Swedish. When Jo decided to abandon the Manhattan Project because Germany was essentially defeated and therefore the concern that German scientists might develop nuclear weapons had vanished – and it was that concern that had provided his main self-justification for taking part in a project aimed at developing weapons of indis-

62

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

criminate killing – he suffered much discrimination; some went so far as to consider him a potential traitor. This discrimination became even more virulent from some quarters when he took the role of whistle-blower by advertising the dangers due to the radioactive fallout caused by nuclear weapon testing in and above the atmosphere. Of course in doing this he never revealed classified data of which he had become privy while working on nuclear weapons. And he never distorted the scientific evidence – indeed he never hesitated to contradict claims, made by those who opposed nuclear weapon testing, that he considered to be exaggerated on the basis of his scientific competence about the effects of radiation on humans. His competence concerning the effects of radiation was indeed substantial: after abandoning active research in nuclear physics to concentrate on the study of the effects of radiation he had become a world authority in that field. Perhaps for this reason, throughout his life Jo was very sensitive to the plight of whistle-blowers, individuals who had taken upon themselves the task of informing the public on matters which the authorities wanted to keep secret, and were punished as a consequence. For instance he was active in trying to intervene with the Israeli authorities in order to alleviate the plight of Mordechai Vanunu, who had been sentenced to 18 years in jail for having publicized information on the Israeli nuclear weapon project – motivated by his wish that this issue be openly debated in Israel. I also tried to intervene through the Italian authorities on behalf of Vanunu, who had been kidnapped in Italy by Mossad in violation of his legal rights and of Italian and international law. But neither Jo nor I had any success, except to the extent that Jo’s public pronouncements on this issue – which he even mentioned in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech – together with public interventions by others – were perhaps instrumental in convincing the Israeli authorities to overcome the concerns raised by some within the Israel security circle and allow Vanunu to leave jail after he had served his entire 18-year sentence and live at home – on condition that he keep a low profile. But he, on the basis of security considerations, has not yet been allowed to travel abroad. Jo was a hard-working and energetic person, as everyone who collaborated with him on any project well knows – since he ex-

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

63

pected others to keep up with his working pace and with his respect for deadlines, not to mention his extreme standards of meticulous precision. Indeed, even keeping up with his walking pace was quite a challenge for me, in spite of the 26-year age differential in my favor. But he was also quite able to enjoy life; indeed he could become the focus of a party by telling jokes, of which he had always a good stock ready. He took elegant advantage of his store of jokes in his ceremonial functions as President of Pugwash, which he always performed with extreme grace and wit. In July 1985 the Annual Pugwash Conference took place in Campinas, Brazil. Jo asked me if I was interested in a brief tourist trip after the conference, with two other friends, Patricia Lindop and Klaus Gottstein. Patricia – who had been his junior colleague both professionally and also in Pugwash (she served as Assistant Secretary-General when he was Secretary-General) – was then recovering from a serious stroke: she could only move in a wheelchair and her speech was somewhat impaired, but she was very cheerful. Indeed, the very idea of this tour had probably been conceived by Jo in order to contribute to her recovery, which was likely to be accelerated by challenging activities. I have fond memories of that trip. We first flew to Belo Horizonte, where we took part in a large meeting of the Brazilian Association for the Advancement of Science, an important institution who had played a significant role in opposing the Brazilian military’s project to start a nuclear weapon program. Then we rented two cars (presumably a car large enough to fit all of us and our luggage, including the wheelchair, was not available), and we were on the road. The drivers were Klaus and me (Jo was considered a most unreliable driver), so Patricia went with me, Jo with Klaus. Patricia was making good progress in recovering her speech ability, and I was very careful to wait for her sentences to be completed rather than yielding to the temptation to help her out by finishing them myself. The cars were fuelled by bio-alcohol, which was then used widely in Brazil; it worked well, except that sometimes getting the cars started was difficult. I remember one circumstance in which we appeared to be stuck on the road. The three male members of the party – Jo, Klaus and me, all three physicists, indeed two of them experimenters – seemed quite unable to cope, while Patricia – a professor of medicine – was the only one who knew how to manage. In spite

64

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

of her difficulty in communicating, she instructed us on how to get the cars going. Our main goal was to visit Ouro Pretto, a magnificent small city which developed in a short time when gold was discovered there, with many magnificent churches financed by miners who had suddenly become very rich. The development was frozen when the gold mines became suddenly inactive, so what has remained is a kind of museum of quite striking baroque architecture. The entire trip, which must have lasted several days, was rather adventurous – tourism was not yet quite developed, there were no fancy hotels around – and most enjoyable, although I now have only a confused recollection of it: I wonder if I will ever have a chance to read the day-to-day account of those days that Klaus was writing every evening (most nights we shared a room), consistently with his remarkable habit of keeping a day-to-day diary throughout his adult life. Friday October 13, 1995, just a few minutes before 11:00 am, I was in the Rome Pugwash office and got a phone call from Jo who was in the London office. He had just received a phone call from Oslo informing him that he, and Pugwash, had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I knew that Pugwash had been a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize several times, but I was not paying any attention to this matter; indeed, I was quite unaware that that day, at 11:00 am, the name of the Nobel Prize recipient would be announced in Oslo in front of a crowd of journalists who would immediately spread the news worldwide. Of course the journalists would try to find as much information about the recipients as possible as quickly as possible, and convey this information to their public, be they readers of newspapers or viewers of televisions. Jo had been instructed not to tell anybody else before 11:00 am Oslo time, but he wisely took the initiative to inform me; he then went for a short walk to collect his thoughts, understanding – as he later told me – that this event was going to have a major impact on the rest of his life (he was then 87); and maybe he also told Patricia, as the person he felt personally closer with (she was still in a wheelchair, due to an unfortunate setback in her recovery). Immediately after 11:00 am the telephone in the London Pugwash office began to ring, and then a stream of reporters came in person: Jo spent the entire day giving interviews, by the evening he had become completely hoarse and could only whisper. Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

65

The impact of that news in England was particularly strong, because an expectation had been built up that the Nobel Peace Prize might be awarded to Prime Minister John Major in connection with the progress recently made in ending the strife in Northern Ireland. In fact the annual meeting of the Conservative Party was ending that day, and the concluding speech by Major had been scheduled to take place just after 10:00 am (corresponding to 11:00 am in Oslo: presumably the temporal coincidence of this schedule with that of the Oslo announcement was not by chance). Legend has it that three different versions of his speech had been prepared for Major, one to be delivered if the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to him alone, another if the Prize was awarded jointly to him and somebody else (possibly his counterpart in the final negotiation, John Adams). He had to deliver the third version, which contained no mention at all of the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed – perhaps because of this circumstance – the initial official reaction in Great Britain was rather cold – even though it was unusual for a Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to a British citizen, as Jo had been for the last half-century. Eventually the official position of the British government changed, and one of the various satellite events in Oslo around the canonical day of the ceremony – December 10, the anniversary of the passing away of Alfred Nobel – was a lunch organized by the British ambassador in Oslo, at which Jo was the guest of honor. In Rome I was also the target of quite a few phone calls and requests for interviews, although on a lesser scale: few knew much about Pugwash, including who was its Secretary General and the existence of a Pugwash office in Rome. For some reason the only television reporter who did show up rather soon with her crew was a Brazilian lady who happened to be in Rome in connection with some fashion show and who had been instructed by her headquarters in Brazil to interview me: she was of course rather unprepared for this assignment, which was quite orthogonal to her professional competence, and seemed to be mainly interested and probably quite amused by my quite unprofessorial attire – as I remember, I wore a red T-shirt, having been caught completely unawares by the event. As it happens, it was the first time that the Nobel Peace Prize had been jointly awarded to an individual and an institution; and

66

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

– in my opinion quite understandably – the interest of journalists and the public focused – immediately and thereafter – rather on the individual than on the institution. Indeed Pugwash’s way of staying out of the limelight essentially persisted – not by deliberate choice, although this feature had in my opinion been and remained instrumental for the effectiveness of Pugwash. Keeping out of the public eye facilitated the involvement in our activities of eminent and influential individuals with a plurality of views who might shy away from participating in a more compromising context, because of a justified concern that they would thereby lose their own leverage to influence events. Indeed Pugwash – even after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize – continued to be little known; nevertheless the prestige associated with the Nobel Prize was quite helpful. Much of the Pugwash activity depended on the initiative of a Pugwashite somewhere in the world to secure local support in his/her environment for organizing a Pugwash meeting. A standard experience of these friends, when they approached local authorities before the award of the Nobel Prize, was to hear, as a first reaction to their proposal, the question: What is Pugwash? They felt then somewhat frustrated and had to start an elaborate explanation of how important Pugwash was. After the award of the Nobel Prize, the standard reply when soliciting local support for a Pugwash initiative was just the same: What is Pugwash? But then our friends would refer to Pugwash having been recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, whereupon their interlocutor felt embarrassed for having displayed such ignorance and, in order to atone, became much more willing to provide support. For Jo it was quite different: the award of the Nobel Peace Prize made a celebrity of him, and this had a major impact on his life – as he had anticipated. The more so because he made a point of replying to all the innumerable messages he received and of accepting as a rule all requests for interviews and interventions – especially if they came from groups involving younger people, in spite of their generally less prestigious standing. So his life became quite hectic, and he traveled a lot; fortunately his strong constitution, and his well organized habits, allowed him – amazingly, given his age – to cope with a pace that would have been hardly sustainable for a much younger but ordinary person. Yes, we began to Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

67

consider him – his stamina and intellectual alertness, even after he was well advanced in his nineties – as a natural phenomenon . . . After the announcement (October 13, 1995) of the award of the Nobel Prize to Jo and to Pugwash, I had to take care of the organization of the various events that would take place in Oslo in and around the day of the official ceremony (December 10), and immediately later also in Stockholm. A terse, personal chronicle of those ‘‘Nobel days’’ is reported in the January 1996 issue of the Pugwash Newsletter; hence I will not go through those events here. I take this opportunity to provide some details on the preparation of those events. My task was to try and provide an appropriate role for as many individuals as possible in the Pugwash community and in its leadership, compatible with the requirements of the standard protocol and the local logistics. The person in charge of all arrangements in Oslo was Geir Lunderstad, wearing the double hat of Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute and of Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. He is an extremely nice and accommodating person, and soon we became good friends; but there were certain limits dictated by the protocol that he might not ignore: for instance, only two persons could be received by the King and Queen of Norway in a private audience, and the same rule also applied to the two standard meetings with the prime minister and the foreign minister and their staffs. The question was particularly delicate for the various ceremonial roles: it was standard practice in Pugwash that these be generally performed by the President, but in this case the President – Jo – was unavailable since he had his own personal role to play. The solution was to try and divide these roles, to the maximal extent allowed by the protocol, among all members of the Pugwash leadership; fortunately after a considerable amount of negotiations matters were arranged so that nobody felt unfairly left out. But it was also quite delicate to regulate the attendance to the various events for Pugwashites. It was indeed understood that the award to Pugwash was an award to all Pugwashites, hence any one of them who so wished should be provided with a chance to attend the event. But what about logistics? The main ceremony took place Sunday December 10, 1995, in the Oslo City Hall, which is quite large, but is always fully packed

68

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

on such an occasion; indeed the demand for tickets – by the local diplomatic corps, and by the citizens of Oslo and of Norway – always exceeds the supply. The tickets we managed to get, in addition to those allotted to Jo (who transferred almost all of them to Pugwash, keeping only very few for relatives and personal friends) were in fact just about sufficient for all the Pugwashites who could afford to travel to Oslo for the event. But the tickets available for the main social event of the same day – the banquet at the Grand Hotel, followed by evening dancing – were much fewer: all dignitaries, foreign and Norwegian, in and around Oslo, like to attend, and there are altogether only 250 places; the analogous banquet in Stockholm is in a hall with 1300 seats! So I was in the embarrassing situation to have to tell quite a few of the Pugwashites planning to come to Oslo – of course, at their own expense – that, yes, a ticket for the ceremony would be available, but unfortunately not for the banquet. Many, of course, understood; a few tended to be offended. So, I told them that my daughter – a scientist in her own right – was traveling to Oslo and that she would also get a ticket for the ceremony but not for the banquet; and this was an adequate show of fairness to appease most of them (what I said was of course perfectly true; but my daughter – then 31 – later managed to crash on her own into the dancing party . . .). Jo donated to Pugwash all the Nobel Prize money allotted to him (half of the total sum, which amounted approximately to one million dollars): one third to International Pugwash, one third to the British Pugwash Group, one third to a special Foundation created to fund special Pugwash projects. This extraordinary generosity on his part was not new: earlier he had donated to Pugwash the entire sum (US$25,000) of his Einstein Prize award, and of course he had – together with some of us – also donated in the past the honoraria for jobs done in connection with Pugwash. This had indeed been one of the ways used to fund Pugwash (which did not accept any contribution unless it was provided openly and without any string attached): for instance a particularly successful operation was to organize the project yielding in 1991 the book already mentioned above, treating all aspects of verification. It was published in English in the USA and England and in Russian in the Soviet Union, and each of its 12 chapters was cosigned by authors on opposite sides of the Cold War divide – Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

69

including several eminent and influential individuals. This was the first time a book with that kind of authorship was published on a topic so sensitive. Of course the main reason for undertaking this project was its potential to facilitate arms control agreements: so it was very much in the Pugwash remit. But this project – which was generously funded by the MacArthur Foundation – not only allowed us to organize some Pugwash activities connected with the preparation of this book, but also to set aside some considerable sums as honoraria for the editors (US$5,000 each) and for the authors (US$1,000 dollars each). But then two of the three editors donated their honoraria to Pugwash, and following this good example quite a few of the authors did the same, allowing this money to be used for the general support of the Pugwash enterprise. Likewise, during my tenure as Secretary-General we signed some contracts with the European Union to produce reports on the state of the nuclear weapon complex in the former Soviet Union: this provided a substantial source of funds for several related Pugwash activities and also for the general running of the Pugwash organization (one of these reports was then published as SIPRI Research Report No. 10: M. de Andreis and F. Calogero, The Soviet Nuclear Weapon Legacy, Oxford University Press, 1995). Although I write this contribution almost one full year after Jo passed away, it is still difficult for me to think of him with scholarly detachment – and anyway I am not a historian. Hence I beg the reader to forgive the scattered and personal character of these reminiscences. Aside from persons related to me by family ties, and from Edoardo Amaldi whom I recognize as a mentor even though he was not my main scientific teacher, I believe Jo has been the individual who mostly influenced my life. His own life has of course been inextricably associated with Pugwash; much more so than mine, of which, however, the Pugwash experience has also been a very important aspect. But aside from this Pugwash connection, I recognize in Jo my mentor in pointing steadfastly to a lofty goal, grounded not in any transcendental ideal, but in the down-to-earth notion of our common belonging to humankind, with all the related responsibilities, and the chances to enjoy life without ever forgetting those responsibilities. Yes, as Jo liked to repeat, quoting the Russell–Einstein Manifesto: remember your humanity.

70

Rotblat and Pugwash: Some Personal Reminiscences

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War Sandra Ionno Butcher

Introduction Joseph Rotblat was a leading intellectual and scientist. He was also an innovative organizer who led the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs with purpose through the uncharted waters of the Cold War. As Mikhail Gorbachev himself remarked when sharing a podium with Joseph Rotblat in London in September 2004, Rotblat was ‘‘the right man in the right place.’’ Almost instinctively, Rotblat helped to define a new generation of groups – termed ‘transnational’ organizations by Matthew Evangelista, whose book Unarmed Forces details the unique ways in which Pugwash and similar organizations responded to the crisis in world affairs brought about by nuclear weapons. It was this revolutionary structure, detailed below, that amplified the impact Rotblat and his colleagues were to have throughout the Cold War, by creating the environment in which participants could develop innovative approaches to some of the thorniest Cold War challenges at a time when governments tried to strangle such exchanges. As a result, Pugwash left an imprint on nearly all the major Cold War arms control treaties, a contribution ultimately recognized by the Norwegian Nobel Committee when it awarded the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize jointly to Rotblat and to his brainchild, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. What were the elements of this ‘new’ type of organization, and how did it lead to positive results in such landmark treaties as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, to name just a few? How did the structure create the opportunity for Pugwash to play a major – though littleknown – role in trying to alter the course of the Vietnam War?

71

Integrity and Independence Joseph Rotblat had a deeply held conviction that the scientific approach to tackling problems – based on a free exchange of ideas, intensive study, and solid research – was the way through the dense and sometimes deliberate governmental obfuscation of Cold War nuclear dilemmas. He and Bertrand Russell stubbornly insisted from the beginning that participants in what would later be termed Pugwash Conferences must attend as individuals and not governmental representatives, and that the people gathered must be experts from a wide variety of political beliefs. The point was to create a space in which individuals could transcend stereotypes and limited governmental perspectives, and allow a free-flowing discussion. Establishing such an environment was not easy, however. Rotblat himself often spoke about the challenges: times when Soviet translators attempted to change the phrasing of comments (until they were ‘caught out’ and learned that many participants from the West could speak Russian as well), or when governments tried to co-opt the organization into actions that would bolster one side over the other. Rotblat often referred to a time in 1960 when the leader of the Soviet Pugwash group, Alexander Topchiev, formally presented a request to the Pugwash Continuing Committee that Pugwash send delegates to a planned world congress on disarmament. Some in the committee were supportive, but Rotblat argued vigorously against the idea, fearing it was a propaganda exercise and stressing the importance of maintaining independence. Rotblat won the day, and was later warmly thanked by Topchiev himself. Rotblat wrote in a June 2001 Physics Today article, ‘‘[Topchiev] was a member of the communist party, but he realized the importance of Pugwash as a channel of communication between East and West and the overriding need for it not to lose credibility in the West.’’ Likewise, when Western governments later recognized the value of the Pugwash forum, and tried to influence who would attend the meetings, Rotblat similarly resisted their efforts. ‘‘Independence is not easy to maintain,’’ Rotblat wrote in the Physics Today article, ‘‘but I believe we have managed it throughout the years.’’

72

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty So, how did this structure lead to results? The way in which Pugwash played a widely acknowledged role in the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is an example. Rotblat himself described the process in an interview with Metta Spencer for an article she wrote in the July/August 1995 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. First, the challenge was to sell to the Soviets the somewhat contradictory concept that in a nuclear world defensive weapons are destabilising, since defences could always be overwhelmed or confused by decoys. At a 1964 Pugwash Conference in Udaipur, India, Mikhail Millionshchikov, an eminent physicist who also was the speaker of the Parliament, the Soviet, argued that the Soviet Union should have defences. There was an influential paper by Jack Ruina and Murray Gell-Mann that argued against this, though given Millionshchikov’s party-line response, nobody believed his thinking had been at all changed. When Pugwash met the following year, the topic came up again, and this time Millionshchikov came back asking for more details, apparently having presented the concept to the government and military when he returned after the Udaipur conference. Eventually, by the time Pugwash met in Sochi in 1969, Millionshchikov definitely argued against anti-ballistic missile systems. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks began in Helsinki a month after the Sochi meeting. The ABM Treaty was an outcome of this process. Millionshchikov later said he had privately come around to the anti-ABM position at the 1964 meeting. The above is a bit of an oversimplification of an obviously complicated analytical process begun in the early sixties by Jeremy Stone, George Rathjens, and many others. In fact, another of the forums in which a significant amount of work was done on the ABM Treaty was a Pugwash ‘off-shoot,’ the Soviet-American Disarmament Study Group, a bilateral working group under the leadership of two Pugwashites: Paul Doty of Harvard University, and Millionshchikov. Time and again throughout Pugwash’s history, hard to pin-down individual relations built between highly respected participants led to very concrete results.

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

73

The Partial Test Ban Treaty Similarly, some of the ‘stumbling blocks’ to a ban on nuclear testing were discussed and hammered out in the Pugwash forum. The Soviet side was always quite wary of having intrusive inspections of its nuclear test sites. A proposal was worked out at a Pugwash Conference in 1962, by three Soviet and three American scientists, for automatic, sealed so-called ‘black boxes’ (a term coined by Lev Artsimovich) that could monitor seismic activity remotely. While this was not the first time such a concept was discussed, it was notable for the attention it attracted from the people involved in Pugwash. Pugwash held a follow-on meeting of a highly technical nature, involving six US scientists, three from the Soviet Union and three from the United Kingdom. Rotblat chaired this meeting. According to Rotblat in his 1972 history of Pugwash, Scientists in the Quest for Peace, ‘‘[t]he small size of the meeting, the standing of the participants, and the fact that the meeting was completely private, made it possible to conduct a detailed, erudite and fruitful discussion on the whole subject.’’ The group prepared a document that was shared with the governments concerned. According to Rotblat – expressing a view shared by many – this meeting ‘‘substantially helped in reaching an agreement on the partial testban treaty three months later.’’ Matthew Evangelista, in Unarmed Forces, says that the black box proposal was discussed in correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev and ‘‘[i]f the political will to achieve a comprehensive ban had been present in 1964, the black-box solution could have played an important role in any verification program.’’

The Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions Pugwash discussions typically included mention of chemical and biological weapons (CBW). In 1959 the Pugwash Continuing Committee organized the fifth Pugwash Conference, held in Pugwash itself, on the CBW issue. According to Julian Perry Robinson, in a 1998 paper written for the New York Academy of Sciences, this conference ‘‘was the first clear marker on the route towards the new international anti-CBW regime that exists in outline today.’’

74

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

In 1964, Pugwash established a study group on biological weapons which had three main aspects: a steering committee to interface with Pugwash, ongoing workshops, and specific policy-related research projects. Julian Perry Robinson claims that giving BW work this special status in Pugwash helped to break free of the bilateral (US-Soviet) nature of some Pugwash discussions, and enabled non-physicists like Martin Kaplan to take the lead on the topic. Henry Kissinger was exposed to some of these topics at Pugwash meetings. Perry Robinson claims that ‘‘Kissinger would later be the primary influence upon President Nixon’s renunciation of biological weapons, from which stemmed the successful conclusion of the Biological Weapons Convention.’’ While Pugwash’s substantive work on CBW issues was eventually folded into the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (an organization which Pugwashites helped to form and on whose first governing board Rotblat served), and the Harvard-Sussex Programme, Perry Robinson attributes much success in the area to Pugwash. He asks, ‘‘Would the Biological Weapons Convention, for example, in fact have come about at all without those contacts between such people as Hede´n, Humphrey, Kaplan, Meselson and Neild on the one hand, and Kissinger and Mulley on the other?’’ Pugwash likewise established a later study group on chemical weapons issues that conducted pioneering trial inspections, which paved the way for progress in negotiations on the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty In the mid-1980s, Pugwash provided a forum for discussion of non-offensive defence, an idea that explored ways of restructuring national conventional forces so as to appear non-provocative to one’s enemies. This was not as far afield from the traditional Pugwash anti-nuclear theme as one might suppose. A central tenet of non-offensive defence was that the question of removing US nuclear weapons from Western Europe could never really be addressed until the intimidating Soviet conventional forces in Eastern Europe were restructured. The concept was first introduced at a Pugwash meeting by Anders Boserup in 1981, and was further discussed at subsequent Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

75

meetings. In 1984, a special Pugwash Study Group on Conventional Forces met regularly and involved leading thinkers such as Anders Boserup, Robert Neild, Frank von Hippel, Yevgeny Velikov, Alexsei Arbatov, and others. Frank von Hippel raised the issues of non-offensive defences with Gorbachev at a February 1987 international forum of scientists in Moscow. According to von Hippel, in private correspondence, he and Andrei Kokoshin – who was trying to promote the concept in the Soviet Union – invited a panel from the Pugwash working group to present their views to the Russian scientists at this forum. Kokoshin encouraged the group to write a letter to Gorbachev, and Gorbachev himself corresponded with the Pugwash group in October and November 1987. Gorbachev ultimately unilaterally withdrew 10,000 Soviet tanks from Eastern Europe, which helped to create the environment for the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. Again, it is not possible to link Pugwash discussions directly with the CFE Treaty, and other organisations such as the USbased Federation of American Scientists also were highly involved. However, it is certain that the personal relationships formed at Pugwash meetings between some of the key thinkers in the field, combined with their ability to channel creative ideas into the diplomatic stream, led to key breakthroughs in negotiations. Former Pugwash Secretary-General Martin Kaplan wrote in a letter in the October 1989 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that, ‘‘This is another example of the impact of early Pugwash thinking and discussions on major arms control questions that are subsequently pursued in official negotiations.’’ He recognised the work of Boserup and his colleagues ‘‘for shaping the concept, whose value Pugwash recognized early’’ and which Pugwash continued to develop through its meetings and its study group.

Pugwash During Times of International Crisis The Pugwash structure also allowed for rapid, high-level intervention in times of crisis. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War are two such examples. According to Rotblat’s 1972 history, during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, the US Pugwash group asked Rotblat to

76

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

convey a message to the Soviet Pugwash group, requesting that they urge the Soviet government to reroute ships heading to Cuba to avoid an escalation of the crisis. At the same time they pledged to encourage the US government to avoid any precipitate action. Rotblat then spent several days in constant communication with Washington and Moscow, trying to arrange a meeting between Soviet and American scientists. This proposal was only able to move forward with the highest approval of the governments on both sides. While the details of the meeting were being ironed out, the crisis fortunately ended, however, making the meeting unnecessary. In the Vietnam War, Pugwash played a more direct and important role. At a June 1967 meeting in Paris, attended by three scientists from France, three from the US, two from the Soviet Union, and Rotblat as secretary-general, a ‘‘formula to stop the escalation of the war’’ emerged (as described by Herbert Marcovich and Raymond Aubrac in a letter in the January 1979 Pugwash Newsletter). Henry Kissinger, one of the US participants, was also then a consultant to the US president. It was ultimately decided that two French men, Marcovich and Aubrac, would take the Pugwash proposal directly to Ho Chi Minh. This was possible because Ho Chi Minh was friends with Aubrac. There is a great deal of documentary proof that this secret mission, code-named ‘‘PENNSYLVANIA,’’ received attention at the highest levels of the US government, involving the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (later a Pugwashite), and President Johnson. This back channel, which became independent of Pugwash, stayed open for months. Although the proposal initially failed, it is widely seen as having laid the groundwork for the San Antonio proposal, which was ultimately, according to McNamara in a 1996 interview with Harry Kreisler, ‘‘the foundation for the start of the negotiations between North Vietnam and the US in Paris.’’

Other Impact In addition to those areas described above, Pugwash had an impact on many other international negotiations and led to creative breakthroughs in many areas. In Scientists, the Arms Race & Disarmament, Rotblat argues that Pugwash helped with some of the creJoseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

77

ative thinking behind the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by discussing ways in which to safeguard against diversion of sensitive materials from peaceful nuclear programs and ways in which non-nuclear states would be guaranteed security. Other topics on which the Pugwash forum has proven useful range from nuclearweapons-free zones to a code of conduct for technology transfer, from limiting research on anti-submarine warfare to suggesting guidelines for international scientific collaboration for development, and from problems of environmental degradation to AIDS. The structure of Pugwash, which encourages formation of national Pugwash groups, allows for a wide range of issues to be covered – with some national groups naturally often focusing on issues most related to their regions.

Joseph Rotblat and the Next Generation The above examples are meant to illustrate, in a very broad way, how the structure that Rotblat and others established for Pugwash enabled the organization to influence positively some of the most difficult Cold War challenges. Perhaps equally important for the organization’s later successes, Rotblat also recognized the need to mentor a new generation of people while simultaneously maintaining the high standards for participants. (Rotblat was a strong proponent of the International Student/Young Pugwash network, for example.) As John Holdren summarized in his speech on the occasion of Rotblat’s 90 th birthday in November 1998, ‘‘As much as Jo Rotblat has accomplished by his individual action – by the way he has thought about this problem [the nuclear issue], the way he has written about it, the way he has eloquently and persuasively talked about it before all manner of audiences . . . he has probably accomplished equally as much through the efforts of others that he inspired, that he has energized, that he has motivated, that he has propelled, that he has embarrassed (!) into doing more on this problem than they would otherwise have done, had Jo Rotblat not been there behind them, educating them, propelling them into the arena.’’

78

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Gathering people of such calibre was no easy task, especially during the early days, when even to speak with people from opposing ideologies ran the risk of harming one’s career. This taint lingered on, even after the Nobel Peace Prize, when some critics were still labeling Pugwash scientists as ‘dupes’ of the former Soviet Union. As McGeorge Bundy is quoted as saying in an article by Irwin Goodwin in the September 1989 Physics Today, ‘‘It’s not easy’’ to be a Pugwash scientist, because, he said, ‘‘Pugwash scientists have done the hard thing of telling their leaders the truth.’’ This is in no small way a result of the vision that Joseph Rotblat tenaciously built upon, as he guided this organization through dangerous waters of the Cold War.

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

79

Fig. 2 Joseph Rotblat as a student in Warsaw before the Second World War. Courtesy Archive, Warsaw University.

80

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Fig. 3 Certificate for his doctorate from Warsaw University, October 1938. Courtesy Archive, Warsaw University.

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

81

Fig. 4 1958, as Chief Physicist at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, in the Animal Laboratory with one of Professor Lindop’s Mice. Courtesy Archive, Warsaw University.

82

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Fig. 5 Rotblat shortly before leaving Warsaw for Liverpool to take up his Fellowship with James Chadwick in 1939. Courtesy Archive, Warsaw University.

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

83

Fig. 6 Dinner given by colleagues of the Physics Department at Liverpool University on his return from Los Alamos late 1944. Courtesy of Professor John Holt, Liverpool University.

Fig. 7 With colleagues on the roof of the Physics Department, Liverpool University, 1946 (Rotblat back row third from left). Courtesy Professor John Holt.

84

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Fig. 8 On holiday in Switzerland, 1947. Courtesy Joyce Bazire.

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

85

Fig. 9 Jo Rotblat and John Holt on holiday, Aviemore, Scotland 1943 with landlady and her daughter. Courtesy Professor John Holt.

Fig. 10 Proclamation of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, Caxton Hall, London, 9 July, 1955. Courtesy Archive, Pugwash Conferences.

86

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Fig. 11 1 st Pugwash Conference, Pugwash, Nova Scotia, July 1957. Courtesy Archive, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

87

Fig. 12 With Ruth Adams, 1st Pugwash Conference, Pugwash, Nova Scotia, July 1957. Courtesy Archive, Pugwash Conferences.

88

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

89

Fig. 13 Rotblat with Bertrand Russell and Cecil Powell at a meeting at Gonville and Gaius College, Cambridge, 1962. Courtesy British Pugwash.

Fig. 14 Joseph Rotblat at Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference, New York, 1995. Courtesy J€ urgen Scheffran.

Fig. 15 Receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, with Professor Francesco Calogero, 1995. Courtesy Knudsensfotosenter.

90

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Fig. 16 Meeting of the Canberra Commission 1995/6. Courtesy British Pugwash.

Fig. 17 Protesting, aged 93, outside the Israeli Embassy, London, on behalf of Mordechai Vanunu. Courtesy British Pugwash. Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

91

Fig. 18 Addressing a student audience in Oxford, England. Courtesy British Pugwash.

92

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Fig. 19 In conversation with Rita Levi Montalcini at Nobel Peace Laureates Summit, Rome 2003. Courtesy British Pugwash.

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

93

Fig. 20 On the porch with Ruth Adams, Pugwash, Nova Scotia, 2003. Courtesy Sandra Butcher.

94

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Fig. 21 Speaking from the floor at 54 th Pugwash Conference, Seoul, 2004. Courtesy Archive, Pugwash Conferences.

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

95

Fig. 22 Meeting one of his many friends from Student/Young Pugwash. Courtesy Archive, Pugwash Conferences.

96

Joseph Rotblat: Guiding Pugwash through the Cold War

Part 2 In Memory of Joseph Rotblat The Importance and Appraisal of Joseph Rotblat: Commentaries by Prominent Scientists, Nobel Laureates, Friends, and Colleagues

Jo Rotblat: Man With a Cause Michael Atiyah

When I spoke at the Royal Society memorial meeting for Jo Rotblat, I said he was the nearest thing to a saint I had come across. Not one of the dubious mythical saints but the genuine article, someone like St. Francis who pursued a noble vision with singleminded integrity. St. Francis is also an appropriate analogy because, despite his moral fervor, he was also intensely practical and succeeded in establishing an organization that still survives several hundred years after his death. His integrity and firmness of purpose was at the root of his success. Jo Rotblat shared all those qualities and the Pugwash movement that he established continues to thrive and may last as long as the Franciscans. Saints can never have been easy colleagues. They do not make the daily compromise that society expects. Principles are immovable and not open to negotiation. The ends never justify the means. Admirable though such ideals are they can be frustrating to accommodate. But, in the end, this is the reason for their success, why they inspire followers and may even alter the world. Long before I met Jo and got involved with Pugwash I had heard about him and about Pugwash. I knew enough to admire the atomic physicists who were working for a safer world, free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. They served as a beacon of light and rationality in an insane and dangerous world. I came from the same institutions as Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein: Trinity College, Cambridge, and the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Many of the names of the early Pugwash physicists were familiar and I got to know both Otto Frisch and Rudolph Peierls. Jo and I did not meet until much later. My first encounter with Jo was indirect. When I was President of the Royal Society, Jo’s name came up as a candidate for election. It was an unusual proposal, partly because of his age but mainly

99

because his claim rested not on original scientific contributions, but on his role as a scientist working for peace. By this time Pugwash had already established its credentials as an effective organization that, at the detailed technical level, had helped to broker the various arms agreements between the USA and the Soviet Union. This was science acting with a conscience, helping the world avoid the potential catastrophe unleashed by splitting the atom. I am glad to say that those arguments won the day and Jo was duly elected FRS. There is no doubt that he greatly appreciated this mark of recognition of his life’s work by his fellow scientists. Perhaps even more so than the Nobel Peace Prize which followed soon after, and the knighthood that sealed his ‘‘annus mirabilis’’. When a President of the Royal Society retires he makes a final address and selects two Fellows to propose a vote of thanks. When I came to retire in 1995 I chose to talk about nuclear weapons, arguing strongly against the British involvement (again in 2006 a controversial issue). It was natural that I should ask Jo Rotblat to be one of those to respond. He rose to the occasion and appreciated the platform he had been given, as one of the oldest as well as most recent Fellows of the Society. My anniversary address attracted a lot of attention both by fellow scientists and in the media. More significantly it led to a visit to me in Cambridge by Jo and Francesco Calogero, the President and Secretary-General of Pugwash. In the wake of my speech they felt it was appropriate for me to succeed Jo as President. Given my increasing admiration for Jo, and what he stood for, it was impossible for me to refuse. When I eventually took over as President I realized that I could not possibly replace Jo. For nearly 50 years he had been the heart and soul of Pugwash, having served both as Secretary-General and then as President. He was still there, acting as our conscience and our memory. Pugwash had been the central focus of his life for decades and this was not going to change. In fact, the fame that the Nobel Peace Prize had brought gave him a new role as a roving ambassador for Pugwash. He never turned down an opportunity to push the Pugwash agenda, whether it was to meet Mikhail Gorbachev or Kim Dae-Jung. Our relations were cordial but our views differed at times. It was certainly not easy being President with Jo alongside. Where I

100

Jo Rotblat: Man With a Cause

would be satisfied with modest progress, Jo was always pushing for the ultimate goal, the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. Although Jo was an idealist driven by a clear and overpowering vision, he was also practical. He wanted to be effective, to get things done, to influence events. This was reflected in the way that Pugwash operated, the nature of its workshops and conferences, who was invited and what channels were used. I began by comparing Jo with St. Francis and observed that the Franciscans were still with us. The evil that St. Francis helped to eradicate has not perished. History seems to indicate that the evil that led to the creation of Pugwash may be equally long-lived. The fact that Pugwash may survive for centuries is not a cause for celebration, more a recognition of human frailty. Jo would not be surprised, he might be disappointed, but he was also a realist.

Jo Rotblat: Man With a Cause

101

´ zef Rotblat: My Friend Jo Joyce Bazire

Jo´zef and I met in the autumn term of 1946 on my appointment to the Department of English Language at Liverpool, and our friendship continued to the end of his life, despite his departure to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital (Bart’s) and the hectic life he led. In Liverpool I had no idea of his brilliance as a scientist, and, even when he showed me the letter inviting him to Bart’s, I accepted it as a normal promotion. Despite his eminence in world affairs, I always think of him as my friend, and of the happy times we enjoyed together. He was fun to be with, and even in his last illness, we spent part of our phone conversations laughing and teasing. It is said that after a stroke, one’s essential character is accentuated, and so it was with Jo´zef in his sense of humor and his caring about other people, particularly his sister-in-law, Hale, who looked after him so faithfully. Though in his earlier years Jo´zef experienced much hardship and grief, he put it behind him in company; he was a brave man. Three of us spent a very happy holiday in Switzerland in 1947, where he proved an excellent organizer and guide. It was in many ways, for Eluned and me, a setting-free after the war, a making-up for restrictions and worries. Jo´zef let no shadow fall on this. One evening after dinner (with much laughter) we took a walk through the village and saw a band. It inspired Jo´zef on our return to sing Chopin’s ‘‘Marche Fune`bre’’ as we walked up the hotel steps. We were intoxicated not by drink, but by enjoyment of life. The other guests, however, were suspicious and teased us the next night, but it was Jo´zef ’s masterly rendering of Chopin that most impressed them. Jo´zef never showed any sign of irritation, even when we were traveling by bus (Eluned and I with the luggage on our knees). He needed his hat because of the sun, and this was eventually discov-

103

ered – after I had been heaved up – a flattened object! Jo´zef made no protest but simply knocked it into shape. When Jo´zef moved to London, we still spent time together: when he came to Liverpool – to lecture or visit his family – or when I was in London (mainly for work purposes). Once, when I was staying in Reading, he suggested I should pick him up at Aldermaston and drive him to Reading for a meeting, warning me not to go to the wrong place (the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment). We had dinner in Reading and, when I – as driver – declined wine, he assured me that cider would be all right – and I believed him! However, still feeling ‘‘woozy’’ after coffee, I decided that, should I have an accident driving to his meeting, I should not be wholly responsible. We survived! Jo´zef was a great man, who carried his greatness lightly. Whatever the company he was in – old or young, known or unknown – he was always the same. He was often described as ‘‘charming’’, but it was something deeper than that – an innate courtesy. As I gradually came to know him well, I realized that he exemplified Horace’s line when addressing his friend, Aristius Fuscus: ‘‘Integer vitae scelerisque purus’’, which roughly translated means: ‘‘Showing integrity of life and free from deception.’’

104

´ zef Rotblat: My Friend Jo

‘‘I Have Lived Two Lives’’ Reiner Braun

I met Joseph Rotblat for the first time in November 1986 when he gave a closing speech at the congress Ways Out of the Arms Race, and later on I met him at the satellite conference in Hamburg when he discussed with colleagues from East and West the ‘‘New Thinking’’ and disarmament. The last time I saw him was a few weeks before his death, already with the distinct signs of his ill health. Joseph was for me a real ‘‘knight on a white horse’’ – I was deeply touched by his life. ‘‘My task is to fulfill a vision, I am the last survivor,’’ said the Nobel Prize Laureate Sir Joseph Rotblat in his interview for the ARD-movie The Life of Albert Einstein in the summer of 2004. He had big plans for the Einstein-year 2005. Unfortunately, they could not be realized. As the last living signatory of the famous peace appeal, the Russell–Einstein Manifesto (1955), he wanted to promote once again the major aim and content of his long life: to protect humankind from self-destruction through the abolition of nuclear weapons. He wanted to prepare a new 21 st -century version of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto adapted to the continuing hazards of nuclear war despite the end of East–West conflict. He planned to announce this new version himself on the 60 th anniversary of the Hiroshima catastrophe at the annual Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs. Joseph attended all the annual Pugwash Conferences since its foundation in 1957 as its long-serving Secretary-General and then as President of the organization. In the last years, he was awarded the title of President Emeritus, although his criticism of the rigidity of traditional peace organizations was respectfully tolerated rather than acted upon.

105

He had agreed to open an ambitious Albert Einstein exhibition ‘‘Engineer of the Universe’’ in May 2005. He also intended to speak at the International Einstein Peace Congress ‘‘Einstein Further Thinking’’, which was to take place in November 2005. At this meeting Joseph wanted once again to raise his voice for abolishing all wars and nuclear weapons, he wanted to call the peaceoriented scientific community and other peace activists to continue their fight, not to give up their engagement for worldwide peace and disarmament despite defeats and difficulties along the way. ‘‘Mankind has abolished slavery and torture,’’ and his realistic self was adding to that ‘‘at least theoretically and in the declaration of the United Nations, so it will be able to liberate itself from the hostage war’’. He wanted to warn the youth of the cruelty of all war and intended to work hard to bring the international youth and school project PeaceJam to the UK. His last trip to the USA was associated with this education initiative, which involves students working with Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, and the project started in the UK last year. However, not all his plans were to come to fruition. Despite a daily fight, his illness kept him in bed at home and lastly in hospital. Over the night of August 31 to September 1, 2005 Joseph Rotblat died at the age of 96 – fifty years after Albert Einstein, his visionary successor in the fight against war. He did not reach his goal to become 100 years old. Joseph received many awards such as the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 and the Albert Einstein Peace Prize. He was knighted, honored and cordially received by important people. And still, he remained a simple and modest person, open to everyone. He readily participated (often to the protests of his own coworkers) in the smallest events taking place in provincial locations all over the world, as long as he saw that they contributed to promoting the goal of his life, which he shared with Albert Einstein – the abolition of instruments of war. For almost a century he had witnessed and sympathized with the human struggle against war; he had lived through a period when millions of people met violent deaths, millions more suffered agonising wounds, and an increasing number of civilians were in-

106

‘‘I Have Lived Two Lives’’

volved in the horrors of war. Where other people resigned after having rubbed their skin bloody against the brutal walls of reality, he always found the power to act, to awake, to convince and this led to his achievements in the field of peace movements. With his Pugwash initiative, he made significant contributions to disarmament and arms control treaties and conventions, such as the Nuclear Weapons Convention, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conferences of 1980 and 1995, the Chemical Weapons Convention and, maybe his most outstanding contribution, he provided input for the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty agreement reached in 1972. Joseph was a close friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, who made the latter treaty possible with his ‘‘New Thinking’’. ‘‘Whoever is not willing to grasp Gorbachev’s hand for the abolition of nuclear weapons, is not worthy to be a statesman and should resign immediately, because everyone in the world is longing for peace,’’ said Joseph Rotblat at the congress Ways Out of the Arms Race in 1986 in Hamburg. The peace movement was a very important source of motivation for Joseph, but equally, without him, this movement would have never been the way it is. A high point of his life was February 15, 2003 – the day of the largest protest demonstrations in the history of the peace movement. ‘‘The Iraqi war is a crime and the opposition to it demonstrates that more and more people and scientists recognize this,’’ he said in April 2003 in his interview with the Guardian. In contrast to some of his Pugwash colleagues, he saw a necessity for an independent, citizen-based peace movement. He perfectly mastered the dialectic of active mass-movements and of successful lobbying, starting with talks in small meetings and going up to huge demonstrations and congresses. This conviction of the necessity of a broad and multifaceted peace movement, as well as dialogues with governments and important politicians, led to him becoming a co-founder and – until his death – an active member of INES (International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility). In INES, which turned into an open, rapidly developing network, he saw the promising pattern for successful realization of locally oriented activities. The life of Joseph Rotblat was intrinsically connected to science. Educated as a physicist, he remained excited by science throughout

‘‘I Have Lived Two Lives’’

107

his life. However, his name is not only connected with scientific curiosity and creativity, but stands alone as a synonym for the moral and ethical dimensions of modern science. In 1944 he resigned from the Manhattan Project for the construction of the American atomic bomb, being convinced that there was no longer any danger of a German bomb. He was the only scientist who turned his back on the project, which was to launch a new era – the era of nuclear weapons. Afterwards, many of his colleagues regretted deeply their participation in opening this era. With all his expertise as a highly gifted scientist, he devoted himself since 1945 to organizing activities against nuclear weapons, which were developed by engineers and scientists and were continuously improved from year to year. Again and again he criticized military research and the refusal of scientists to stop their participation in nuclear weapon development. He called on the scientists involved to quit this ‘‘deadly research’’, and as a consequence, he was placed on the black list of Senator McCarthy. Until his last days, he supported the ‘‘whistle-blowers’’: the scientists, who for ethical or moral reasons publicly refused to conduct the research expected of them, and who were, as a consequence, threatened with dismissal and even imprisonment. Mordachai Vanunu – the Israeli nuclear technician and whistle-blower – was nominated many times by Joseph Rotblat as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. Vanunu has spent 18 years in prison (until 2004) because he revealed Israel’s nuclear weapons program. It is quite clear that Joseph Rotblat became – in the tradition of Albert Einstein and Linus Pauling – one of the founding fathers of scientists’ worldwide engagement for peace and civil responsibility. The organizations and initiatives of scientists first established in the USA with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in 1945, and which spread further internationally later in the 1980s (the oldest organization in the Federal Republic of Germany was the Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler (VDW) established in 1958 and the youngest one is the Initiative of Natural Scientists – Responsibility for Peace) are all outcomes of the inspiration and engagement of Joseph Rotblat. The goal of his life was to show people their own responsibility for peace and to educate them to say ‘‘no’’ to any destabilizing developments. This ‘‘no’’ should be repeated both by scientists who have scientific competence to un-

108

‘‘I Have Lived Two Lives’’

derstand the associated dangers, and by responsible citizens, who devote themselves to peaceful developments. He has given us a baton. It is our task now to continue his commitment to a peaceful and fair world. Dear Joseph, you have lived your life, and as you once said, ‘‘I have lived two opposing lives.’’ We want to live ours in your spirit.

‘‘I Have Lived Two Lives’’

109

An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat Sandra Ionno Butcher

September 2, 2005 Dear Joey Today the world’s papers herald the life and legacy of the man for whom you were named: Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat. You know him as ‘‘Prof ’’. Although at the age of three you do not yet know – and would not understand what this means – he died two nights ago in a London hospital, after 96 amazing years of life. Pictures of you and a painting you made for him were hanging in his room – quite possibly among the last of this Earth’s beauty he was to see. Only a day or so before he died, his friend and assistant, Sally, gave him an update on your antics and activities and the impending arrival of your baby brother. While people around the world mourn his passing, I have been trying to decide how to show my deep appreciation of all that he gave to our world. I think the best way I can do that is to tell you in great detail why we chose to give you his name. Prof considered it ‘‘a great event in one’s life to have a new human being named after one’’ and he was deeply moved to know that you would walk forward in this world, long after he had to leave it, bearing his name. But what, exactly, does that name stand for? In my opinion, it stands for brilliance, compassion, patient optimism, humor, dogged determination, an insistence that we can all do better, energy, humility, youthfulness, and, above all, humanity. Let me tell you a few stories of my experiences with Prof. Professor Rotblat was brilliant. I am not just referring to the cleverness of a young boy who, after having experienced hunger and disease and squalor during World War I, learned a trade and

111

set up his own business at the age of 15 without formal schooling and during a time of religious persecution. I am not dwelling on the intellectual courage of a busy young electrician taking intimidating entrance exams for the Free University and going to school in the evenings after arduous days at work, who quickly secured a position teaching at the school (and who would later earn a doctorate of physics, a PhD, a DSc and at least eight honorary degrees). I am not only thinking of the pure genius of a pioneer of the nuclear age, who saw the future in chain reactions and brought that lofty science down to reality. I am not only contemplating the forward thinking of a man who recognized the need for a new type of international effort to confront the nuclear danger, which he rightly predicted would become one of the greatest scourges facing humanity. I am not even at this point referring to the ingenuity of a scientist who, in the middle of a prestigious career, changed his line of work and helped harness for medical purposes the very atoms he had previously engineered for war. I am instead remembering the brilliance of his being. Prof had a presence unlike any I have ever encountered. I have seen him rally a room full of a thousand peace activists into a chanting fervor, and I have seen him in very intimate discussions with former heads of state. I have seen him talk to awestruck high school students and to taxi drivers. In all his interactions, Prof propelled discussions and hopes forward. He had a force of personality that left people inspired and his smile filled a room with light. Prof had compassion. He was so touched, once, by an older man’s decision to leave a small inheritance to Pugwash that he was going to change his travel plans and fly all the way to Canada to thank the man personally before he passed away. He told me he thought it was the only decent thing to do. One time, after speaking at a Student Pugwash USA event, he was deeply concerned when a student came up to him in tears after his talk to thank him for saying words that changed her life. He asked me to make sure that she was okay, and seemed unprepared to realize that he could have that impact on others (and he did have that impact, often). He always had a kind word, an interest in others. He made people feel appreciated. He had a patient optimism. Here he was, a man who experienced two world wars, a man who lost the woman he loved most

112

An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat

dearly to an inconceivable hatred that spread across countries and devastated his hopes for the future. Here was this person who had been vilified for standing up for his principles and refusing to use his considerable talents to further the development of nuclear weapons after he learned Hitler was not developing these weapons. ‘‘How can you be so optimistic,’’ I once asked him, ‘‘after all that you have seen and experienced?’’ He looked thoughtfully at me and replied, ‘‘What is the alternative?’’ I like to remember a visit to a game park in South Africa. We were there for an outing during a Pugwash Conference. Prof had spent a chilly day riding on an open air vehicle, with all of the students rather than the ‘‘senior Pugwashites.’’ We laughed as he donned more and more warm articles of clothing donated by the students, to supplement his inadequate light jacket – stray scarves, sweaters, gloves. (It was the only time I heard him give a physical threat, and it was directed at me . . . he threatened to kill me if I took a picture of him dressed in that manner! I did, he didn’t.) But at one point at the game park, we all went down underground, through a long tunnel, to a concealed ‘‘close’’ where we could watch a watering hole without the animals knowing of our presence. If we were lucky, we were told, we might see zebras come for a drink. I will forever have in my mind the silhouette of Prof, sitting quietly at the narrow open window, chin in his hands, long after the other conference participants came and went without seeing any of the promised thirsty striped animals. Prof, however, just sat there quietly, appreciating all that he saw, waiting maybe for a zebra, but recognizing it might take longer than most people were willing to wait. He enjoyed himself in the meantime, and was at peace. I do not know if he saw a zebra then, but I understood a bit more how it was he kept the faith after campaigning for more than 50 years for nuclear disarmament and a war-free world. He had a sense of humor, and was not unwilling to laugh at himself. Prof was always calculating the most efficient routes to take, and one day in his late 80s or early 90s he was rushing on an escalator in the London Underground. He apparently asked a group of teenagers to step out of his way so that he could move faster than the long escalator was able to take him. The teenagers, surprised, said ‘‘You’re in a big hurry for an old man!’’ And he replied, ‘‘It is precisely because I am an old man that I am in a hurry, An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat

113

please get out of my way.’’ Perhaps never was he more willing to laugh at himself than when discussing the state of his ‘‘archives’’ (anyone who has seen his home knows why they now estimate it will take three years for someone to catalogue this amazing collection). Joey, you once played in his home office, where vertical stacks stretch from wall to wall with yellowing pages, numerous files, and books that chronicle some of the most dangerous days of human history and some of the most exciting times of scientific discovery. He let you sit in his big leather chair and spin and spin. He had more faith than I did that you would not knock down any stacks. And amid those piles of paper, which were scattered throughout his house – his dining room table, for example, was inaccessible for years – Prof always kept a supply of new children’s books, as gifts for any young people who might visit. Your first meeting with Prof, when you were an infant, did not go nearly as well. Prof ’s sister-in-law, Hale, who lived across the street from him and who was a great companion for him over many years, had made us a splendid lunch during which you insisted on screaming non-stop (jetlag having conquered your usual good nature). Hale suggested we might try to let you nap on a bed (you refused). This led to a story about a time when Prof and Patricia Lindop traveled to Wales to see Bertrand Russell with one of Patricia’s children. Russell’s wife, who did not know they were there, walked unsuspectingly into the bedroom where the child was asleep. When questioned after coming out of the room if she saw anything unusual, she apparently replied that with Russell, anything was possible. On your next meeting with Hale, as a toddler, you instantly had an affinity for her – and not only because she gave you chocolates. You reacted with charm to these two older people whose warmth was apparent even then to your young sensibilities. Prof had a reputation for being incredibly determined. In his later years, when I knew him, this took the form of a staunch insistence that Pugwash never lose its focus on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons. His insight on this topic could be razor sharp. When we would meet, he often would quiz your father on recent developments in Washington. These were challenging discussions that your dad always enjoyed, because Prof forced him to think

114

An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat

in new ways about longstanding issues. In Pugwash working groups, I used to enjoy watching Prof sit there quietly with his eyes closed – some newcomers, I am sure, were probably blaming this seeming lapse of attention on old age and were unprepared for that moment when Prof would inevitably open his eyes, ask for the floor, and make some sort of interjection that would bring the whole discussion back on task or move it forward in a creative way. He was willing to change his strategies, and found himself, he said, at the end of his life right back where he began his antinuclear career: focusing on the need for a vast public education campaign. After Prof left Los Alamos, he organized a traveling exhibition called the Atom Train that toured throughout England and in different parts of the world. Early on, he took his concerns to the BBC and other media outlets. Likewise, in the final months of his life he had an op-ed in the New York Times, and helped to launch a Weapons of Mass Destruction Awareness Campaign in the UK, which is involving students, world leaders, and rock stars. In the years in between, he focused on engaging scientists, policy makers, and scholars in more private discussions, where new ideas could be discussed in a unique environment. Today’s papers are outlining some of the accomplishments of those discussions – the numerous treaties that drew on ideas from Pugwash meetings, and the significant contributions Pugwash made to reducing conflict and furthering understanding of topics related to peace and disarmament. Professor Rotblat believed – insisted – that we can and should do better as a society. My favorite quote from Prof comes from his Nobel address, and these are indeed words which I hope will guide you and your generation through this crazy world. Sitting in the elegant hall in Oslo in December 1995, the day after my 31 st birthday, the importance of these words – and the holistic view toward life that they represent – left me awestruck. ‘‘The quest for a warfree-world,’’ he said, has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love, rather than fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task. An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat

115

And, remember as you read those words, that this was a man who only learned English as a young adult, a man who spoke several languages, a man whose eloquence transcended cultural divisions. So, how is it, Joey, that I came to know this remarkable being? It was because he looked across the generations. He valued the thoughts of someone much, much younger than he was. He sought out people unlike himself. He did not intimidate others with his considerable re´sume´. There was nothing false about his humility. Until the last few years of his life, when physical limitations made travel challenging, he always flew economy class and his work took him all over the planet. In pre-9/11 days, he was once held up at an airport because he was carrying a treasured penknife. I am sure he did not mention to the security guards that he was a Nobel Peace Laureate and unlikely to cause trouble with the tiny blade. A special indulgence he did allow himself was to fly on Concorde one time before it was finally grounded, fulfilling a dream. Here was a scientist in his 90s whose efforts to learn how to fly planes as a young man in Los Alamos brought suspicion from those who doubted his motives and assumed he must be a spy who wanted to fly with nuclear secrets into the former Soviet Union – this youthful and daring soul who wanted to taste this mastery of motion, flying beyond the speed of sound, at least once before he, and Concorde, faced permanent rest. Professor Rotblat gently guided others and shared his limelight whenever he could. During the Nobel Prize ceremonies, I was floored to hear him mention from the podium an initiative Student Pugwash USA took as a response to the Nobel Prize, an effort to get young people to sign a kind of Hippocratic Oath for young scientists. Prior to that moment, I never in a million years dreamed that something I had a hand in could become part of history in that way. And then, later, he asked me to write the history of this organization he created. He wrote once of the urgency of the task, and said that he became melancholic when he saw my proposed timeline because although he was not a betting man, he would bet that he would not see the finished product. And here we are. I have spent the day reading his obituaries and the history is still in progress. And despite many lovely hours spent with Professor Rotblat learning about his remarkable background and that of Pugwash, I mourn today for the vast wealth of knowl-

116

An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat

edge and insight that he takes with him. He was a bridge to some of the leading moral and scientific giants of the last century (and indeed to those of the preceding century as well). Unfortunately, he never wrote an autobiography, he said he had too much work yet to do. I hope I find within myself the skills to help a wider group of people understand this wonderful man and his accomplishments through my work on the Pugwash history. Maybe someday you will give me your opinion about this. In all our various conversations and communications, he never forgot, Joey, to ask about you and he always placed his hopes for your future in the context of the need for a better world. And these good wishes even preceded you. When he learned that your dad and I planned to get married, he wrote: The entire staff of the Senior Pugwash London Office (i.e. Tom and myself ) send you warmest congratulations on your wise decision to enter into the state of matrimony. You have been working hard to avert a nuclear catastrophe. You have been calling on the student population to be responsible members of the community. You are now demonstrating – through your own example – your conviction that a stable world will be built in which new generations can be brought up in peace, harmony and love. My cordial wishes for the success of your laudable enterprise.

I think that joyful note, written with such good cheer to a much younger colleague, says a lot about the man. My dear son, Joseph is a name you should wear with pride. Be a rebel, when it is for a good cause. Do not be constrained by limitations others set for you. Treat others with dignity and with loyalty. Stretch your mind and open your heart. Insist on an equitable world, and seek peace in every situation. Refuse to compromise your values. Laugh with others. Live simply and with meaning. Do not judge people by their titles or their age, but by their creativity and vivacity. Envision a long and productive life, and then exceed expectations. If you do all of these things, then you will honor the example set for you by Joseph Rotblat. He changed my life, and extended for me the sense of what is possible. He became a friend. Who ever would have thought a kid from the New Jersey Shore could one day say she had a friend who was a 96-year-old Nobel Peace Laureate? But I did. And I miss him An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat

117

already. Together, Joey, we will continue to share his legacy with the world. And, Joey, if Prof were to have any parting words of wisdom for you, I believe he would say, ‘‘Above all, remember your humanity.’’ In sadness, but with hope for all that you represent, Your mummy

118

An Open Letter to My Son on the Death of Joseph Rotblat

Si Vis Pacem Para Pacem: On the Contribution of Joseph Rotblat to the Broader Pugwash Agenda Ana Marı´a Cetto1)

In the late 1980s, a Mexican physicist doing graduate work in the UK was contacted by members of the British Pugwash Group and subsequently invited to the 1988 Annual Pugwash Conference in Dagomys, USSR. On his return to Mexico, this young physicist brought together a small group of colleagues to share his enthusiasm about that conference at which scientists of the highest caliber, with very diverse and even conflicting views, seriously and passionately debated important issues in a friendly atmosphere. The Dagomys Declaration was brought to the center of our own debates; we felt fully identified with it and therefore compelled to pursue its objectives on a local level. The birth of this informal Pugwash chapter marked the beginning of a new era in the participation of Mexico in Pugwash International. Already in the 1970s there had been some Mexican involvement in Pugwash, enough to host an Annual Conference in Mexico City, organized by the late economist of Polish origin, Miguel Wionczek, who served in the Pugwash Council for a long period. Conditions then, however, were not ripe for this effort to have a lasting impact: nuclear weapons neither seemed to be a matter of primary interest for the Mexican scientific community2), nor were the local concerns about other aspects of peace and world affairs echoed by international Pugwashites. Yet slowly we all have come to realize that we live in an interdependent world of increasing risks. Four years before the Rio Sum1) Deputy Director-General, IAEA, Vienna, on leave of absence from Instituto de Fı´sica, UNAM, Mexico. ana@fisica.unam.mx 2) Notwithstanding the historic role played by Mexican diplomats and disarmament experts, e.g. in the process leading to the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

119

mit of 1992, the Dagomys conference had already called for an expansion of the Pugwash agenda, stating that, ‘‘without reducing our commitment to arms reduction and war prevention, we must recognize that environmental degradation and large-scale impoverishment are already facts and can lead to a massive catastrophe even if nuclear war is avoided.’’ 3) It is not by chance that colleagues from Mexico and other developing countries, as well as specialists from other disciplines, joined Pugwash at this stage and have contributed to this broadening of the agenda with topics such as destruction of the environment and growing inequities on a global level. What we all strive for is a world that is safer and more equitable for humanity as a whole, where weapons become unacceptable and where war has no justification of any sort. Whether Pugwash really can deal with the broader set of issues mentioned above with the same unique capacity it has developed and demonstrated in the nuclear weapons field is debatable; nor is it in general expected to do so. Yet the interrelatedness of the various threats to humanity makes it necessary even for this unique organization to become interdisciplinary and take a proper look at those related issues. In our interaction with Pugwash, we have contributed to bringing in and addressing these other disciplines and areas of concern, whilst we have also learned to link them to the traditional areas of Pugwash, which will continue to be at the core of its activities. More broadly speaking, a few of us have been widely enriched by our Pugwash experience: we learned to know outstanding scientists from all disciplines and all around the globe; we found that we could freely share with them our deepest concerns and receive supportive and critical feedback; we learned that conflicts are not swept under the carpet but need to be faced with an understanding of the others’ side; we learned how the hard process of handling conflicts can bring people together; we learned to respect colleagues with widely differing points of view and to be respected by them; and we learned to build true friendships in this challenging and stimulating environment, in which everybody participates by his or her own will and moral commitment. 3) Ensuring the Survival of Civilisation. Declaration of the Pugwash Council, 38th Pugwash Conference, Dagomys, USSR, 1988 (available on www.pugwash.org).

120

Si Vis Pacem Para Pacem: On the Contribution of Joseph Rotblat

In this process, Jo Rotblat played an essential role. First of all he was the extraordinary example of a scientist with a life committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons, focusing on the political dynamics of the moment but invariably based on firm principles and guided by the ultimate goals of disarmament and peace. When other scientists were engaged in delicately balancing their consciences against their careers, Jo had done exactly what was right and moral, with no equivocation.4) Knowing such a person and having worked closely with him is a privilege in life. Besides this, Jo always showed an active interest in other related issues which ranged from war as an institution, to education for peace, and to the responsibility of scientists. He promoted serious debate on these subjects, and put us to work for a better understanding and articulation of the issues involved. Although he had proper respect for the views of the experts, he always sought as well to bring in the broader perspectives.5) He would participate in the discussions with generous wisdom, kind personality and a strong ability to stand firm behind his beliefs and ideals. He was a mentor and an inspirational guide to many of us who had the good fortune of knowing him. It is well known that Jo had a long and active life and that he kept healthy and with a young spirit almost until the end of it, despite the many difficulties encountered along the way. Of the various reasons that one can give for this, including of course his endless optimism and his relentless strife for a better world, another important one was his attachment to young people and the interest he had in both influencing them, but also being influenced by them. This made him almost ageless in his behavior, in his 4) Cf. Tribute to Joseph Rotblat by Pervez Hoodbhoy, Member of Pugwash Council (available on www.pugwash.org). 5) As just one example of this, in the nineties a Pugwash session was organized upon Jo’s initiative, on the subject of Education for World Citizenship, for which he invited me to prepare a paper. Not being myself an expert in the subject, I objected to his request, but this objection was considered by him as

one more reason for me to prepare the paper (which meant a good amount of work), presented at the Third Pugwash Workshop on Social Tensions and Armed Conflict in Pugwash, Canada, 1994. This project resulted in the publication of the Pugwash Monograph World Citizenship: Allegiance to Humanity (Joseph Rotblat, ed., Macmillan Press Ltd., 1997, 234 pp.; published in the USA by St. Martin’s Press).

Si Vis Pacem Para Pacem: On the Contribution of Joseph Rotblat

121

thinking. Many of us, of all ages, benefited from this special attention that Jo paid to the younger generations. When I last saw Jo, in June 2005, he was already very frail; yet he was still the charming gentleman who in his firm but sweet temperament, humility and warmth, wanted to be the perfect host. He was hoping to live longer because there were many reasons for it, for doing what he could to make the world a better place. These reasons are still there, and will continue to outlive us all; but thanks to Jo we are better equipped to contribute ourselves to make this world a more peaceful one. Let me close this brief account with a reflection subscribed by all members of the Mexican Pugwash group:6) ‘‘Jo’s determination, commitment, vision and ideals will be with us forever. Some of us in Mexico will always be grateful to him for having a decisive influence in our careers. We should honor his memory by redoubling the efforts within the Pugwash community and beyond to eliminate war and to abolish nuclear weapons.’’ 7)

6) Elena Alvarez-Buylla, Ana Marı´a Cetto, Germinal Cocho, Rau´l Garcı´a-Barrios, Miguel Marı´n-Bosch, Marco Martı´nez, Omar Masera, Octavio Miramontes, Marı´a Elena Montero, Juan Pablo Pardo, Luis de ˜ a. Octavio Miramontes was la Pen the young physicist invited to the Dagomys Conference; Ana Marı´a Cetto served as member of Council and chaired the Pugwash Executive

Committee; Miguel Marı´n-Bosch is currently a Council member; Omar Masera is chair of the Mexican Pugwash Group and Juan Pablo Pardo plays a leading role in International Student/Young Pugwash. 7) Tribute to Joseph Rotblat by Omar Masera, on behalf of Pugwash Mexico, October 2005 (available on www.pugwash.org).

Remembrances: In Memory of Joseph Rotblat1) Paolo Cotta-Ramusino

In learning of Jo Rotblat’s death, many of us experienced an immediate and almost unbearable sense of great loss. The passing away of a man whose example, words, ideas, and actions over so many years were so inspirational is certainly a dramatic event. But those of us who were so closely associated with Jo Rotblat for quite some time should really ask ourselves, what would have been Jo’s suggestions at this very critical moment? Certainly not to lock ourselves in sorrow, but instead to strengthen our activities and actions in the direction he and the Pugwash community together have been following for more than half a century. Jo was a great man whose extremely rich set of ideas can be easily traced back to one single, very important and very difficult goal: to eliminate nuclear weapons, make them illegal, remove the causes that prompt states to acquire them, and prevent their use at any cost. He always recalled, as stated in the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, that war in the nuclear age could become a deadly global threat to humankind. Without Jo and people like him, we would now live in an even more dangerous world, with many more states having their people behind the nuclear button and many more available nuclear buttons. But Jo was not satisfied with the progress towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. He saw that, after some good steps towards nuclear disarmament, the nuclear weapons states became oblivious to their commitment to disarm, which is, incidentally, required by the non-proliferation treaty. He was openly critical, in particular, of US leadership, both for not taking responsibility for getting the world out of the nuclear stalemate and for contributing 1) September 6, 2005.

123

to the preservation of the dangerous nuclear status quo. He was concerned about the slow but persistent nuclear proliferation: the new ‘‘unofficial’’ nuclear weapons states, the situation in the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, the Indian subcontinent and other places. He was worried about the failure of the NPT Review Conference, which happened in a period when he was already critically ill, but nevertheless always extremely attentive to what happened in the world. The task for Pugwash, and for those who were associated with Jo Rotblat, is to remember him in deeds. Critics at times called his ideas utopian, but the real ‘‘utopia’’ (in Greek ‘‘something that exists nowhere’’) is to believe that humankind can continue forever in allowing some states to have nuclear weapons and others not, that nuclear weapons can be accumulated in various arsenals and never be used, that non-nuclear-weapon states when pressured by nuclear states will not try to acquire nuclear weapons, that dangerous fissile materials are well-enough protected so as to never fall into potential terrorists’ hands. Seeking an international order where nuclear weapons are banned, and understanding the required steps in the difficult path toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, is not a utopia – it is in fact realism, if we care about the future of humanity. We need to be realists as Jo Rotblat was for his long and extremely rich life.

124

Remembrances: In Memory of Joseph Rotblat

Sir Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace Kim Dae-jung

Sir Joseph Rotblat was a ‘‘conscience in action’’. He was a physicist who participated in, but resigned from, the Manhattan Project, the US-led nuclear weapons development plan. However, he did not just stop at being a scientist. In 1955 he announced a declaration of peace, the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, with his colleagues. He founded the Pugwash Conferences in 1957 to eradicate nuclear weapons and to discuss the threat that hydrogen bombs can bring. The Pugwash Conferences that he participated in with passion started from the scientist’s conscience to reduce the enormous harm that scientific technologies can bring to humanity and eventually to eradicate such harm altogether. The Pugwash movement started with the goal of disarmament and prevention of nuclear warfare. Furthermore, thanks to the efforts of Sir Joseph, the movement was expanded to deal with other issues that threatened peace and stability such as biological and chemical weapons, conventional weapons, economic imbalance between developed countries and underdeveloped countries, and environmental pollution around the world. The organization played a significant role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction such as mediating the Cuban missile crisis, providing support for the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). For such contributions, Sir Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995. Through countless achievements, the Pugwash Conferences have become the symbol of hope for peace-loving people around the world. Sir Joseph provided invaluable support in the efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue and to maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula. He held a conference in Seoul in April 2001 under

125

the title Peace on the Korean Peninsula and East Asia and expressed his ardent support for my Sunshine Policy. As President of the Republic of Korea at the time, I had meaningful dialogue with him and other leaders from the Pugwash Conferences at the Blue House. And we met again at the 54 th Pugwash Conference held in October 2004 in Seoul and about a month later again in Rome at the 5 th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates. It was just a year before Sir Joseph sadly passed away. At each encounter, he was so active and dynamic that I could not believe he was 96. I wonder if anyone who met him could imagine that he would pass away so soon. I still vividly remember the inspiration that I felt through the dialogue we had as fellow Nobel Peace Laureates on such issues as a world free from nuclear weapons, a world of peace, a world free from poverty, and the benefits of the Sunshine Policy on the Korean Peninsula. Despite efforts for nuclear disarmament and dismantlement, a ban on nuclear testing and non-proliferation, nuclear weapons are still the biggest source of threat. And the threat of missiles, biochemical weapons and conventional weapons is growing day by day. Meanwhile, people suffering from poverty and disease are falling into confusion and despair. Such despair is becoming a hotbed for terrorism and providing refuge to terrorists. It is highly likely that terrorists may misuse weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. We admire Sir Joseph for traveling so actively around the world until he was nearly 100 years old to bring a world of peace, a world without war. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to him for his valuable efforts. I feel great pride in that I have lived as his contemporary. The best way for us to repay his love is to spare no efforts in working for a world without war and a world without poverty and disease.

126

Sir Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace

Encounters With Sir Joseph Rotblat Jayantha Dhanapala

I assumed duties as Director of the United Nations Research Institute (UNIDIR) in Geneva in July 1987 on a leave of absence from the Sri Lankan Foreign Service. Among the tasks I set myself in building UNIDIR as a center of excellence in independent and policy-oriented research, was the networking of global research institutes so as to coordinate their activities and develop synergies which could accelerate the disarmament process. To this end I convened a Global Conference of Disarmament and Peace Research Institutes in Moscow using the generous contribution UNIDIR received from the former USSR. Joseph Rotblat from Pugwash was an automatic choice as one of the invitees. His reputation was already well established but I had not had the privilege of meeting him before. His act of conscience in walking out of the Manhattan Project and his co-signing of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto was widely admired in the disarmament community. The silver-haired, soft-spoken, affable and kindly man I finally met carried his greatness lightly. He was modest and declined to be lionized. He made himself available to younger researchers and others from different regions of the world answering their questions patiently and with the gentle good humor that never left him. In my discussions with Sir Joseph I found myself being unconsciously mentored by someone with a prodigious fund of knowledge and experience. After Moscow we maintained contact – albeit desultorily – until several years later when we were appointed fellow Commissioners on the Australian Government-sponsored Canberra Commission in 1995. I had just concluded my presidency of the Review and Extension Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the opportunity of participating in the Canberra Commission was an exciting prospect. There was a galaxy of intellectual talent and professional

127

experience to address the issue of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era. Apart from Joseph Rotblat as the sole survivor of the Manhattan Project and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, there was former French Premier Michel Rocard, Lord Carver of the UK, Robert McNamara and General Lee Butler of the USA, Maj Britt Theorin and Rolf Ekeus of Sweden, Dr. Nabil El-Araby of Egypt and many other eminent figures. My concern was whether we could reach a consensus among these nationals of nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. After the second meeting it was clear that we could agree on the total elimination of nuclear weapons as a goal to be advocated. Around the same time a similar commission in the USA had recommended going down to a few hundred nuclear weapons. For the Canberra Commission, however, there was no dispute over our objective, although the need for rigorous verification was emphasized. In retrospect two people contributed most to this – Joseph Rotblat with his scientific background and personal experience in the manufacture of nuclear weapons shaping his unswerving commitment to eliminating the most destructive weapon ever invented by humankind, and General Lee Butler who had been in charge of the nuclear weapon arsenal of the USA and who argued, with passionate intensity, for their dismantling. I remain convinced that the Canberra Commission Report remains one of the great documents in the history of global efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. During my years as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations for Disarmament Affairs I continued to keep in contact with Joseph Rotblat drawing on his experience and wisdom in my Sisyphean task. When I ended my term in May 2003 I was invited to deliver the Dorothy Hodgkin Memorial Lecture at a Pugwash Conference in Halifax, Canada. Joseph Rotblat also spoke at the same conference and received a standing ovation. I watched as I saw the younger members of the audience relate spontaneously to his infectious idealism and intellectual honesty. Sir Joseph Rotblat was not only a transparent person. He was translucent with his message on nuclear disarmament shining through his speech. It was a privilege to accompany him to the village of Pugwash and to listen to his reminiscences of how it all began. The same year we were scheduled to attend the Nobel Peace Laureates Conference organized by the Gorbachev Foundation – I as the Honorary Presi-

128

Encounters With Sir Joseph Rotblat

dent of the International Peace Bureau which had once been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and Sir Joseph as a Nobel Laureate in his own right. Sadly illness prevented him from coming but he shared with me ideas that we could present at the Conference. I did not meet him again and learned of his death with great sadness. While Joseph Rotblat is no more, the Pugwash movement he enriched with his passionate sincerity continues and the goal of nuclear disarmament for which he worked tirelessly remains as an objective for humankind. His life and work will remain an inspiration for us all.

Encounters With Sir Joseph Rotblat

129

Recollections1) Freeman Dyson

Joseph Rotblat devoted the greater part of his long life to the struggle to eliminate nuclear weapons from the earth. Unfortunately he was still in Poland in January 1939 when the possibility of nuclear weapons first became generally known. He was aware of the possibilities, but his voice was not heard in the public discussions of that year. If his voice had been heard, it is possible that history might have taken a different course. In 1939 a great opportunity was missed. That year was the last chance for physicists to establish an ethical tradition against nuclear weapons, similar to the Hippocratic tradition that stopped biologists from promoting biological weapons. The chance was missed, and from that point on the march of history led inexorably to Hiroshima. In January 1939 a meeting of physicists was held at George Washington University in the city of Washington. The meeting had been planned by George Gamow long before fission was discovered. It happened by chance that Niels Bohr arrived in America two weeks before the meeting, bringing from Europe the news of the discovery of fission. Gamow quickly reorganized the meeting so that fission became the main subject. Bohr and Fermi were the main speakers. For the first time, the splitting of the atom was publicly described, and the consequent possibility of atomic bombs was widely reported in newspapers. Not much was said at the meeting about atomic bombs. Everyone at the meeting was aware of the possibilities, but nobody spoke up boldly to suggest that questions of ethical responsibility be put on the agenda. The meeting came too soon for any consensus concerning ethical responsibilities to be reached. Most of the people at the meeting were 1) Reprinted from Ending War: The Force of Reason, edited by Maxwell Bruce and Tom Milne.

131

hearing about fission for the first time. But it would have been possible to start a preliminary discussion, to make plans for an informal organization of physicists and to prepare for further meetings. After several weeks of preparation, a second meeting might have been arranged with the explicit purpose of reaching an ethical consensus. Within a few months of the January meeting, Bohr and Wheeler had worked out the theory of fission in America, the possibility of a fission chain reaction had been confirmed by experimenters in several countries, by Rotblat in Poland among others, and Zeldovich and Khariton had worked out the theory of chain reaction in Russia. All this work was openly discussed and rapidly published. The summer of 1939 was the moment for decisive action to forestall the building of nuclear weapons. Nothing was then officially secret. The leading actors in all countries, Bohr and Einstein and Fermi and Heisenberg and Kapitsa and Khariton and Kurchatov and Joliot and Peierls and Oppenheimer, were still free to talk to one another and to decide upon a common course of action. The initiative for such a common course of action would have most naturally come from Bohr and Einstein. They were the two giants who had the moral authority to speak for the conscience of humankind. Both of them were international figures who stood above narrow national loyalties. Both engaged with political and social problems. Why did they not act? Why did they not at least try to achieve a consensus of physicists against nuclear weapons before it was too late? Perhaps they would have acted, if Joseph Rotblat had been there to urge them on. Thirty-six years later, the sudden discovery of recombinant DNA technology presented a challenge to biologists, similar to the challenge that the discovery of fission had presented to physicists. The biologists promptly organized an international meeting at Asilomar, at which they hammered out an agreement to limit and regulate the uses of the dangerous new technology. It took only a few brave spirits, with Maxine Singer in the lead, to formulate a set of ethical guidelines which the international community of biologists accepted. What happened at George Washington University was quite different. No brave spirits emerged from the community of physicists at the meeting. Instead of coming together to confront the common danger facing humanity, the two leading figures,

132

Recollections

Bohr and Fermi, began to argue about scientific credit. Fermi read aloud a telegram that he received during the meeting from his colleague Herb Anderson at Columbia University, announcing the successful verification of the fission process by direct detection of the pulses of ionization produced by fission fragments. Bohr objected to the claim of credit for Anderson, and pointed out that the same experiment had been done earlier by Otto Frisch in his own Institute in Copenhagen. Bohr was worried because Frisch’s letter to Nature reporting his experiment had not yet appeared in print. Fermi was fighting for his friend Frisch. Scientific priority was more important than common danger. The habit of fighting for priority, as prevalent in the scientific community of the 1930s as it is today, was hard to break. Neither Bohr nor Fermi was able to rise above their parochial concerns. Neither of them felt any urgent need to deal with the larger issues that fission had raised. As soon as Hitler overran Poland in September 1939 and World War II began, the chance of achieving a tacit agreement of physicists in all countries not to build nuclear weapons disappeared. We know why the physicists in Britain and America felt compelled to build weapons. They knew that fission had been discovered in Germany in 1938 and that the German government had started a secret uranium project soon thereafter. They had reason to believe that Heisenberg and other first-rate German scientists were involved in the secret project. They had great respect for Heisenberg, and equally great distrust. They were desperately afraid that the Germans, having started their project earlier, would succeed in building nuclear weapons first. They believed that America and Britain were engaged in a race with Germany which they could not afford to lose. They believed that if Hitler got nuclear weapons first he could use them to conquer the world. Joseph Rotblat was marooned in Britain with his homeland destroyed and his wife in mortal danger. He had more reason than anybody else to be afraid of what Hitler might do with nuclear weapons. The fear of Hitler was so pervasive that hardly a single physicist who was aware of the possibility of nuclear weapons could resist it. The fear allowed scientists to design bombs with a clear conscience. In 1941 they persuaded the British and American governments to build the factories and laboratories where bombs could be manufactured. It would have been impossible for the community Recollections

133

of British and American physicists to say to the world in 1941, ‘‘Let Hitler have his nuclear bombs and do his worst with them. We refuse on ethical grounds to have anything to do with such weapons. It will be better for us in the long run to defeat him without using such weapons, even it takes a little longer and costs us more lives.’’ Hardly anybody in 1941 would have wished to make such a statement. Even Joseph Rotblat would not have made such a statement. And if some of the scientists had wished to make it, the statement could not have been made publicly, because all discussion of nuclear matters was hidden behind walls of secrecy. The world in 1941 was divided into armed camps with no possibility of communication between them. Scientists in Britain and America, scientists in Germany and scientists in the Soviet Union were living in separate black boxes. It was too late in 1941 for the scientists of the world to take a united ethical stand against nuclear weapons. The latest time that such a stand could have been taken was in 1939, when the world was still at peace and secrecy not yet imposed. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that if the physicists in 1939 had quietly agreed not to push the development of nuclear weapons in their various countries, there was a good chance that the weapons would not have been developed anywhere. In every country it was the scientists and not the political leaders who took the initiative to begin the nuclear weapon program. Hitler, as we afterwards learned, was never seriously interested in nuclear weapons. The Japanese military leaders were not seriously interested. Stalin was not seriously interested until he was secretly informed of the size and seriousness of the American program. Roosevelt and Churchill only became interested after their scientific advisors pushed them into it. If the scientific advisors had refrained from pushing, it is likely that World War II would have ended without any Manhattan Project and without any Soviet equivalent. It would then have been possible, as soon as the war was over, to begin negotiations among the victorious allies to establish a nuclear-weapon-free world with some hope of success. We cannot know whether this road not taken would have avoided the nuclear arms race altogether. At least it would have been a saner and wiser road than the one we followed.

134

Recollections

In October of 1995 I was giving a lunchtime lecture to a crowd of students at George Washington University about the history of nuclear weapons. I told them about the meeting that I had held in a nearby building on their campus in January 1939. I told them how the scientists at the meeting missed the opportunity that was fleetingly placed in their hands, to forestall the development of nuclear weapons and to change the course of history. I talked about the nuclear projects that grew during World War II, massive and in deadly earnest in America, small and half-hearted in Germany, serious but late-starting in Russia. I described the atmosphere of furious effort and intense camaraderie that existed in wartime Los Alamos, with the British and American scientists so deeply engaged in the race to produce a bomb that they did not think of stopping when the opposing German team dropped out of the race. I told how, when it became clear in 1944 that there would be no German bomb, only one man, of all the scientists in Los Alamos, stopped. That man was Joseph Rotblat. I told how Rotblat left Los Alamos and became the leader of the Pugwash movement, working indefatigably to unite scientists of all countries in efforts to undo the evils to which Los Alamos gave rise. I remarked how shameful it was that the Nobel Peace Prize, which had been awarded to so many less deserving people, had never been awarded to Joseph Rotblat. At that moment one of the students in the audience shouted, ‘‘Didn’t you hear? He won it this morning.’’ I shouted, ‘‘Hooray,’’ and the whole auditorium erupted in wild cheering. In my head the cheers of the students are still resounding.

Recollections

135

Comment on the Contribution of Sir Joseph Rotblat Mohamed ElBaradei

Sir Joseph Rotblat combined the best qualities of a scientist with those of a socially conscious statesman. He was inquisitive, reflective, incisive in his logic, and direct in expressing his convictions. His tireless campaign against nuclear weapons was the more unique because of his earlier participation in the Manhattan Project. He knew the dangers of which he spoke. Sir Joseph’s life spanned nearly a century – a century marked by world wars, globalization, and the dawn of the nuclear age – and it was his good fortune that, even in his old age, he was able to remain active, his intellect as sharp as ever. The result, for those with whom he interacted, was to be struck with his sense of historical perspective – his ability to read the political and technological landscape of the 20 th century as an unbroken chain of events. That sense of perspective was reflected in his vision. Just before his 90 th birthday, he said he still had two great goals in life. ‘‘My short-term goal,’’ he said, ‘‘is the abolition of nuclear weapons; and my long-term goal is the abolition of war.’’ It was clear that Sir Joseph viewed nuclear weapons as inherently unethical, and that he would not be content with anything less than global nuclear disarmament. But with his sense of pragmatism, he was also able to focus his energies on the practical realities of national and regional security issues – constantly on the alert for the emergence of situations that could give rise to nuclear proliferation or use. It was in that light that we agreed in early 2004 to write a joint piece on the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. The nuclear proliferation concerns emerging in that region, we noted, were directly linked to a pervasive sense of insecurity among all players and the critical need to revive the peace process. On February 3, the Financial Times published our op-ed, entitled ‘‘The Time to

137

Act is Now’’. The current situation, we argued, was unsustainable; if the world continued to do nothing, catastrophe would only be a matter of time. Any attempt to achieve security for one country at the expense of insecurity for others would ultimately fail. For an enduring Middle East peace to be achieved, we concluded, the foundation would need to be an inclusive and comprehensive approach to security – not only banning weapons of mass destruction, but also limiting conventional armaments, and establishing and maintaining strong confidence building and security measures. Later that year, when I met with Sir Joseph in Seoul in what would be our last face-to-face interaction, we talked about a broad range of our mutual fears related to nuclear weapons: the relative stagnation in nuclear disarmament; the risk of the nuclear nonproliferation regime collapsing; the dangers of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear weapon; and the weakening of the political and social taboos – in place since 1945 – on the use of nuclear weapons. But our conclusion was not pessimistic. Our belief was that there was reason to hope – that ultimately, the international community would begin moving towards a security system based on human dignity and shared values, and not relying on nuclear weapons. Sir Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs were the deserving recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995. It was characteristic of Sir Joseph that he focused his Nobel Lecture on a theme that encapsulated the historical, the ethical, and the personal aspects of his vision: ‘‘Remember your humanity,’’ he said repeatedly – echoing the 1955 Russell–Einstein Manifesto he had helped to prepare. As an individual who had lived the history of these deadly weapons, he had analyzed them from every vantage point: scientifically, historically, ethically and politically. And in each sense, he was convinced that they decreased rather than enhanced security. But ultimately, his appeal was personal: the most compelling argument for getting rid of all nuclear weapons was to do it ‘‘for the sake of humanity’’. ‘‘Achieving this goal will take time,’’ he declared, ‘‘but it will never happen unless we make a start.’’ May Sir Joseph Rotblat rest in peace, and may it be his legacy that we who survive him carry forward his vision.

138

Comment on the Contribution of Sir Joseph Rotblat

A Personal Tribute to Joseph Rotblat1) Michael Foot

All of us who had the honour of knowing Joseph Rotblat will welcome the publication of this volume. He was the greatest peacemonger of the nuclear age. I once described him in the terms which Jonathan Swift used to describe Alexander Pope; he was our guide, philosopher and friend, the one who could show us the way of escape from nuclear oblivion.

1) July 2006.

139

A Letter to Joseph Rotblat Johan Galtung

Alfaz, September 2006 Dear Joseph You were one of those gifts to humanity. As I write these lines, for my inner eye is not only on your face but your smiling face, that warm, encouraging smile. I have seen you furious at mad politics. But the smile prevailed, and prevails in memory. I knew you over a long period, from my first 1964 Pugwash conference in India until we met under UNESCO’s auspices in Moldova in 1998 – some 35 years. And you always were a living token of a very old and very important truth: choose a decent life project early in life, and then stick to it. And do not give up. Never give up. Just continue, make some revisions, do not be dogmatic. Keep going. And after that keep going! True, there are still nuclear arms around. But they are seen by most of the world as illegitimate, as an evil at best, as a necessary evil at worst. The evil spirit unleashed from the bottle cannot be bottled again, they say. True again, but we do not have to pursue those evil designs. Not that pyramids were that evil. But even if we know the recipe we do not slavishly continue building pyramids. Much of this massive delegitimization of nuclear arms is due to Pugwash in general, and you in particular, Jo. One day your vision will come true. In the meantime there is much more to celebrate in your name. You, Secretary-General of Pugwash, were the chief executive behind bringing together the East and West of those days, at the level of very distinguished nuclear scientists to start with, and then less distinguished social scientists. You provided a model that also had to be repeated again and again, to sit down, to dialogue, to argue

141

over differences, to arrive at resolutions and make the outcome known. It was at the time like sending messages to a dark hole in the universe. They were absorbed and crushed into nothingness, possibly at a very high specific density. Again you did not give up. You just went on and on. And then you went on, again. We had a disagreement. Not over the ban on nuclear arms or Cold War politics. But over another divide: atomic versus social scientists. That the former were very bright by all possible measures was beyond any doubt. But to me it was not that clear that any idea produced by an atomic scientist far away from his field necessarily carried the same lucidity, and that our task was only to deliver some data. We settled the dispute in amity. Maybe we had one more disagreement, related to this one. I felt the US, perhaps also Soviet, addiction to nuclear arms went beyond politics and military strategy into the theological. Countries chosen by God to bring law and order to the world (Colin Powell), or by history to guide the world into socialism (Lenin) had the right to the weapons of their choice as their mission was transcendental. But even more so, get rid of them! You were a noble, Jo, beyond the title bestowed upon you. You will be with us wherever there is struggle for peace.

142

A Letter to Joseph Rotblat

Recollections of Joseph Rotblat Richard L. Garwin

To me, Jo Rotblat was the soul of Pugwash. From the time I first met him in the mid 1960s until his death he was incredibly energetic and single-minded in his pursuit of the goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons. Jo was courteous, cultured, organized, and tough. He inspired and taught. I was an unlikely recruit to the ranks of Pugwashites, because I maintained my full involvement with the US government at the same time that I was trying to reduce dependence on nuclear weaponry and to facilitate their eventual elimination. In the 1960s and early 1970s I was for eight years a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) of 18 people (throughout its lifetime never a woman!) and worked with the perfection of nuclear weaponry. In 1951 I had played a major role in the creation of the hydrogen bomb but was still a consultant to the Los Alamos National Laboratory as well as to other agencies of the government. I chaired for PSAC the Military Aircraft Panel, the Aircraft Panel, the Naval Warfare Panel, the Antisubmarine Warfare Panel, and I served from the late 1950s until the demise of PSAC in 1953 on the Strategic Military Panel that dealt with nuclear-armed aircraft, missiles, and defenses against Soviet missiles. PSAC was also much concerned with arms control, not only with the advent of President John F. Kennedy and his advisor Jerome Wiesner, but much earlier when it was created, by President Dwight D. Eisenhower who famously stated, ‘‘. . . not achieving a nuclear test ban would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration – of any decade – of any time and of any party . . .’’ (May 29, 1961). Jo and Patricia Lindop at my first Pugwash meeting impressed on me that my concern at the time to prevent wasteful and dishon-

143

est government expenditures on a commercial supersonic aircraft program would be only a distraction to Pugwash. An ordinary Pugwashite saw enough of Jo Rotblat to understand his unique character, but I had a greater opportunity as a member, briefly, of the Pugwash Council, filling the unexpired term of Herbert P. Scoville, whom I had first met in 1958 when both he and I were on the US government team to the 10-nation Conference on the Prevention of Surprise Attack, convened by the United Nations in Geneva. Pete Scoville had the predecessor job to the Deputy Director of Science and Technology in the Central Intelligence Agency, and he, too, might have been imagined to be an unlikely Pugwashite. Pete soon left the CIA for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and in government and later until his death in 1985 was a fighter for the utility of arms control. Jo’s passion for the elimination of nuclear weapons was the center of his life, but there was much beyond that center – courtesy, and eloquence. Jo was an imposing figure. He was eloquent, to the point that when it came to my turn at a rather small Pugwash session to make an after-dinner speech, I decided on the spot to turn it over to Jo because he would do a better job, which he promptly did. We can all say honestly that we are the better for having known Jo Rotblat, a greater leader and a greater teacher. It is a shame that the world was not a better student.

144

Recollections of Joseph Rotblat

Joseph Rotblat: a Great and Eventful Life Mikhail S. Gorbachev

I first learned of Professor Joseph Rotblat, as one of the leaders of the Pugwash movement of scientists for nuclear disarmament, many years ago, when things were not looking good for their cause. It is to their great credit that even then, they never succumbed to panic or despair and continued to work persistently to make people and politicians understand the pernicious futility of the confrontation and the need to rethink international politics in the nuclear age. Among those pioneers of the new thinking, Professor Rotblat always stood out for the courage of his convictions and the strength of his arguments. In the mid-1980s, when change came to the Soviet Union, this new thinking was given its historic chance. As someone who took the initiative in putting the idea of a nuclear weapon-free world on the agenda of global realpolitik, I want to emphasize the importance of the great work that the proponents of this idea had done during the preceding years. The role of the antiwar and antinuclear movements was equally important and, indeed, indispensable during the years when joint efforts of East and West brought the Cold War to an end. The point of departure in that process was the US–Soviet summit in Geneva, when the leaders of the two nations stated that a ‘‘nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’’. The enduring importance of that statement cannot be overemphasized. Indeed, it was a kind of test: do the leaders of the nuclear superpowers really mean it, is it more than mere rhetoric? If so, then changes in their policies must inevitably follow. The first sign of change was the treaty on intermediate-range forces, which eliminated two categories of nuclear missiles, followed by the treaty on strategic nuclear weapons, which cut them in half. Such a significant outcome, achieved over a period so brief in historical

145

terms, was quite an accomplishment, and civil society movements can take much of the credit for it. The subsequent period – the 1990s and the beginning of the new century – has been a challenging one for our cause, and the results thus far are mixed. It is during that time that I came to know Dr. Rotblat personally and to appreciate him as a truly unique man and a strong leader. In the discussions of nuclear disarmament issues at meetings of Nobel Peace Prize winners, Joseph Rotblat’s contribution was indispensable: he was the best qualified and perhaps the most passionate participant. As time went by, the note of concern and alarm in our discussions became more and more prominent. In fact, we have seen a failure of political leadership, which proved incapable of seizing the opportunities for peace opened by the end of the Cold War. This failure has manifested itself in many ways. Not nearly enough has been done to address the problems of poverty and backwardness, or the global environmental crisis, or the root causes of extremism and terrorism. But it is in nuclear disarmament that this failure has been perhaps the most glaring. The ABM Treaty has been abrogated; the requirements for effective verification and irreversibility of nuclear arms reductions have been weakened; the treaty on comprehensive cessation of nuclear weapons tests has not been ratified by all nuclear powers. And, most importantly, the goal of the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons has been essentially forgotten. What is more, the military doctrines of major powers have re-emphasized nuclear weapons as an acceptable means of war fighting, to be used in a first or even in a ‘‘pre-emptive’’ strike. All this is a blatant violation of the nuclear powers’ commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its Article VI is clear and unambiguous: nations that are capable of making nuclear weapons shall forego that possibility in exchange for the promise by the members of the ‘‘nuclear club’’ to reduce and eventually abolish their nuclear arsenals. If this reciprocity is not observed, then the entire structure of the treaty will collapse. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is already under considerable stress. The emergence of India and Pakistan as nuclear weapon states, the North Korean nuclear program, and the issue

146

Joseph Rotblat: a Great and Eventful Life

of Iran are just the harbingers of even more dangerous problems that we will have to face unless we overcome the present situation. On top of that, we are confronted with a new and truly catastrophic threat – the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. I agree with those who believe that preventing this from happening should be seen as a major task for nations and international organizations. It is a challenge to our technological ingenuity and our ability to work together internationally. But we should not delude ourselves: in the final analysis, the problem can only be solved through the abolition of nuclear weapons. So long as they continue to exist, the danger will be with us, like the famous ‘‘rifle on the wall’’ that will fire sooner or later. We must put the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons back on the agenda – for the foreseeable future if not for the near term. These weapons are immoral, and their use should be inconceivable for any responsible political leader. It is the task of civil society to challenge the current generation of world leaders to recognize that nuclear weapons, far from serving any nuclear purpose, have no place in the world of the 21 st century. I recall how Dr. Rotblat and I discussed these issues on September 29, 2004 – the day when he launched a major public awareness campaign that was to become a new page in the anti-nuclear weapons movement. Participating in major public events was already quite difficult for my friend, and I felt it was my duty to support him by coming to London and speaking there with him. As always, his speech was passionate, logically argued and therefore convincing. The audience gave him a standing ovation. What a great and eventful life, I thought as I listened to him, what an example of serving the people! We must now continue the noble cause to which Joseph Rotblat gave his life. Time is of the essence; at stake is the future of humankind.

Joseph Rotblat: a Great and Eventful Life

147

Professor Rotblat and the Atom Train*) Bryce Halliday

Professor Rotblat felt very strongly during his time in the United States that he was obliged to change the direction of his work, on moral grounds, from the application of atomic energy to the development of weapons of immense destructive power, to its application to medicine. He felt that the general public was ignorant of the other uses of atomic energy and he set about arousing the scientific community to the devastating effects of nuclear weapons and the dangers of their proliferation. He felt also it was his duty to do his best to educate the general public. He was involved with others in setting up the UK Atomic Scientists Association in 1946 and was also later involved in a life-long association with the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. The Atomic Scientists Association was formed early in 1946 by scientists, many of whom had taken part during the war in the atomic energy projects in Britain, Canada and the United States. The aims of the association were as follows: 1. To bring before the public of this country the true facts about atomic energy and its implications. 2. To investigate and make proposals for the international control of atomic energy in order to help in the solution of this most pressing problem. 3. To help to shape the policy of this country in all matters relating to atomic energy. Full membership was limited to graduate scientists with specialised knowledge of atomic energy; the Association could then speak as a body of experts. *) Reprinted from ‘‘War and Peace’’, edited by Peter Rowlands and Vincent Attwood, University of Liverpool Press, 2006.

149

The Association held many discussions on the political problems of atomic energy, both domestic and international; in particular, it issued memoranda on the vital subject of international control, which were sent to delegates at United Nations meetings. The Association provided speakers for many meetings and cooperated with other organisations. Associate membership was open to all interested members of the public for a small fee and they received the monthly bulletin of the Association. The Association set up a committee to promote a travelling exhibition to be called ‘The Atom Train’, and Jo was largely responsible for obtaining funding from the Government using all his skills of persuasion. So in early 1947 planning for the Atom Train was started, and co-operation was obtained from the Department of Atomic Energy of the Ministry of Supply and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment (A.E.R.E.) at Harwell. They loaned radioactive sources and a lot of technical equipment, Geiger counters with associated electronics and other apparatus. The Directorate of Information of the Ministry of Supply helped in the general organisation of the Exhibition and the tour. Many other individual members of the Association contributed equipment and models and were always ready for consultation. This is where I came on the scene, being recruited to be responsible for running all this equipment, which was largely unfamiliar to me in detail; but as I had just completed 6 years in the army working in R.E.M.E. on the installation and maintenance of antiaircraft Radio Direction Finding Equipment (now called radar) I was familiar with the basic electronics. All the exhibition material was assembled in the University of Liverpool Physics Department and a number of mechanical devices we had to design were made in the department workshops. The Train was to consist of two large goods carriages which I believe usually carried milk and had already been used for a previous travelling exhibition. The actual panelling and general layout design was carried out by an industrial design studio, and constructed and installed in the carriages in a workshop at the rear of Alexandra Palace which specialised in exhibition work. I had several visits there to check on progress and to ensure our requirements were being met.

150

Professor Rotblat and the Atom Train

The plan was for the coaches to tour 26 railway stations, mainly in the north of England and Scotland with Swansea, Cardiff and Bristol further south. The coaches would stay 3–6 days in a bay platform depending on the size of the town or city, and members of the Association would give connected talks and also, with physics students, act as guides and lecturers on the Train. The Train staff consisted of a business manager who arranged the local lectures, advertisements and our lodgings; myself and another technician to keep it all running; with a handy-man to help generally and sell tickets and booklets. The Train coaches, fitted out with their panels, and so on, came up to Edge Hill sidings, Liverpool, a mile or so from the University, where all the technical equipment was ready to be fitted into place. We were visited by several physicists, and I well remember one evening when Professor Peierls of Birmingham came. [Professor Peierls with Dr. Frisch, wrote the famous memorandum stating that if the isotope U 235 was used for a bomb instead of U 238, the weight would be measured in kilos instead of tons, thus making a bomb possible to deliver.] Jo and the Prof were talking very animatedly and loudly, Jo in his strong Polish accent and the Prof with a very Germanic tone. The Prof finally left, and Jo and I set off to return to the Lab when he turned to me and said, ‘The trouble with these foreigners is they are so excitable!!!’ The Train was officially opened in early November 1947 by Sir James Chadwick in the old Liverpool Central Station, moving immediately to start its tour in a bay platform at Chester, continuing then for 6 months visiting 26 locations, finishing in London, Paddington. It exceeded by far the expectations of the Association, and we often had queues waiting to go through even up to 9 pm. at night. The booklet, which I still have, had to be reprinted twice, making a nice profit. The exhibition was divided into two parts, Fundamental Facts and Practical Applications. The first part showed with diagrams and models the construction of atoms and molecules; explained isotopes, especially the uranium mass numbers; how atoms behave creating molecules and compounds; and Einstein’s theory that mass and energy are related – E ¼ c 2 . Radioactivity was explained and demonstrated to the visitor using a Geiger counter to measure the activity of the luminous dial Professor Rotblat and the Atom Train

151

on his wrist watch, or better still seeing the radiation from a piece of Trinitite, a glassy piece of fused sand found on the ground after the first atomic explosion in New Mexico, loaned by Professor Chadwick who witnessed the event. Splitting the atom was explained and, in the days before Geiger counters, a device called a cloud chamber was used to obtain visual evidence of disintegration under bombardment in our working model by fast alpha particles. While the Train was in Edinburgh, a young physics student was giving a very good description to an elderly visitor of the chamber’s function. The visitor thanked him and moved away and I was able to tell the student he had been speaking to the chamber’s inventor Professor C. T. R. Wilson for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics! Particle accelerators were described, but the lovely working model of a cyclotron, loaned by the Science Museum, would never work due to the continual small movements of the coaches. A model using suspended permanent magnets was used to demonstrate the behaviour of protons and neutrons approaching a nucleus; this was a rather fragile model and was frequently broken, though during the whole tour, only 2 people confessed to breakage. While in Blackpool it was broken more frequently than usual which we put down to the visitors being used to more robust Arcade games!! A fine exhibit provided by the now defunct Metropolitan Vickers, demonstrated how silver plates could be made radioactive by a neutron source, the emitted neutrons being moderated by paraffin wax. In the second part of the exhibition, the Practical Applications, fission was demonstrated and an active diagram explained the process of a chain reaction, and three working models showed three methods of isotope separation and how a chain reaction could be controlled to produce heat in a reactor, the heat producing steam to drive a turbine electric generator. Maps were displayed to give the visitor the facts of a bomb dropped on Central London showing the range and areas of destruction, and we always had a similar map of the local area of the town we were in. The use of radio-isotopes in medicine for diagnostics and treatment were outlined with illustrations, and the use of tracers in

152

Professor Rotblat and the Atom Train

agriculture and industry were explained. Finally the visitors were presented with the choices open to them with the possibilities of good or evil, either destruction or construction. Many schools and colleges with some older university students visited the Exhibition, and quite a number of adult groups, such as the Rotary Club, came through. The Association felt that their aim had been achieved. Some people came expecting a ride in a nuclear powered train! The exhibition carriages were then used to tour the south of England, visiting Kent, Hampshire, Devon and Cornwall. The equipment only was returned to Liverpool, later to be assembled by me as a static exhibition in Paris to go to a UNESCO conference in the Lebanon. It made its last appearance, as far as I know in 1949 when I re-assembled it again in Copenhagen to tour Scandinavian countries. Jo Rotblat visited the Train frequently, and gave many parallel lectures, and it was certainly his enthusiasm that was a major contribution to its success and it was good to see his brain-child so successful. After the first tour of the Train I joined the Liverpool University Physics Department to operate and maintain the 8 MeV cyclotron built by Professor Chadwick before the war.

Professor Rotblat and the Atom Train

153

Retrospective: Joseph Rotblat (1908–2005)1) John P. Holdren

Sir Joseph Rotblat, who died on August 31, 2005 in London at the age of 96, was a participant in the Manhattan Project, a pioneer in medical physics, and one of the towering figures of the 20 th century in the domain of the social responsibilities of scientists. He was the only scientist to leave the American–British atomic bomb project on moral grounds once it became clear that the Germans would not succeed in developing the bomb. Thereafter, he devoted the rest of a long career in science to clarifying the health impacts of ionizing radiation. His parallel career in public affairs focused on building international communication and cooperation to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. Rotblat was the youngest of the 11 signatories of the 1955 Russell–Einstein Manifesto, which called upon scientists to ‘‘assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction’’. (Most of the other signatories, including Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Max Born, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Linus Pauling, and Hideki Yukawa, already had Nobel Prizes.) He was instrumental in planning the resulting 1957 conference in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, which spawned a new international organization – the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. It has since held some 300 conferences, symposia, and workshops on arms control and peacebuilding. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Pugwash Conferences were able to assemble scientists and public figures from both sides of the Iron Curtain for private discussions of the thorniest science-and-security issues of the time. These meetings are widely credited with laying the technical foundations for the Nuclear Non1) Science, volume 310, 28 October 2005, reprinted with permission from AAAS.

155

Proliferation Treaty, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, among others. Joseph Rotblat was the organization’s first and longest serving Secretary-General (1957– 73), and later its President (1988–97). For its entire existence until his death in August 2005, he was the animating spirit and the embodiment of its commitment to diminish the dangers from weapons of mass destruction and from war itself. A Polish Jew, Rotblat completed his doctorate in physics at the University of Warsaw. In 1939 he accepted a research fellowship to work under James Chadwick, the discoverer of the neutron, at the University of Liverpool. Later that year, he returned to Warsaw to collect his young Polish wife, but she was too ill to travel, and he had to return to England without her. The next day Hitler invaded Poland, and Rotblat never saw his wife again. Rotblat’s own experiments at the end of the 1930s had shown that the newly discovered fission process emitted neutrons, and he was one of the first to realize that this opened the possibility of a chain reaction that could yield immense explosive power. With Chadwick, he went to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in February 1944 as part of the British team assigned to the Manhattan Project (although he did not become a British citizen until after the war). When it became clear later in 1944 that the Germans were losing the war – and clear, as well, through intelligence that was shared with Rotblat, that the German atomic bomb project had gone nowhere – he packed his bags, left Los Alamos, and returned to Liverpool. He later told me and others that he had no wish to work on an atomic weapon destined for use against Japan, known not to be developing such a weapon itself. Back in England, he switched the focus of his scientific work to medical physics, pioneering the use of linear accelerators for radiation therapy and becoming one of the world’s leading authorities on fallout and the effects of ionizing radiation on humans. He also began to work on educating the public and policy-makers on the dangers of nuclear weapons and shortly after the war’s end, became one of the founders of the Atomic Scientists Association – the British counterpart to the Federation of American Scientists that was established in the USA at about the same time.

156

Retrospective: Joseph Rotblat (1908–2005)

In 1954 Rotblat met the eminent British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell through a British Broadcasting Corporation television program about the hydrogen bomb in which they were both interviewed. He became an adviser to Russell on the details of nuclear weapon science, and was subsequently recruited by Russell to sign the Russell–Einstein Manifesto and chair the press conference that released the document. Recognizing that the knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons could not be eradicated, the signers of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto emphasized that safety for civilization would come only when war itself was abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations. A prohibition on nuclear weapons, while desirable, would only be a way station on the road to safety. Joseph Rotblat, however, became increasingly preoccupied with the urgency of reaching that way station and he made its pursuit the central aim of his own life’s work in the nuclear arena and a major theme within the Pugwash Conferences. He contributed a number of significant ideas to the multidecade debate about the desirability and feasibility of eliminating nuclear weapons, along with tireless energy, unmatched eloquence, and total commitment to the cause of peace. The Pugwash Conferences served as invaluable vehicles for pursuing these goals. Knowing full well that this quest would take longer than the span of his own life, he invested tremendous effort in recruiting to the cause, and mentoring, students and young scientists. He was instrumental in founding in the 1980s, and nurturing thereafter, an international Student/Young Pugwash counterpart to the ‘‘senior’’ organization. In 1995 Joseph Rotblat was awarded half of the Nobel Peace Prize with a citation that read ‘‘for efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international affairs and, in the longer run, to eliminate such arms’’. The other half of the prize went to the Pugwash organization. Rotblat was elected to the UK’s Royal Society in the same year and was knighted in 1998. With his passing, the world has lost a great champion of peace. But the compelling example of his life, which has already inspired and instructed so many about the social responsibilities of science and scientists, will continue to do so.

Retrospective: Joseph Rotblat (1908–2005)

157

Sir Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool John R. Holt

Joseph Rotblat was born in 1908 in Warsaw. His father was a prosperous businessman until the outbreak of World War I, when his business collapsed and the family fell on hard times. Joseph had a love of science and found that he could study at night for a degree at the Free University of Poland while working as an electrician during the day. He graduated in 1932 and was offered a post in the Radiological Laboratory of Warsaw. He gained his doctorate in 1938. The director of the Laboratory was Ludwik Wertenstein, a pupil of Marie Curie and a pioneer in the science of radioactivity in Poland. They had a small radium–beryllium neutron source with which they carried out experiments on the scattering of neutrons and production of radioactive elements. Rotblat published several papers with some of his colleagues or in his own name. In January 1939 Hahn and Strassmann in Germany discovered the fission of uranium under bombardment by neutrons. The process was accompanied by the release of a large amount of energy. Rotblat had been experimenting with uranium and was able to show that neutrons were emitted in the fission process. Scientists in other countries were doing similar experiments and it became clear that several neutrons were emitted after each fission. The stage was set for the possibility of a chain reaction in which the emitted neutrons caused further fissions with an increasing release of energy. Rotblat realized this, with its sequel the production of a bomb of unprecedented destructive power. He knew that scientists in Germany would have the same knowledge and he feared they might put it into practice. At this time he obtained a grant to study abroad, which he wished to use to work at the laboratory in Liverpool where Professor James Chadwick was building a cyclotron. So in April 1939 he traveled to England. It was his first trip abroad.

159

The cyclotron was nearing completion in the basement of the physics laboratory with a small team consisting of two research fellows and two research students with Michael Moore, an engineer who was also in charge of the workshop. It was a happy group which welcomed Jo Rotblat into their midst. I was a research student working in another part of the basement with Geiger counters studying artificial radioactive elements. Rotblat had also used Geiger counters so he was interested in the work I was doing. In August he went back to Poland with the intention of bringing his wife to England. Unfortunately, she had appendicitis and could not travel and he had to return without her. In September Germany invaded Poland and Jo was devastated. I remember Mike Moore bringing him to my room in a distressed state to talk to him about my work to take his mind off his troubles. He never saw his wife again. Much of what I am able to say about the developments in the laboratory during the war has been gleaned from the exhaustively researched PhD thesis of C. D. King, ‘‘Chadwick, Liverpool and the Bomb’’. In September 1939 Chadwick was evidently contemplating the closure of the cyclotron since he had lost several senior members of the construction team to work on radar research and he did not see a role for it during the war. He was aware of the possibility of a uranium bomb but estimates of its size were several tons, which seemed to rule out its use. However, by November 1939 Chadwick’s view had changed and he had arranged for Powell from Bristol to come to Liverpool to do some experiments with the cyclotron. These experiments were to make use of the special photographic plates provided by Ilford which Powell had used for his cosmic ray research. Chadwick thought that these plates could be used to detect neutrons. My conclusion is that Rotblat’s hand can be seen here. He was very concerned that German scientists might be working on the uranium problem and must have persuaded Chadwick that the cyclotron could be used to measure some of the quantities involved in the construction of a bomb. At any rate Chadwick wrote in a letter to Appleton, the Head of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, ‘‘that he intended to carry out experiments on uranium oxide with the help of a Polish research worker, Dr. Rotblat’’. He also arranged for two young assistants to work with Rotblat.

160

Sir Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool

Powell brought his apparatus to Liverpool in 1940. It was a scattering camera for investigating the inelastic scattering of protons from a variety of elements and so deducing their exited states. These experiments had no connection with the uranium problem and the results were published. Chadwick evidently intended to give the impression of a normally functioning physics laboratory and divert any possible attention from the later work with uranium. Powell used his apparatus on the cyclotron at various times during the war but I believe he did not participate in the work on uranium. Another incident in December 1940 was the irradiation of a piece of rock salt at Chadwick’s request for the production of radioactive sodium-24. When the irradiation was completed a motorcycle dispatch rider was waiting to take it to Oxford for the use of Sir Hugh Cairns, neurosurgeon. Rowlands, who later went to work in biophysics, said that this was perhaps the beginning of clinical nuclear medicine. Rotblat had lost the funding for his Polish fellowship so Chadwick appointed him to an Oliver Lodge Fellowship. By November his English had improved so much that he was able to give a course of lectures to the Honors class on nuclear physics. In these apparently he touched on the fission of uranium and the likelihood of a chain reaction but discounted the possibility of a bomb. Later the requirements for radio and radar operators for the armed forces required courses in electronics and Rotblat was involved in these, giving lectures and supervising practical classes. The students were always unstinting in their praise for his lecturing abilities. Current thinking about the possibility of a uranium bomb among scientists in this country was completely changed in March 1940 by a remarkable memorandum written by Peierls and Frisch in Birmingham. They showed that, although many tons might be required for a bomb using uranium-238, if one could separate out the rare isotope uranium-235, which composed only one part in 140 of normal uranium, a bomb might require only a few kilograms. Frisch set up an apparatus to try to separate the uranium-235, and in Liverpool Chadwick and Rotblat embarked on a program to measure some of the quantities which Peierls and Frisch had only been able to estimate. Frisch brought his apparatus to Liverpool and Chadwick assigned me to be his assistant. I worked with Frisch for the three Sir Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool

161

years he remained in Liverpool during which time he carried out many experiments, some of them on the cyclotron. Rotblat’s research was mainly with the cyclotron, which was being operated by Moore, Pickavance and Rowlands. It was necessary to measure quantities such as the cross-section of uranium-235 for the fission neutrons, the scattering cross-section for neutrons, the spectrum of the fission neutrons, and so on. I sometimes helped with the cyclotron and I remember Rotblat using the special Ilford photographic plates to measure the spectrum of the fission neutrons. The neutrons produce proton recoils in the emulsion and these leave trails of silver grains, which can be seen under a microscope. The lengths of these recoils are a measure of their energy and so of the neutron energy. Pickavance and Rowlands helped with the tedious microscope measurements. Rotblat also devised a water tank method using manganese detectors to investigate the low-energy region of the neutron spectrum. Chadwick’s attitude to secrecy was that it was better not to have any obvious precautions. Only the senior members of the collaboration, Frisch and Rotblat, were fully informed about the results of all the measurements and the work going on in other laboratories in the country. Thus there was no restriction on discussions between the various seniors in the different laboratories. The junior members were aware only of the results of their own measurements but not how they fitted into the overall plan of research. They all knew that the aim was to produce a uranium bomb but never discussed this outside the laboratory. The work on the cyclotron was sometimes interrupted by air raid attacks on Liverpool. Early in the morning of March 13, 1941 a parachute mine landed on the corner of the engineering building across the quadrangle from the physics building. The engineering building and others suffered extensive damage and most of the windows in the physics building were blown in but the cyclotron was not affected and the work soon continued. Rotblat took a close interest in the e´migre´ Polish community in the neighborhood and on one occasion showed a group of Polish engineers around the cyclotron no doubt emphasizing the nuclear physics experiments of Powell. Frisch said that it was Jo’s friendship that helped him to have a life outside the laboratory. He mentioned that on one occasion he played Chopin to a group of Polish

162

Sir Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool

soldiers. In the summer of 1941 Chadwick was able to get Movement Restriction Orders lifted from Frisch and Rotblat, which was no doubt welcome. I went on holiday with Jo on two occasions. In both cases I believe that he made all the arrangements. The first in 1942 was to Lynmouth in Devon. We hired bicycles and on one occasion found an old abandoned uranium mine. We picked up a piece of ore from a slagheap and on returning to Liverpool, placing it by a Geiger counter, found that it was quite radioactive. In 1943 we went to stay in Aviemore in the north of Scotland at a modern bungalow with a Scottish lady and her daughter. We explored the surrounding unspoilt countryside including the ancient Rothiemurchus pine forest with its large pine needle nests of wood ants. The highlight of the trip was a 20-mile hike one day to the top of Cairngorm. Jo researched this carefully beforehand with the help of Ordnance Survey maps. So we followed an unorthodox route, along the Lairig Ghru valley to the base of Ben Macdui then straight up a 45-degree slope covered with bracken to the summit. The walk along the top to the summit of Cairngorm was then comparatively easy. At Liverpool the work with the cyclotron and the construction of electronics had been supplemented by half a dozen postgraduate students from several universities. However, by 1944 it became evident that work on the bomb project in this country was being rapidly overtaken by that in the USA where the vast resources needed for its completion were available. So Chadwick, Frisch and Rotblat, with Moore, Rowlands and some of the other members of the Liverpool team went to work in the USA. The cyclotron was closed down and those who were left went to Cambridge where the cyclotron was kept running and some nuclear physics experiments continued. Rotblat worked at the Los Alamos laboratory, but after a few months he learned that the Germans had not progressed in any bomb research so for him the motive for his work was gone. He resigned from the project, the only scientist to do so, and left under a cloud with the American security agents suspecting him of being a spy. I knew nothing of this at the time, but Jo arrived back in Liverpool with Chadwick’s instructions to reinstate the cyclotron. In autumn 1945 I came back from Cambridge to take up my assistant lectureship again. Sir Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool

163

Moore arrived back from the USA and, with Rotblat, was instrumental in bringing the cyclotron back into operation. Jo decided to capitalize on the use of photographic emulsions and set up an organization to do this. The main problem was the measurement of the thousands of tracks to be viewed under the microscope. Several microscopes were purchased and half a dozen women were trained to do the measurements. The Powell camera was used to examine the scattering of protons and deuterons from a number of different elements and the results were published in various papers. Rotblat said that the work on the Manhattan Project had an enduring effect on his life. It radically changed his scientific career and the carrying out of his obligations to society. He decided that rather than working in a nuclear physics that had been applied to weapons he would instead work in the application of nuclear physics to medicine. He was also concerned about the political aspects of the development of nuclear weapons and devoted himself to arousing the scientific community to the dangers and to educating the general public. In connection with the first he was instrumental in setting up the Atomic Scientists Association and with the second he set up a traveling exhibition. That was the Atom Train that consisted of two carriages containing demonstrations and experiments illustrating various aspects of nuclear physics. This was opened by Chadwick at the Central Station, Liverpool, on a winter’s day at the end of 1947. It traveled around the UK and abroad. That Rotblat had managed to obtain funding for this from the government was no doubt a tribute to his diplomacy and powers of persuasion. At the end of the war a committee was set up, the Nuclear Physics Sub-Committee, with Chadwick as chairman, to make recommendations regarding the program of nuclear physics to be pursued in the UK. One of the recommendations that Chadwick made was that a small committee should look into the development of more sensitive photographic emulsions. Rotblat was the chairman of this committee, which included Powell, and representatives of the Ilford firm. The resulting development helped Powell in 1947 to discover the pi-meson in cosmic rays. In 1950 Powell was awarded the Nobel Prize for ‘‘his development of the photographic method of studying nuclear processes and his discoveries regarding mesons.’’

164

Sir Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool

The Nuclear Physics Sub-Committee also discussed the provision of cyclotrons at Harwell, Cambridge and Liverpool. A so-called Cyclotron Panel was set up, chaired by Rotblat, which sat from early 1946. At the final meeting in February 1947 it was announced that the Nuclear Physics Sub-Committee had agreed to provide Chadwick with a cyclotron of the frequency-modulated type of the largest size possible. This size was in fact determined by the largest steel castings that could be obtained for the yoke of the magnet. Rotblat found in discussions with the steel manufacturers that a magnet with pole diameter of 156 inches could be provided which would produce a beam of protons of 400 MeV energy. Plans for the cyclotron and its housing were immediately initiated by Chadwick with the help of Rotblat and Moore. A small incident that illustrates the influence Rotblat had on Chadwick concerns the appointment of a theoretical physicist to the newly established Chair. Chadwick was in the USA at the time and was asked to approve the appointment of Erwin Schro¨dinger. However, Rotblat was able to obtain evidence that this would not be an ideal choice and Chadwick accepted the advice and appointed Herbert Fro¨hlich instead. In 1948 Chadwick was offered the Mastership of Caius College in Cambridge and accepted this, resigning his post at Liverpool and leaving in October that year. The choice of Chadwick’s successor was made from a limited field and in the end Herbert Skinner from Harwell was appointed. He took up the post in January 1950. Thus the Department was without a Head for 15 months. During this interregnum Rotblat was in charge of the research in the Department while Roberts was in charge of the teaching. Moore was fully engaged with the construction of the large cyclotron. Rotblat was appointed to the physics Chair at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in keeping with his desire to work in the field of medical physics and left Liverpool early in 1950. He continued some work in nuclear physics with emulsions for several years on the Birmingham cyclotron. Rotblat was a man of immense energy and determination but with great charm. When he left Liverpool no one could have imagined the great impact he was going to have on the international stage in the political sphere.

Sir Joseph Rotblat in Liverpool

165

Memories of Dr. Rotblat Daisaku Ikeda

My lifelong teacher, whom I looked up to with the greatest respect, was Josei Toda, the second president of the Soka Gakkai. If he had not existed, I would not be the person I am today. Not only did he give me instruction in various academic subjects, he also instructed me in all aspects of human existence and taught me how to live a life devoted to the cause of world peace. In his later years Mr. Toda, coming to look on nuclear weapons as one of the most evil threats to the existence of humanity, issued what was known as ‘‘The Declaration Against Nuclear Weapons’’. He called upon young people to undertake the task of abolishing such devilish weaponry. The year was 1957. By a strange coincidence, this same year saw the establishment of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, whose objective was the creation of a world free of atomic weapons and of war in general. In 1989 I was able for the first time to meet in Japan with Dr. Joseph Rotblat, one of the key figures in the Pugwash Conferences, a meeting that developed into a deep and lasting friendship. My last meeting with Dr. Rotblat took place in February of 2000 in Okinawa, the scene of intense fighting in the closing days of World War II. Dr. Rotblat had kindly consented to travel all the way from London to Japan in order to participate in an international conference sponsored by the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, of which I am the founder. I had not met with Dr. Rotblat in some time, but I found him in excellent health. He was greatly troubled by the fact that the efforts to abolish nuclear weapons seemed to make little progress and that, because of the blockage of such efforts, the world was faced with a grave crisis. He earnestly appealed to me to help find a way out of this dilemma and to exercise leadership in opening an avenue for world peace.

167

These words, coming from Dr. Rotblat, who had expended all his efforts in living through the war-torn world of the 20 th century, made a profound impression on me. The fervency of his expression even now remains vivid in my heart. One episode in our Okinawa meeting I recall in particular. The day before he was to return to London, Dr. Rotblat made a visit to the Heiwa no ishi or Cornerstone of Peace monument on Mabuni Hill in Itoman City. This was erected by the people of Okinawa in 1995 to embody their hopes for lasting world peace. The monument is inscribed with the names of all the persons who lost their lives in the fighting in Okinawa in the closing days of World War II, listed without any distinction of nationality or whether they were civilians or members of the military. Among these names, Dr. Rotblat discovered that of a person of British nationality and, seized anew, perhaps, by his hatred of the horrors of war, he stood a long time before the monument. World War II inflicted terrible wounds on Dr. Rotblat, wounds that could never be fully healed. His beloved wife was swallowed up in the madness unleashed by the Nazi regime. Dr. Rotblat himself managed to escape this fate and later became a member of the Manhattan Project. But one can only imagine what a shock it was to his conscience as a scientist when he discovered that the efforts of the Manhattan Project, from which he resigned midway, led in the end to the development of the bombs that were dropped on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and resulted in massive death and destruction. It was this shock that determined the direction that Dr. Rotblat’s life would take in the years following the end of the war. When I first met Dr. Rotblat, which was in Osaka, he said to me, ‘‘War turns people into mindless beasts. Even scientists who are normally highly logical lose their rationality when a war breaks out. People who detest barbarism start to act in a barbaric way. This is the insanity of war.’’ After World War II, Dr. Rotblat came to the conclusion that science had no real meaning unless it served the needs of humanity. Scientists, he reasoned, have the power to exercise a profound influence over the fate of humankind. Therefore, they should pool their efforts in order to ensure the survival of the human race. This reasoning led him to devote all his energies to the activities of the

168

Memories of Dr. Rotblat

Pugwash Conferences. He saw these as a bold endeavor to create a world free of nuclear weapons and of war itself. Dr. Rotblat highly applauded Mr. Toda’s ‘‘Declaration Against Nuclear Weapons’’, and manifested strong support for the campaign for global peace carried out by our Soka Gakkai International, which is motivated by the same spirit as Mr. Toda’s declaration. As he said to me, ‘‘We share a common goal with you. The struggle for peace will no doubt take a lot of fighting, but from now on I hope we can work together to carry that fight forward.’’ As I came to know Dr. Rotblat better, I was deeply impressed by the tenacity with which he pursued his aims. This tenacity and determination, it seemed to me, was the motive power that impelled his activities. At the core of his tenacity was his hatred for war. He was, however, able to sublimate that hatred and transform it into a passionate striving for peace. That, I concluded, was the key to his greatness as a human being. With the end of the Cold War, there has ceased to be any need for further development of nuclear weapons, or any reason to preserve the vast number of such weapons that are already in existence. Nevertheless, the countries that possess nuclear weapons show no enthusiasm for disarmament. Meanwhile, proliferation of such weaponry takes place among nations that have not previously been nuclear powers. I believe that Dr. Rotblat, profoundly disturbed by these ominous developments, was, in effect, calling upon me to exercise leadership in the quest for peace, when we met in Okinawa. The problem was not only the danger posed by nuclear proliferation. The world in the years following the end of the Cold War had witnessed tragic events of frightful proportions. During the last ten years of the 20 th century, as a result of regional conflicts and other outbreaks of hostilities, over two million children lost their lives, and six million others suffered serious injuries. We could not turn a blind eye to these tragic developments, I felt. Unless we could devise some system to rid the world of war, it was clear that these fearful circumstances that made victims of women, children, and similar defenseless persons would only increase in number and intensity. At that point, I and others called to mind once more the warning delivered by Dr. Rotblat. ‘‘In the nuclear age,’’ he wrote, ‘‘the Memories of Dr. Rotblat

169

only alternatives before us are ‘Shall we put an end to the human race or shall mankind renounce war.’ ’’ Dr. Rotblat emphasized the important role that Hiroshima played as a symbol of the search for enduring peace. He went so far as to say that the spirit of the Pugwash Conferences was from the beginning at one with Hiroshima. He said this, he explained, because after what happened at Hiroshima, the belief that true peace was achievable through military might was no longer tenable. In modern warfare, there was no longer any distinction between victor and vanquished. The idea that the safety and security of the nation could be preserved through military strength had to be abandoned and replaced once and for all with a system of ‘‘human security’’ that would protect human life from all the dangers that threatened it. The 20 th century was an era of war and violence. At that time the view prevailed, as the Latin phrase goes, si vis pacem, para bellum (if you wish for peace, prepare for war). But how many countless persons lost their precious lives as a result of such thinking? Learning from this lesson, Dr. Rotblat constantly stressed that the motto should read, si vis pacem, para pacem (if you wish for peace, prepare for peace). Preparing for peace does not mean strengthening one’s military capacity or achieving a balance of armed might. It means firmly establishing a culture of peace through the joint efforts of persons who are fully awake to the needs of humanity. It means choosing a course that firmly rejects all confrontation brought about by differences of culture or civilization. It means learning to respect others and live with them in a tolerant manner. Only then, through the medium of dialogue, can one hope to create a world characterized by peaceful coexistence. As Dr. Rotblat stated, ‘‘Solidarity is so important. If we unite, we can change the world. It might take some time, but viewed from a long-term perspective, the people will be victorious in the end.’’ In his later years, Dr. Rotblat was intensely concerned with the education of the younger generation, whom he saw as responsible for the continuing struggle for peace. Young people, he believed, must be the true upholders of world peace. I myself, impelled by the same conviction, am now devoting my full energies to the guidance and education of the young, for I believe that such education holds the real key to the achievement of world peace.

170

Memories of Dr. Rotblat

Working in close cooperation with Dr. Rotblat, I have put together a collection of our dialogues, entitled A Quest for Global Peace, published by a London publisher (I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.). This sets forth in concise form all the ideas and practical measures that we believe are needed for the abolition of nuclear arms and the creation of a world free of war. My hope is that, by reading this book and becoming fired by its message, as many of the young people of the world as possible will plunge into this great movement that, wave-like, surges forward to the ideal of peace. The year 2007 marks the 50 th anniversary of Mr. Toda’s ‘‘Declaration Against Nuclear Weapons’’ and the creation of the Pugwash Conferences. We of Soka Gakkai International are firm in our determination to join with all those who are advancing the aims of the Pugwash Conferences. We must all come together to form a vast encircling net of popular support in which to share the prize of world peace.

Memories of Dr. Rotblat

171

Jo Rotblat Fred Jerome

‘‘No, I don’t jog any more, just stopped last week,’’ Jo Rotblat told me in answer to my first question, ‘‘I’m going to see if taking long walks will suffice for a while.’’ It was ten years ago, October 2, 1996. Rotblat, at 87, had won the Nobel Peace Prize a year earlier, and I arrived at the London offices of the Pugwash Conferences, feeling like a rookie reporter on my first interview. I was beginning research for my book, The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist, and Dr. Rotblat had agreed to spend two hours talking with me about the Manhattan Project, his antiwar organizing and his life. From the continuous twinkle in his eyes, he clearly enjoyed the recollections, although not all were of happy days. ‘‘When I left the Manhattan Project in 1944 (after it became clear that the Nazis were not going to succeed in building an atomic bomb), the FBI and Army Intelligence tried to pin a number of crimes on me – trying to figure out why I wanted to leave the project – and they came up with the story that I was going to give away the secrets to the Russians.’’ Would it not it be obvious, even to J. Edgar Hoover, I asked, that someone planning to give nuclear secrets to the Russians would not leave the Project before the bomb was built? ‘‘This goes to show there was no logic to it,’’ he replied, describing how federal agents shadowed and followed him and also took his trunk with all his research papers and documents – ‘‘almost my whole life history’’ – inside. ‘‘And it was never recovered, despite all sorts of efforts made by many people, including even British officials in Washington.’’ Here is Rotblat remembering his post-war years as a physicist back in London when the USA was sliding rapidly into Cold War hysteria and McCarthyism:

173

‘‘What happened was that I didn’t like the idea of keeping secrets, especially things I thought were important . . . and the US Atomic Energy Commission issued a press release saying that the radiation from Hydrogen-bomb tests was completely harmless – no more dangerous than a chest X-ray. Now, having been in medicine for some time, I knew how much – or how little – radiation is in a chest X-ray, and, of course, the AEC’s statement was exactly opposite to the truth. This is really fantastic, I felt. The public is being deceived, and that persuaded me that I had to publish the facts.’’ And on Klaus Fuchs – while the FBI was hounding Rotblat, Fuchs was unhindered in his espionage: ‘‘It’s not generally known, but it’s ironic that after the war, it was decided that some of the papers written during the Manhattan Project contained important scientific research. But they had all been classified as top secret. It was thought that some of these papers should be allowed to be published and so they set up a declassification committee charged with going through all the reports to see which of them could be released. The committee had three members, one American, one Canadian and one British. The British member was Klaus Fuchs. So he now had access to all the documents.’’ And on his work with Bertrand Russell and the famous Russell– Einstein Manifesto: ‘‘I met Russell in 1954 at a dinner-discussion on the future of nuclear weapons, given by the BBC. We became friends and he relied on me for information for his book on the Hydrogen bomb. Later, he decided to enlist a group of prominent scientists to issue an anti-nuclear appeal to the governments and the public. Of course, the biggest name in science was Einstein, so he wrote to Einstein asking him to join the project, and Einstein asked Russell to produce a text, a manifesto, and he would sign it. It was the last great act of Einstein’s life. ‘‘By the time of the press conference to announce the manifesto in July 1955, Einstein had died. Russell asked me to chair the press conference and he read the text of the statement. It was shortly after that we received a letter from Cyrus Eaton, offering to finance our conference for scientists on condition that it be held in a place called Pugwash where Eaton was born.

174

Jo Rotblat

‘‘Soon after that, Russell and I became involved in the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament – well, because of our concern about the danger from nuclear tests. At first, Russell was the president of CND and I was on the first executive committee and at the same time on the staff of Pugwash. Russell and I had a serious conversation about our involvement and felt the two groups were both needed – although they had the same objectives, their methodologies were quite different. In Pugwash, we tried to keep our meetings private and out of the press, while CND was a mass movement and very open. So we felt, Russell felt, that the best thing should be that I concentrate on Pugwash while he would be with CND, but both were needed. That’s when – and why – I resigned from CND.’’ And on Einstein: ‘‘I was surprised when I read in your letter about his FBI file,’’ Rotblat told me, ‘‘that the government was considering denaturalizing Einstein, taking away his citizenship. But that is the way it is with most of these so-called security organizations – it’s an indication of who is your real enemy. (I remember years when Hitler was a friend of some of these people so they could say that the enemy was Lenin or the Russians. Hitler was, of course, anti-Bolshevik and they thought strong enough to attack the Russians.) ‘‘But Einstein’s support for World Government was against the Communist line, too. And he had exchanged letters in a debate with Soviet scientists. Of course, World Government was also completely against the views of the Americans, too. And Einstein held many progressive views – views that were on the left – but his stature was so great, that nobody in Washington would dare to come out openly against him.’’ And on the need for social responsibility among scientists: ‘‘The continuing trend towards less openness in science is caused today more by the competition for patents and prizes than by anything else. It’s a pity that the Nobel Prize has become such an important thing for scientists. You know that they will try to keep their work secret because otherwise the ideas will be stolen by somebody else. Science becomes secretive and this is very bad. I see this as more a result of commercialism than government secrets, commercialism and the ambitions of scientists, themselves. I am working very

Jo Rotblat

175

hard for openness, including public information about nuclear weapons and DNA, genetic engineering and testing. The trend towards secrecy is having a detrimental effect on science itself. ‘‘Our mission is to try to find some way of getting scientists a social conscience: that they have be responsible for the result of their work.’’ Above all, throughout our conversation, what came through was Jo Rotblat’s energy and unflagging spirit of hopefulness: ‘‘I always, all my life, will fight people who work against peace and social responsibility. And I can see that this tenacity bears fruit. For example, several of my colleagues in London were originally doing nuclear work, then we started this Pugwash project and at first many people said it was pure fancy, they would never agree to this, and I had the satisfaction of seeing these very people end up by working with us. ‘‘Now I consider the elimination of nuclear weapons my shortterm objective, and I have a long-term objective, too – the elimination of all war. I do what I have to, I give speeches and I publish papers on this. And I believe it will happen – because the arguments are so strong and compelling that it is bound to happen.’’ ‘‘We have no choice,’’ Rotblat had declared just a year earlier, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. ‘‘The alternative (to a war-free world) is unacceptable.’’ He then quoted the final sentence of the Einstein–Russell Manifesto: ‘‘We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open for a new paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.’’ If just a smidgeon of Jo Rotblat’s energy and determination has rubbed off on the rest of us, then – despite the state of today’s world – the continuing US aggression against the people of Iraq and US sponsorship of Israeli assaults against the people of Palestine and Lebanon, all of which would have outraged Rotblat – despite all that, there may indeed be a chance for the world.

176

Jo Rotblat

Sir Joseph Rotblat: From Nuclear Disarmament to the Abolition of War Bruce Kent

Until about 15 years ago Joseph Rotblat was to me a respected name but a remote one from the academic world. I had of course heard about his refusal in 1944 to continue to work on the atomic bomb once he knew that Nazi Germany had made no progress on the road to its own bomb and that therefore there was no one to deter and nothing to give any justification for work on weapons of such unparalleled inhumanity. He was someone whom I admired in a distant way. People who changed course on grounds of conscience, at great cost, are always impressive. There was a substantial price for him to pay. To start with he was thought to be some sort of spy and certainly a disloyal scientist. He returned to England under a large cloud of suspicion. Some of that cloud still lingered on him in some circles for most of his life. My first clear memory of hearing Jo Rotblat in person came at a Pax Christi meeting held in a convent next to Westminster Cathedral early in 1995. Pax Christi, like CND and most disarmament groups worldwide, was doing its best to prevent the 1995 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference from agreeing to an indefinite extension of that treaty. There might have been 40 of us present that evening, listening to that gentle, courteous, white-haired, fresh-faced scientist with an awesome reputation. This was indeed grassroots work. He and the rest of us were trying to turn back a tide of positive propaganda favoring an indefinite extension. The case he made was simple. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was aimed at achieving something specific: nuclear disarmament. That was, under Article VI of the treaty, the clear commitment of the nuclear powers who had signed in 1968. You cannot in logic extend indefinitely a treaty designed to have a finite end. Indefinite extension would remove all time restraints and put nu-

177

clear weapon elimination so far on the backburner as to be out of sight. As we now know, the treaty was extended indefinitely and now some of those nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) which were taken in by the propaganda and supported the idea at that time have come to rue the day. From that evening onwards I came to know Jo Rotblat very well indeed. We all rejoiced in his 1995 Nobel Peace Prize, a wonderful answer to those who had denigrated him as a dubious fellow traveler. That had always been an absurd suggestion. Pugwash consistently maintained its political independence and, as did CND, avoided the enthusiastic embrace of the Soviet World Peace Council. We rejoiced too at the Canberra Commission. The report said: ‘‘The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never be used . . . defies credibility.’’ It must have been in those years that I became a regular visitor to the Pugwash inner sanctum – Jo Rotblat’s office in Bloomsbury. Those who never managed a visit there have missed a remarkable experience. Disciplined chaos in a living museum is the best description that I can manage. There were books up to the ceiling, down to the cellar, and what remained of the bathroom. A bath would have been impossible. The walls were covered in pictures – a ‘‘Who’s Who’’ of the great and good of Pugwash and the peace world generally. The Rotblat desk was piled high with papers, but they were orderly piles. It was not wise to try to move them. I now understand that Pugwash is employing an archivist to deal with the papers and books which filled not only Rotblat’s office but also his north London house. That archivist will not be out of work for a very long time. As I got to know Jo Rotblat I came quickly under the spell of his personality. When he wanted you to do something you rapidly got the point and did it. Charming, smiling, interested and determined, he was not someone to whom you could excuse yourself on the grounds of being too busy already. It was an inspiration when he came to The Hague for the great peace gathering of 1999. Since it was given almost no media attention in the UK it is worth reminding readers today that over 10,000 people came to The Hague for a peace conference that year. It was a centenary reminder of Tsar Nicholas II’s peace conference of governments of 1899. Kofi Annan and Archbishop Tutu

178

Sir Joseph Rotblat: From Nuclear Disarmament to the Abolition of War

may have been the major stars in 1999, but Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat was warmly received. There were many thousands of young people present and to the young he was always an inspiration. In 2004 for instance, despite poor health and against all ‘‘sensible’’ advice he flew out to Denver, Colorado, for a youth weekend where pop stars would have envied the reception he got. The record of that 1999 conference is in the Hague Appeal for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century. This is a practical 50-point plan for a more peaceful future. All its recommendations revolve around the primary aim of the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations: ‘‘. . . to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’’. It had Jo Rotblat’s fullest support. As a consequence of The Hague meeting there were two new developments in the UK. One was the foundation of the Movement for the Abolition of War (MAW) in 2001. This was a movement of which Jo Rotblat was warmly welcomed as President. The aim was inclusive: to include all those who want a more peaceful world, whether pacifists or not in an effort to change the culture of militarism which so dominates many societies. One of the most significant initiatives of MAW has been to try and change the focus of Remembrance Day events away from a focus on ‘‘our’’ wars, ‘‘our’’ servicemen and women and ‘‘our’’ casualties, towards a more universal theme. That theme is that the best way to honor the dead, civilian or military, of all wars, is to join together in a struggle for the abolition of war itself. With the active cooperation of the Imperial War Museum, MAW has marked Remembrance Sunday for the past five years with a lecture in the museum on the theme of eliminating war. Joseph Rotblat gave the annual lecture in 2002. He began with a quotation from the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, as relevant now as in 1955. ‘‘Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark, dreadful and inescapable. Shall we put an end to the human race or shall mankind renounce war?’’ A war-free world, said Rotblat, has now become ‘‘a dire necessity’’. To his own questions about the feasibility of such an aim, he gave a carefully argued ‘‘Yes’’. ‘‘We have to eradicate the culture in which we were brought up – the teaching that war is an inherent element of human society. We have to change the mind-set that seeks security for one’s own nation in terms which spell insecurity Sir Joseph Rotblat: From Nuclear Disarmament to the Abolition of War

179

to others.’’ His vision of an equitable community, to which we all belong as world citizens, has become a vital necessity. His was a lecture given to a wide audience in popular form. The ideas expressed in it were discussed in much more detail in the book which he wrote in partnership with Professor Robert Hinde, War No More: Eliminating Conflict in the Nuclear Age. It was published in 2003 and has become a charter for the MAW. Jo Rotblat also played a starring role in the educational video, and later DVD, which MAW produced in 2004, with the same War No More title. In fact he nearly played no role at all because when the time came for filming he was actually in hospital under examination. I went along to tell him regretfully but rather breezily that we would have to cut him out of the film. I had underestimated the steel behind the velvet. Not at all, said he. Get me a wheelchair, tell the Sister that I want to use of a side room, and the specialist that though my heart may be in trouble, my mind and my voice are working perfectly. The final result has been an excellent educational tool of which nearly 1,500 copies have now gone out. Not many who see it will realize that Jo Rotblat’s powerful contributions were made from a wheelchair, while dressed in pyjamas. This wider focus on war itself did not for a moment divert him from the campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons with their unparalleled dangers. That is why he gathered British Pugwash and other disarmament colleagues and concerned NGOs together in September 2002 to discuss a program for reinvigorating nuclear weapon elimination efforts. We were all asked to circulate short papers to prepare for that meeting. His ran to eleven carefully argued pages. ‘‘We have to look reality in its ugly face,’’ he started. ‘‘The drive for the elimination of nuclear weapons is not going well; indeed it is going very badly . . . The use of these weapons may become a routine part of military strategy, according to the recently discussed [United States] Nuclear Posture Review.’’ The discussion that followed resulted in some of us volunteering, or being volunteered, to launch a new nuclear awareness program, renamed as the Weapons of Mass Destruction Awareness Program. Thanks to the Rotblat name, it has been able to arrange visits to the UK by such internationally well-known people as Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert

180

Sir Joseph Rotblat: From Nuclear Disarmament to the Abolition of War

McNamara and Douglas Roche. All these spoke to large audiences: the first at the Trade Union Congress in London, the second at the Hay Literary Festival. Douglas Roche spoke to Members of Parliament. Despite his youthful appearance and boundless energy, Jo Rotblat’s last years were dogged by ill health and frustration. Even into his 90s he always wanted to do more. He was confined physically to his home, where he was wonderfully looked after by his sister-in-law, but his mind always traveled the world outside. Whenever I went to see him his first question was always, ‘‘Well, Bruce, what’s happening? How are things going?’’ He wanted to know the latest news and especially if there were any signs of progress. ‘‘. . . War must cease to be an admissible institution. The abolition of war must be our ultimate goal.’’ So said Professor Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Peace Prize winner. Not many will have done as much as he did to make that dream come true.

Sir Joseph Rotblat: From Nuclear Disarmament to the Abolition of War

181

Personal Contacts With Sir Joseph Rotblat Michiji Konuma

The First Encounter with Jo in 1957 in Tokyo I have had the privilege of being personally acquainted with Jo for nearly half a century. I have called Sir Joseph Rotblat ‘‘Jo’’ since the early 1990s. I met him frequently at Pugwash meetings and other occasions and admired always his enthusiasm for the quest for peace. Figures 1 and 2 show early pictures of Jo which I took at the 3 rd World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs held in Tokyo, Japan, August 9, 1957. It was Jo’s first visit to Japan and my first encounter with him. The hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954 scattered radioactive dust within and outside the restricted area. The crew of the Japanese fishing boat Daigo Fukuryu Maru (the ‘‘Lucky Dragon’’) and nearby islanders suffered from radioactivity. This incident immediately ignited many independent campaigns against nuclear weapons in Japan and abroad. Networks expanded and the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs was established on August 8, 1954. The Council has organized the World Conference against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs annually since 1955. Jo received a letter of invitation dated May 11, 1957 from the Council asking him to be a sponsor to the 3 rd World Conference against A and H Bombs to be held in August 1957 in Tokyo. Jo accepted this request by July 1 saying that: ‘‘I am preparing, with Sir Bertrand Russell, an international Conference of scientists to discuss the abolition of nuclear weapons. I expect to make some concrete proposals to the World Conference against the Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb after this Conference of scientists to be held in

183

Fig. 1 Jo delivering a speech on ‘‘Radioactive Hazards in War and in Peace’’ on August 9, 1957 at the Expert Meeting on Radioactivity in the Third World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs held in Tokyo. The two chairpersons are Sho Tanaka (left) and Eiji Yamada, physicists and later active members of Pugwash Conferences. On the left is Yasushi Nishiwaki.

Canada in early July.’’1) The sponsors were not necessarily expected to attend the conference itself. In August 2002 Jo told us at the Pugwash Council meeting that he had come directly to Tokyo, after the First Pugwash Conference in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Canada, changing the flight ticket for London to Tokyo. This means that he had no intention of attending the World Conference in Tokyo before the First Pugwash Conference but in Canada he felt responsible for reporting the achievements of the Pugwash Conference to participants at the World Conference. The main sessions of the World Conference were from August 12 to 16. Some 5,000 Japanese and 92 foreign participants from 22 countries gathered. Before the main sessions foreign participants and a small number of Japanese held International Prelimi1) This text is translated to English from the Japanese text by the present author since only the Japanese translation remains now.

184

Personal Contacts With Sir Joseph Rotblat

Fig. 2 Jo chatting with Sin-itiro Tomonaga at an interval in the Expert Meeting on Radioactivity held in Tokyo on August 9, 1957 in the Third World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs. Tomonaga was then President of the Tokyo University of Education, a participant at the First Pugwash Conference held at Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Canada, in the previous month and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.

nary Sessions from August 6 to 10 where there were plenary sessions and specialized parallel sessions. Jo delivered his first speech at the plenary session on August 6. He concluded: I should like therefore to appeal to this conference to keep as our main objective the abolition of nuclear weapons altogether, whether kilo-ton or mega-ton, dirty or clean, strategic or tactical; in other words, the abolition of war altogether. When we talk about tests and demand their ban, we should consider this only as a first step, an urgent step, but only a preliminary one, in the major problem of disarmament. I’m the last person to minimize the danger of radioactivity but I feel we should not make this the main topic. The major problem is the abolition of war altogether.2)

Participants were deeply impressed by this penetrating message. 2) The full text of this speech is available at the website of Pugwash Japan: http://www.pugwashjapan.jp. Personal Contacts With Sir Joseph Rotblat

185

On August 8 and 9 the International Expert Meeting on Radioactivity took place at Josui-kaikan as one of the parallel sessions. There were 15 experts from 8 countries and some 50 Japanese scientists. The first report was given by Iwao Ogawa on ‘‘Recent Trends of Studies of the Fallout Problem’’ including discussions in the first Pugwash Conference. Jo gave a talk on ‘‘Radioactive Hazards in War and in Peace’’. He analyzed somatic effects and genetic effects from the standpoint of a medical physicist. He mentioned the danger of an increase in leukemia and osteosarcoma by the successive atmospheric nuclear weapon tests. Even in peace the increase of effects of radioactivity is observed due to the spread of use of nuclear energy. Nuclear weapon tests have to be stopped immediately. In nuclear war all mankind will suffer from its tragic effects. We must make any sacrifice necessary to avoid nuclear war.3)

This powerful message was acknowledged by the participants and included in the report of the group to the Main Session of the Conference. The International Expert Meeting on Radioactivity decided to send messages of support, acknowledgement and encouragement to Sir Bertrand Russell and the Continuing Committee of the Pugwash Conferences. The Main Conference was held on August 12–16. Jo gave a speech in the Plenary Session on the morning of August 12. In the afternoon Iwao Ogawa reported on the International Experts Meeting.

The Fission–Fusion–Fission Bomb and Jo Jo wrote an article ‘‘The Early Days of Pugwash’’ in Physics Today [Vol. 54, No. 6, June 2001, pp. 50–55] published by the American Institute of Physics. A Japanese publisher Maruzen asked me to translate it into Japanese for their magazine Parity. I did it quickly and sent several questions and comments to Jo on October 1, 2001 in order to clarify the contents. 3) This is again translated to English from the Japanese summary by the present author.

186

Personal Contacts With Sir Joseph Rotblat

Jo had written in the article that In April 1954 . . . we [Bertrand Russell and I] discussed the impact of the first US explosion of a deliverable H-bomb on Bikini Atoll. My subsequent analysis of the radioactivity in the fallout . . . led me to the deduction [Ref. 7] that the bomb had three stages – fission, fusion, fission – and thus a huge radioactive fallout, a feature that the US Authorities tried to conceal at the time.

My question was on the relation between his analysis and that of Japanese scientists since radioactive dust was analyzed in Japan. In his article cited as Ref. 7, i.e. ‘‘The Hydrogen-Uranium Bomb’’ published in the Atomic Scientists Journal [Vol. 4, March 1955, p. 224], Jo concluded that fission accounts for most of the energy released in the hydrogen bomb and wrote: ‘‘A recent story in the US press explains how this could be achieved.’’4) On 8 October he sent me a reply saying that: With regards to my 1955 paper, there is a long story behind it. I received the data about the Fukuryu Maru fallout, from Yasushi Nishiwaki, in July 1954. By October, I worked out the fission-fusion-fission structure of the bomb, and I wrote it up in a paper for publication. I sent a copy of the paper to the UK Atomic Energy Authority and this had an immediate effect: the chairman of the Authority, John Cockcroft (later President of Pugwash) came to me in alarm to stop me from publishing the paper. He had no quarrel with my scientific deductions but was worried about the effect my paper would have on US/UK relations. This happened soon after the Klaus Fuchs disclosures during the McCarthy spy-hunt, and Cockcroft was afraid that the US press would describe my article as another example of the British giving away vital secrets. I was persuaded by this argument and agreed not to publish the paper. However, I told my story in private to several people, including Bertrand Russell and Eugene Rabinowitch. He in turn talked to some US scientists, in particular, Ralph Lapp, who later wrote an article on it, but without mentioning my name. What happened next was a Report by the US Atomic Energy Commission, issued in February 1955, in which they stated that there was no need to worry about the fallout from H-bombs. This made me very angry and I decided that I had to publish my paper. In another consultation with Cockcroft we agreed that I should insert the phrase ‘‘A recent story in the US press’’ thus putting the blame on – or giving the credit to – the US media.

4) This article was reprinted in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 11, May 1955, p. 171. Personal Contacts With Sir Joseph Rotblat

187

Jo agreed that this note should be published in Japanese as a supplementary note to my translation of his article in Parity where I added further comments. Jo was pleased with these clarifications. Kenjiro Kimura and his group at the University of Tokyo and Sakae Shimizu and his group at Kyoto University had independently found out the existence of large amount of uranium-237 in the radioactive dust taken from the Fukuryu Maru. The Tokyo group had doubts about where uranium-237 could come from in a fusion bomb and had insufficient confidence to publish the result. Mitsuo Taketani wrote in August 1954 that this could give a clue to the structure of the hydrogen bomb. The Kyoto group published their comprehensive analyses on the radioactive dust from Fukuryu Maru as a supplementary issue, ‘‘The Radioactive Dust from the Nuclear Detonation’’, of the Bulletin of the Institute for Chemical Research, Kyoto University, in November 1954. Yasushi Nishiwaki, a radiation biophysicist of Osaka City University, gave reports on ‘‘Bikini Ash’’ including the result on uranium237 at Harwell and Oxford on July 24, 1954, when Jo was present. Many US newspapers published a detailed article by Edwin Diamond of the International News Service on March 6, 1955 on the structure of the hydrogen bomb as a fission–fusion–fission bomb, referring to the articles from Kyoto University. This was mentioned in Jo’s article in 1955 as ‘‘the story in the US’’. Jo had penetrated the secrecy of the structure of the H-bomb in a short period in 1954 based on his outstanding experience as a nuclear physicist in Warsaw, Liverpool and Los Alamos.

188

Personal Contacts With Sir Joseph Rotblat

An Exceptional Human Being Harold Kroto

I keep almost anything that interests me and so after many years I have a massive stock of material consisting mainly of images as my major interests are art and graphics, but I have also kept innumerable articles of all kinds that have over many years caught my attention for one reason or another. One that somehow for over 20 years has always floated to the top of the immense pile of ‘‘stuff ’’ that has now accumulated is an article from The Listener dated July 18, 1985 and entitled ‘‘Brighter than the Noonday Sun’’. It is subtitled ‘‘The men who built the bomb – What do they think today – the men who first saw the flash of the atom bomb they created?’’. On the second page of this article Norman Moss writes ‘‘. . . The curious thing is that when Germany was defeated and Japan was the only remaining enemy there was no slackening of the effort (to build the bomb). It did not occur to anybody – with one sole exception – to wonder whether they should continue . . .’’ That sole exception was Joseph Rotblat – who actually resigned before Germany capitulated as soon as it became clear that Germany presented no nuclear threat. Only three people are imaged in this article: Oppenheimer, Groves and Jo. This article was, as far as I can remember, the first time that I had heard about Jo whom I came to know personally some ten or more years later and who is, as far as I am concerned, the greatest man I have known personally. As soon as I met him I knew that I must record an interview with him for the Vega Science Trust. With Vega we have interviewed numerous eminent scientists all of whom can be watched free at the www.vega.org.uk site. The first interview with Jo was recorded in 2003 and for me it was one of the most memorable, interesting, enjoyable and fascinating experiences. Jo exuded a straightforward persona that embodied every decent virtue that the human race has developed: kindness, human-

189

ity, social responsibility and scientific integrity are just a few. I wanted to make it possible for anyone worldwide to be able to appreciate his engaging personality as well as his ideas by making the recording available free on the web. On a personal level he possessed that rare quality that very few people have – the ability to make one feel they were a real friend from the moment of first meeting. He was open to discussion and would invariably be able to present his own view with a depth of common sense and a deceptively quiet forcefulness that he had honed in over half a century of total immersion in ‘‘The Big Problems’’ that confront humanity. He had spent at least 65 years of his life discussing them with a wide range of protagonists and antagonists, both great and small, and seemed to have met everyone I could think of, be they brilliant scientists, presidents or popes. My aim has been to create a broadcast platform for scientists to communicate on whatsoever they wish on the web and I have been able to do this for many eminent scientists. Having recorded the first of two interviews with Jo in 2003, I remember feverishly scouring my diary and finding just one day when I could go and see him again early in 2005 for the second. He was as ever a delight to talk to, this time in his home as he was more frail than previously, having suffered a heart attack from which he had almost fully recovered. My fondest memory of that day was after the recording when we had lunch with Jo on a beautiful sunny day at a local cafe´. I am more proud of having recorded conversations with Jo than any of the other scientists for several reasons. Not only does the recording reveal a man of great humanity, but it reveals a pragmatic man exuding so much straightforward common sense in a most endearing way. On top of this is the historical significance of the recording of a man who really has ‘‘made a difference’’. Some people comment disparagingly on ‘‘talking head’’ recordings implying they are passe´, but I love talking heads especially when the head is that of someone of the caliber of Jo Rotblat. What a wonderful talker he was – full of important historically interesting facts and full of insight on numerous figures who have influenced the latter half of the 20 th century. I remember at a Royal Society meeting saying in his presence, for some reason that now escapes me, that he was 92 and his correcting me ‘‘No, no I am 94!’’ As I look through the unedited

190

An Exceptional Human Being

recordings of the second interview with the hindsight that he died only a few months later I cannot help watching and listening in awe to a man with such vibrancy and lucidity – and thinking why oh why, when his mind was still so alive and capable, did his body have to give way when I had so many things left to ask. Innumerable further questions occur to me. In the recordings he still seems as alive as ever. I talked with him about religious issues, in particular Einstein’s religious attitude: ‘‘I [Einstein] believe in the God of Spinoza who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists and not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.’’ Even though he knew that he had only a short time left he talked in the most straightforward fashion that placed himself somewhere between agnosticism and atheism, with a recognition that there is no immortality other than his legacy. I was happy that we had created this audio-visual legacy to help personalize the historical record. Throughout the interview the gentle persuasive charm of a totally rational human being comes through, especially in the fascinating revelation (to me) that he saw Pugwash and himself as a modern human vehicle for Darwin in that the drive is to survive and he saw Pugwash as attempting to ensure the survival of the human race. In his view that was what he was doing. There are several important aspects of the man that make him someone whom we all should know about – for one thing his science. He was one of the first to test the uranium fission process to see if neutrons were emitted so making a chain reaction and thus a bomb feasible. This work was carried out in Poland just before the war broke out. There was an almost amazing – in the light of the enormous significance of the discussions – anecdote of a meeting with Jo, Frisch and Peierls. They were essentially the only people in the world who knew the frighteningly low value of the critical mass of uranium-235 needed for the creation of the bomb and they were holed up in Jo’s bedsit apartment in wartime Liverpool by the curfew then in force for aliens, both ‘‘friendly’’ and ‘‘enemy’’. The profundity of the meeting is poignant in the light of what has happened since and what is happening now as Iran and North Korea are believed to seek to build even more nuclear weapons for reasons which Jo and I and others in Pugwash find truly beyond belief. The thought that basically only these three An Exceptional Human Being

191

were at that moment aware that a monstrous weapon might be accessible to Hitler is somewhere between hysterically comical and frighteningly disturbing. The most fascinating anecdote in all our recordings from my point of view is his account of the events surrounding the US Bravo tests in the Pacific in 1955. As he recounted it in a matterof-fact manner I realized that his was a brilliant piece of investigative science as he had managed to get hold of a sample of the fallout that had contaminated the Japanese fishing vessel The Lucky Dragon. His analysis revealed that the device that had been tested and which was supposed to have been a thermonuclear (H) bomb was not, as claimed, a two-stage device. It was in fact a three-stage device in which the first ignition stage was an atomic bomb detonator of the thermonuclear stage but the whole had been encapsulated in uranium-238. So the Pacific had been showered in long-lived radioactive fallout due to fission in uranium-238! For uncovering this duplicity he was vilified and ridiculed by Lord Lindemann in the House of Lords – such are the actions of our leaders who claim to have our best interests at heart! Even to this day there is a curious silence on the events surrounding this test. In a recent so-called ‘‘definitive’’ article in American Scientist it just says that the fallout was greater than expected but there is no mention of the reason! As I read the article I hear Jo explaining why the fallout was what actually was expected – the wind was in the wrong direction and the sailors were on an ‘‘Unlucky’’ Dragon. I wondered as I read the article: Did the authors of this so ‘‘definitive’’ article not know that it was a three-stage device or did they know and not divulge it? Whichever way they are hoist on their own petard as either they are incompetent or they are guilty of scientific deception – in the words ‘‘greater than expected’’. I would say that this scientific discovery is one of the most important ones as it resulted from a major detective job which was not only an outstanding piece of science but also an outstanding discovery revealing the depths to which our governments are prepared to sink. In fact it is possible that had Jo not studied this problem we might still not know the facts of the matter. As I listened to Jo recount the story I thought about the ‘‘person’’ who thought of adding the third stage; I shall not call him a scientist any more than I would call a man who de-

192

An Exceptional Human Being

vised a ‘‘better’’ land mine to more efficiently maim personnel a scientist. Others know much more than I do of Jo’s role with Pugwash. He was the only original signatory who was not a Nobel Laureate at the time but, as Russell presciently predicted, he was (with Pugwash) to become one. He was proud of his science as well, in particular the use of his nuclear radiation expertise in medical applications as he really wanted his science to help human beings directly. He had carried out some of the first body scanning experiments – and developed what he called the poor man’s scanner. Apparently he had been visited at one time by Peter Mansfield who later won the Nobel Prize for his part in the development of the nuclear magnetic resonance for body scanning. At the beginning of our second recording he told me that there had been a change in him since he had recovered from the heart attack. He said it was not a serious attack but he now had difficulty in reading. Reading was so important to him and it now took him until noon to read the newspaper! I thought again of how long it would take me to read the newspaper. A few days before he died I saw Jo in hospital. It was very painful to see him so frail when only a few months before, though physically a little frail, he had talked so lucidly and joked – much of it on record. He was a good talker. Almost the last thing I said to him was something to the effect that the recordings would be seen all over the world and he would be able to continue to influence people. He smiled and with a look of quiet satisfaction on his face whispered that his life had not been in vain. Since that moment I have felt that every effort must be made to further Jo’s and Einstein’s hope – some sort of a Global Citizenship initiative which can grow into a true force for rationality and Jo’s aim – the survival of the human race.

An Exceptional Human Being

193

Sir Joseph Rotblat: A Few Strokes to the Portrait of a Great Scientist and Humanist Mikhail A. Lebedev

I first heard about Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat when I was a schoolboy. My mother and grandmother told me about the friendship and fruitful cooperation between Joseph Rotblat and Academician Mikhail Millionshchikov – my late grandfather who was Chairman of the Soviet Pugwash Committee in 1964–73, and President of the Pugwash Movement in 1968–69. During our family evenings we saw Millionshchikov’s slides from Pugwash Conferences and his meetings with prominent scientists and political figures from the West. There were many pictures from Pugwash events in Great Britain, the USA, the Soviet Union and other states. One slide was made in our cottage in Moscow: my grandfather and Joseph Rotblat on a sunny summer evening cooked shashlik (kebab) and drank red wine. (Millionshchikov was born in Grozny, Chechnya, and often entertained his guests with Caucasian meals.) I was so surprised that the scientists had such an informal party. But my mother told me that Pugwashites during their meetings discussed very serious international and scientific problems. After a number of years I started my ‘‘investigations’’ on the history and activity of the Pugwash Conferences. This ‘‘research’’ was noticed by Academician Vitalii Goldanskii, and from 1996 I found myself working with the Russian Pugwash Committee. So, and it is not a joke, that slide showing Joseph Rotblat with my grandfather was one of the motives for my interests in the Pugwash movement. Since that time and right up to the last months of his life, I was in touch with Joseph Rotblat. He was always friendly to me. This quality of his character also surprised me. Very often such highlevel scientists and public figures in Russia do not want to speak freely with students and young scientists. Sir Joseph Rotblat told me about the early days of Pugwash, and about his contacts with Soviet scientists during the Cold War. In January 2001 he sent me

195

his essay entitled ‘‘Mikhail Millionshchikov in Pugwash’’. His paper was not only about official matters; it was his personal memories of Pugwash and about informal discussions on meetings of scientists, including famous ‘‘Pugwash Vodka-Whiskey parties’’! It was a very great pleasure to me that Joseph Rotblat, in his conclusion, underlined the current positive activity of Russian Pugwash and its Student/Young Pugwash group. The last letter I received from Sir Joseph Rotblat was on July 12, 2005, a few weeks before his death. I would like to quote it: Dear Mikhail and all on the Russian Pugwash Committee. Thank you all very much indeed for your very kind letter of congratulations. I appreciate it very much, particularly as my state of health will not allow me to attend the Annual Conference in Hiroshima, when I would have liked to meet and talk with some of you. Thank you too for sending me a copy of the interesting article by Yuri Ryzhov and Mikhail Lebedev entitled ‘‘RAS Scientists in the Pugwash Movement’’, commemorating the 50 th Anniversary of the Russell– Einstein Manifesto. It is clear what a significant role Russian scientists have played in the Pugwash Movement. Thank you all again for your great kindness. It has given me enormous pleasure, and I hope your work will guide future generations. All the best, Jo.

I would like to say a few words about the role of Sir Joseph Rotblat in developing scientific cooperation between Soviet and Western scientists. The First Pugwash Conference in Nova Scotia, Canada, in July 1957, was the first experience of participation of members of the USSR Academy of Sciences in real and fruitful political and scientific dialogue with the Western scientific community on serious problems of international affairs. Joseph Rotblat was an opponent of the Soviet Power and the Communism regime, but he very well understood that it was only with the participation of Soviet scientists in Pugwash that the ideals of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto could be achieved. As the Secretary-General of the Pugwash Continuing Committee in 1957–73 he started direct personal communication with prominent members of the USSR Academy of Sciences; among these scientists were Academicians Alexander Topchiev, Lev Artzimovich, Igor Tamm, Mikhail Millionshchikov, Peter Kapitza, Vladimir Engelgardt, and a few decades later when he served as a Presi-

196

Sir Joseph Rotblat: A Few Strokes to the Portrait of a Great Scientist and Humanist

dent of Pugwash with Vitalii Goldanskii, Nickolay Plate, Sergey Kapitza, Alexander Nikitin, and others. It is well known that the Soviet Power prevented direct foreign contacts between scientists. Sir Joseph Rotblat played a significant role in the creation of a worldwide dialogue between scientists from both side of the Iron Curtain. During such crises as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, Soviet interventions in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, persecution of Academician Andrei Sakharov, the political crisis in Poland in 1982 and other problems in world affairs, Sir Joseph Rotblat provided wise diplomatic counsel in the spirit of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto. The long decades of activity Sir Joseph Rotblat devoted to preventing nuclear war also contributed to a great extent towards ending the Cold War. At a meeting in his memory on October 4, 2005, the Russian Pugwash Committee decided to organize an annual Rotblat Memorial Lecture in Russia to keep alive both his own legacy and the ideals of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto. I am happy that I had the chance during my life of such important and interesting personal contacts with Sir Joseph Rotblat. I will remember him all my days.

Sir Joseph Rotblat: A Few Strokes to the Portrait of a Great Scientist and Humanist

197

Sir Joseph Rotblat: A Man of Vision Mairead Corrigan Maguire

Joseph Rotblat died peacefully in London on August 31, 2005. He was 96 years young. I will miss him very much, but take consolation from the fact that I had the blessing in my life of having spent some time with Joseph, and listened to him share his experiences, passion, and vision for a world without war and nuclear weapons. He was born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1908. His love of science led him into the scientific world of atomic research. He worked as a scientist, first in the UK at the University of Liverpool and then at Los Alamos, New Mexico, helping to create an atomic weapon. When he discovered in late 1944 that Germany would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, he believed there was no reason to continue working on creating a US bomb. He then left the Manhattan Project on moral grounds. As Secretary-General of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, and later President of Pugwash Conferences, he dedicated his life to the abolition of nuclear weapons. In 1995 Joseph and the Pugwash Conferences were joint recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Joseph believed receiving the Nobel Peace prize carried with it the responsibility to work for peace, and he did so every moment of his life, with a passion and with joy. Two years prior to his death, Joseph had a stroke. I went to visit him in a London hospital as he lay recovering. I was accompanied by his great friend and co-worker for nuclear disarmament Bruce Kent. Joseph looked so ill and frail, I thought surely he would not leave the hospital at all. But when he started talking to us, I was awestruck at the energy and passion he exuded. He asked me if I was going to the Gorbachev Conference in Rome in two weeks’ time, and said he wanted to get out of the hospital to go to the conference, as he had two speeches prepared to give. He said he had to

199

get out of the hospital soon, as there was so much peace work to be done! Six months later he traveled to Denver, Colorado, to deliver a two-hour lecture to several hundred teenagers! The following year (2004), when we met again in Rome, I asked Joseph what kept him working for disarmament with so much enthusiasm and joy. He said it was important for people to have goals, and he had two goals in life. ‘‘My short-term goal,’’ he said, ‘‘is the abolition of nuclear weapons, and my long-term goal is the abolition of war.’’ Joseph never saw his goals fulfilled, but he did fulfill the most important goal any human being can attain. He evolved and was transformed during his earthly journey, into a truthful, joyous, compassionate, gentle, kind human being. He was truly an inspiring and wise man for our time. As for his goals of nuclear disarmament and a world without war, I believe we can best pay tribute to our brother Joseph by continuing to work to make his dreams come true and build a world safe for the human family.

200

Sir Joseph Rotblat: A Man of Vision

A Tribute to Sir Joseph Rotblat Ronald S. McCoy

Sir Joseph Rotblat, who died on August 31, 2005 aged 96, was a distinguished nuclear scientist, the only one who resigned from the Manhattan Project which unleashed nuclear weapons into the world for the first time in August 1945. Sir Joseph was an exceptional human being. He believed that science and the future of humankind are inextricably linked. All his life, he faithfully served science and acknowledged its incalculable benefits to civilization. But he was also keenly aware of the dual nature of science and of the grave dangers of unfettered science and its amorality that could threaten the very survival of civilization. He always questioned the neutrality of science and believed that science needed to be guided by universal moral principles and the Precautionary Principle. He worked tirelessly for peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons and war. Joseph Rotblat was born into a Polish Jewish family in Lodz on November 4, 1908, the fifth of seven children. His father built up and ran a prosperous horse-drawn transport business based in Warsaw until World War I brought ruin and destruction to Europe. The Rotblat family suffered deprivation as the family business was swept away by a wave of anti-Semitism. His experiences in the war and its aftermath influenced Rotblat’s thinking and shaped his attitudes which led to a life-long commitment to the ideals of world peace. Joseph Rotblat had a love affair with science. After the war, despite the lack of a formal education and the need to work as a domestic electrician during the day, young Joseph devoted his evenings to study and managed to win a free place in the physics department of the Free University of Poland and a position as a junior demonstrator. After receiving an MA in 1932, he became a Research Fellow at the Radiological Laboratory of the Scientific

201

Society of Warsaw in 1933. He then went on to become Assistant Director of the Atomic Physics Institute of the Free University of Poland in 1937. A year later, he received a doctorate in physics from the University of Warsaw. Rotblat’s life as a nuclear scientist in the UK began in 1939, when he was invited to spend a year as Oliver Lodge Fellow at the University of Liverpool to work with Professor James Chadwick, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics, who had discovered the existence of neutrons. This was a tragic turning point in Rotblat’s life. He went ahead to Liverpool, leaving behind his wife, Tola Gryn, who was recuperating from an illness, not realizing how fast the political situation in Europe was changing. Soon after, Poland was invaded and Tola was left stranded, unable to escape to Britain. She later perished in the Holocaust and Rotblat never saw her again. He never remarried. That same year, nuclear fission was discovered when two German scientists split the uranium atom. Rotblat was one of the first to realize that the release of energy from nuclear fission could be used to build a devastating atomic bomb. Concerned that German physicists would develop such a bomb, Chadwick and his team decided that it was salutary to preempt German plans and proceeded to develop the bomb secretly, as a deterrent. This was the beginning of the flawed theory of nuclear deterrence, which was to have such an impact on the insane nuclear arms race between the USA and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. When America entered World War II in 1941, the British and American governments decided to combine efforts to develop the bomb. Given a code-name, the Manhattan Project was essentially an American military research project, set up in 1942 at Los Alamos, New Mexico, under General Leslie Groves. By early 1944, Rotblat was installed in Los Alamos but, like a minority of the scientists involved, he was deeply concerned about the morality of using science to produce a weapon of mass destruction. Struggling with this moral dilemma, he eventually convinced himself that the greater danger of a German atomic bomb justified his involvement. It became an even more acute moral dilemma when, at a private dinner in March 1944, he learnt from Groves that the atomic bomb was no longer being developed to deter Germany, but to sub-

202

A Tribute to Sir Joseph Rotblat

due the Soviet Union. He concluded that trusting the military was the worst mistake made by the scientists in the Manhattan Project. Towards the end of 1944, it was apparent that a besieged Germany had abandoned its development of the bomb. Without a second thought, Rotblat resigned from the Manhattan Project in December 1944 on conscientious grounds. He was the only scientist to do so. He believed that the only justifiable reason for the Manhattan Project was to preempt and deter Nazi Germany. Before leaving Los Alamos, he was accused of being a Soviet spy and was barred from the USA for several years afterwards. On his departure from the USA, his research notes and correspondence mysteriously disappeared. He later discovered in his dossier in the USA that he was suspected of wanting to join the Royal Air Force so that he could fly to Poland and defect to the Soviet Union. Suspecting that he might be a spy, the Los Alamos military authority threatened Rotblat with arrest and confiscation of his passport if he did not remain silent about the bomb. He was also warned not to contact his colleagues or reveal the reasons for his resignation. After Los Alamos, Rotblat returned to the University of Liverpool to resume his post as a lecturer in the physics department, and then senior lecturer and director of research into nuclear physics. In 1950 he was appointed professor of physics at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, where he remained until 1976, subsequently becoming professor emeritus. His research in the application of nuclear physics to medicine contributed to greater understanding of radiation hazards, including those from the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. In 1955 he demonstrated that the fallout from the Castle Bravo nuclear test at Bikini Atoll by the USA produced far greater radioactive contamination than the official report implied. Rotblat proved that there was a further fission phase at the end of the test explosion that increased the amount of radioactivity by a thousand-fold. His paper was taken up by the media and it contributed to public debate which led to the Partial Test Ban Treaty and an end to atmospheric testing. After the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Rotblat took the lead in launching a public campaign against nuclear weapons and against war. Following meetings between Liverpool and other physicists who had worked on the Manhattan

A Tribute to Sir Joseph Rotblat

203

Project or its British precursor, Tube Alloys, he co-founded the British Atomic Scientists Association (BASA) in 1946. The group worked with the newly formed Federation of Atomic Scientists (now the Federation of American Scientists) and campaigned for a world policy on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Rotblat was the driving force and conscience of BASA, which adopted a nonpolitical stance and stimulated public debate through its journal, public statements and its atom train traveling exhibition. Unfortunately, a public statement in 1957 about the danger of strontium-90 in fallout from nuclear testing proved to be too political for some of its establishment members and BASA was dissolved. He devoted much of his energy to opposing militarism and the militarization of science and technology. He believed that scientists should bear a personal and moral responsibility for the consequences of their scientific research and be guided by a code of ethics. He was the youngest of eleven signatories, who included Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, to the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, chairing the press conference that launched it in London on July 9, 1955. The manifesto called for scientists of all nations to confer and devise ways of avoiding nuclear war and warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons and of their ultimate use in war if they were not abolished. It went beyond disarmament and called for the abolition of war, making a universal plea to ‘‘remember your humanity and forget the rest’’. The eleven signatories ended their plea by inviting 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.

This led to the first meeting of scientists from around the world in 1957 at Pugwash, a remote fishing village on the coast of Nova Scotia, Canada, and the founding of Pugwash Conferences for Science and World Affairs. Rotblat served as its founder secretary-general until 1973 and later as its president from 1988 to 1997. At Pug-

204

A Tribute to Sir Joseph Rotblat

wash conferences, like-minded scientists come together to discuss the application of science in world affairs, including arms control and disarmament. The understanding was that participants attended as individuals, not as representatives of governments, although observers from the United Nations and UNESCO were welcome. The Iron Curtain was parted and scientists from both sides of the ideological divide were able to talk freely and informally, but could report back to their governments. At the 50 th anniversary of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, Rotblat stated that: ‘‘It has great relevance today, after fifty years, particularly in connection with the election of a president of the United States.’’ On behalf of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), I have had the singular privilege and honor of sharing a podium with Joseph Rotblat at many disarmament meetings and hearing him speak with passion about the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, the need to abolish them completely, and the urgency to find peaceful ways of resolving conflict. He would frequently remind us about our personal responsibility for the state of the world, by quoting the words of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, with which he concluded his acceptance lecture for the Nobel Peace Prize: ‘‘Above all, remember your humanity.’’ In his autobiography, Bertrand Russell summed up Rotblat’s real life’s work: ‘‘He can have few rivals in the courage and integrity and complete self-abnegation with which he has given up his own career (in which, however, he still remains eminent) to devote himself to combating the nuclear peril as well as other allied evils.’’ Among the many honors and awards received in his lifetime were the Commander of the British Empire in 1965; Bertrand Russell Society Award in 1983; Albert Einstein Peace Prize in 1992; Fellow of the Royal Society in 1995; Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, which he shared with the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs; and Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George in 1998, when he became Sir Joseph Rotblat. Joseph Rotblat’s acceptance and Nobel lecture at the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony encapsulates the ideals and principles that distinguished his long life. He saw science as a harmonious part of humanity. He was mortified that science had become identified with death and destruction, and that scientists were at the heart of the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. He was highly critical A Tribute to Sir Joseph Rotblat

205

of the theory of nuclear deterrence and fearsome of a repetition of the near catastrophe of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when deterrence nearly failed. He appealed to nuclear weapon states to give up their nuclear arsenals and to scientists ‘‘to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons’’. He also appealed to citizens worldwide to advance beyond the abolition of nuclear weapons to the long-term goal of abolishing war, often quoting from the Russell–Einstein Manifesto: 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?

His constant quest for a world free of war rested on his conviction that humankind had no other choice if it wanted to survive.

206

A Tribute to Sir Joseph Rotblat

Joseph Rotblat Tom Milne

I met, and began working with, Jo (or ‘‘Prof ’’ as I knew him) in 1990. It was an exciting time. The Cold War had just ended and the elimination of nuclear weapons, as distinct from partial measures of arms control, had become a matter of practical interest. Jo launched and directed a seminal study on worldwide nuclear disarmament, drawing on expertise from across the world. The resulting monograph, translated into Russian, Chinese, Arabic and several other languages, was the inspiration for the Australian government’s Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. By 1990 Jo was also well into the ninth decade of his life. He had experienced and participated in events that had shaped the 20 th century. He wanted, in old age, to reflect on his unique experience, to share thoughts and hopes for the century to follow. He began a series of dazzling addresses to the annual Pugwash conferences and other forums around the world. The lectures ranged far and wide to: 





Global concepts of security – arguing that the most important problems facing the human race are global problems, and championing international law, international institutions and multilateral solutions. World citizenship and world government – ranging from educational programs to teach global perspectives, to securing independent funding for the United Nations (revenue from mining of the sea bed or other global commons was one suggestion that he made). Social responsibilities of scientists – fiercely opposing the notion of the scientist’s ‘‘ivory tower’’, and arguing instead that scientists can and must contribute to rational policy-making.

207



Openness in science, especially the weapons laboratories – emphasizing the pernicious role that these laboratories had played in driving the arms race, and making the case for extending the process of ethical vetting of research work used in medicine into other areas of scientific endeavor.

The simple, powerful and timeless messages in the Russell– Einstein Manifesto – words from two great men that he read reverently, like a prayer – provided a constant underpinning theme. Above all, the need to eliminate war as a means of resolving disputes among nations. What was he like to work with? To begin with he was resolute in keeping the goal to the forefront. He refused to get sucked into discussion of arms control minutiae; to allow the objective to be broken into fragments so small that the whole becomes unrecognizable. He was fiercely independent. In the early days of Pugwash, a UK Foreign Office official, seeking to shape the Pugwash agenda, reported that ‘‘the difficulty is to get Professor Rotblat to pay any attention to what we think’’. Many found the same. The point is not that he was not open to new ideas, but that he did not shift with the times and fashions. He was generous with encouragement and advice to anyone who shared his broad objectives. Pugwash operates mainly out of the limelight, but Jo also sought a broader engagement with the peace movement and public. He could not be sure how or from where the best ideas would come and was genuinely interested in a wide variety of approaches. The wider peace movement had created popular pressure at important moments in the arms race, he reasoned, and contributed to curbing some of its worst excesses. And the larger the numbers involved, the greater the chance of finding persons of quality who might have an individual impact. While always remaining dedicated to the Pugwash movement, in his later life Jo placed an increasing importance on mass movements, contributing with huge enthusiasm and seriousness, especially to those involving students and young people. Most recently, discouraged and infuriated by the perverse policies of the current US administration, Jo launched a Weapons of Mass Destruction

208

Joseph Rotblat

Awareness campaign. Under the skilful stewardship of a number of UK nongovernmental organizations, this is developing into a significant grassroots movement. And as a person? There’s a story often told about Jo in which it is said he pushes past a group of young men at Tottenham Court Road Underground station in London and they shout at him: ‘‘What’s the hurry, you’re an old man!’’ And Jo replies: ‘‘Don’t you see? It’s because I’m an old man that I’m in a hurry!’’ I am sure that this is a true story – it captures Jo’s exuberance. But it also paints a slightly romanticized picture. The fuller picture is even better. Jo dashed through London’s Underground system every day, traveling to and from work. Negotiating a group of slowmoving teenagers was a regular hazard and merest trifle. In fact, only the Tottenham Court Road escalators could slow him down. For some reason, try as he might he could not run up these in later life. They vibrated at a frequency that made his legs go shaky! Jo charged around the world in the same way. First urging taxi drivers on towards the airport as a disgraceful back seat driver; then hurtling through the airport terminal (in one spectacular incident, on the way to Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize, he nearly knocked himself out tripping over some loose wiring in Heathrow Terminal 2); first on the aircraft and first off; and always in pole position at the luggage delivery point, waiting for a huge battered red suitcase that he took with him everywhere, held together by an old belt, brimming with papers and books and almost impossible to lift. Impatient, demanding, impassioned, indefatigable – chasing conference papers, commissioning contributions to books, demanding public statements, harassing working group rapporteurs, tireless in pursuing and debating the causes in which he believed. One of the national newspaper obituaries reported a rumor that an Israeli scientist had been interned in the basement of the Pugwash office in London, prevented from leaving until he produced the book chapter he owed. That’s absolutely true – I took him soup. Jo also edited the proceedings of 50 Pugwash conferences (and numerous other publications). The proceedings have not been widely read but represent an interesting history of the Cold War, containing perspectives, on the key issues of the time, from scientists and Joseph Rotblat

209

statesmen drawn from a highly diverse range of backgrounds, disciplines and societies. And Jo’s energy did not subside when ‘‘off duty’’. After the 1999 annual Pugwash Conference in Rustenburg, South Africa, I traveled to Cape Town with Jo and another colleague. Driving around, looking for our hotel, we had got lost in a remote part of the city. We had been warned that we should be careful on streets that we did not know. But Jo spotted a gang of young men on the other side of the street, and in a flash he was out of the car, across the road, and in amongst them, guidebook in hand, 90 years old. He came back, of course, with the directions. Fashion your resources to your aims, not your aims to your resources, was one of Jo’s guiding principles. The goals of nuclear and general disarmament are discussed as an unattainable dream. But Jo had lived long enough, and seen enough change, to believe that ‘‘what is a dream today may be reality tomorrow’’. And that this would be brought about ‘‘not by miracle but by consistent effort’’. Jo devoted the main part of his long life to seeking the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Nuclear disarmament, when it is achieved, will be in part the result of his 60 years of consistent and impassioned effort. There were 60 years of age between Prof and I, but we became firm friends. He inspired thousands, young and old, the world over, of which I am one.

210

Joseph Rotblat

A Great Man and a Close Friend Maciej Nalecz

It was a real shock for me to hear that Jo had passed away. I had lost a very close friend. We used to talk often by phone, especially as his health was declining. I often wonder what brought Jo and me so close together? Maybe our difficult childhoods. I also finished a school for electrotechnicians, after the death of my father in 1942. I had also, as an only child, to take care of my mother and family expenses. I did my best to start and continue my studies in the underground Polytechnic in Warsaw during the tragic German occupation. After the war both of us were working on the diagnosis and treatment of patients using recent discoveries in radiation physics or biomedical engineering (which is my lifetime scientific work), Jo as a professor of physics in the University of London at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College and me as a founder and first director of the Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering Polish Academy of Sciences (1975–98). But of much greater importance, it was certainly the personal experiences of how horrible war could be for each person, family and for humankind that brought us together. I was greatly impressed by the activities of Pugwash when I attended my first Pugwash Conference at Oxford University (1972). I was truly surprised to be elected to the Pugwash Continuing Committee (1973) and later on to be the Chairman of the Pugwash Council (1974). I was four times re-elected to this position until 1997 and was a member of the Council until 2002 (together almost 30 years). For all my time in Pugwash Jo was one of its key personalities. Jo and I had many discussions on the future of Pugwash and on how to improve our activities. Since we talked in Polish we could fully understand each other.

211

During those years I acquired a great respect for this man who had great visions, and who knew how to realize those visions in concrete forms. After almost all of his lectures he received a standing ovation. He also had a capacity to be very precise as the author or evaluator of international conventions seeking to build a peaceful world. Once Jo asked me to organize a trip to Zakopane to his beloved Tatra Mountains where he used to spend some of his vacations. I asked the driver from the Academy to take special care of him if he wished to climb the mountains. When they returned I asked the driver ‘‘how it was’’. The answer was: ‘‘He was too fast for me. I could not follow him.’’ At the time Jo was almost 90. In 1966 he was elected as a Foreign Member of the Polish Academy of Sciences and in 1996 he received the highest award of Academy – the Copernicus Medal. In 1987 he got the high Polish distinction of Commander, Order of Merit. I would like to emphasize that Jo was a soft, warm person to people he met, and especially to his friends. This is shown by his personal letters and the obituaries he wrote acknowledging gratefully the contributions of those who had died. As an example, here is a copy of the letter that he sent me on my 80 th birthday, and which I was very proud to receive.

Letter from Professor Joseph Rotblat to Professor Maciej Nałe˛cz January 9, 2002 My dear Maciej, So you are joining the club of the octogenarians! It is no longer as exclusive as it was in the past but it is still a great achievement, and deserves congratulations, which I heartily send to you. Speaking from personal experience, and having graduated into the nonagenarian class, life in one’s eighties can be great fun, provided (apart from physical health) you have the right attitude: a youthful approach to life, and this you always had. I remember when we first met: thirty years ago, at the Pugwash Conference in Oxford, the first of more than seventy meetings that you have since attended. At that time you were already an established interna-

212

A Great Man and a Close Friend

tional authority in a new field of research, which bridged science, technology and medicine, a field very close to my own, and in which we might have collaborated scientifically if we had met earlier. At the Oxford Conference, much time was spent on discussing future activities and organization. With regard to the latter, we were particularly concerned about the proper representation of various geo-political interests in the governing body of Pugwash – the Continuing Committee. A few months later, in 1973, you were elected to this Committee, and very quickly established yourself as one of the most active members, as demonstrated by your organizing a Pugwash Symposium in April 1974, in Cracow. At the meeting of the Continuing Committee held at the time of the Symposium, a vacancy occurred in the chairmanship of the Committee, after the retirement of Sir Rudolf Peierls. The membership of the Committee included some with many years of service, but to the general astonishment you were elected to be Chairman of the Continuing Committee, although you had been a member of it for less than a year. You were elected because we recognized in you certain characteristics which we considered to be essential for the post: skill, in managing a large committee containing quite a few prima donnas; tact, in handling sensitive issues which could very easily have become inflamed; a sense of humour, disarming a charged atmosphere with an apposite story which brought general laughter; and, above all, a lot of commonsense which enabled you usually to find a sensible solution to the problem under discussion. Those of us who put our faith in you – an unknown personality at the time – were not disappointed. You have achieved the unique feat of being chairman of the Pugwash Council (the name adopted in 1975) for twenty-three years, the longest anybody held any office in the history of Pugwash. The remarkable feature of your chairmanship was that, throughout the years, you managed to get the Council to reach decisions by consensus rather than by vote. Sometimes, when it seemed that there was no way to solve a problem, you would inform us that it was time for a break and for a glass of z˙ubro´wka, and, miraculously, a solution offered itself after we returned to the table. Maciej, we all in Pugwash owe you an immense debt of gratitude for managing the Council over a long period of our history, a period which included the award to us of the Nobel Peace Prize, towards which you contributed so much.

A Great Man and a Close Friend

213

On a personal note, I value enormously the close friendship with you and your lovely Zosia. I hope it will continue for many more years. With congratulations and warmest wishes. Yours sincerely, Jo´zef

214

A Great Man and a Close Friend

Joseph Rotblat: The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists: ‘‘Above all – remember your humanity’’ G€ otz Neuneck

The Sorcerer’s Apprentices In his book Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914–1991 the British historian Eric Hobsbawn said ‘‘No period in history has been more penetrated by and more dependent on the natural sciences than the twentieth century.’’ (Chapter 18 ‘‘Sorcerers and Apprentices: The Natural Sciences’’). Basic discoveries such as nuclear fission (1938), the transistor (1948), the laser (1960), the identification of DNA (1953) or the computer (after 1946) were not only beneficial to society, but also to the military and influenced warfare itself, helping to create incredibly destructive weapon capabilities in some countries, thus exacerbating the ambivalent role of scientific knowledge.1) The use of scientific-based innovations and systematic research for military purposes is not new. Based on their inventions, expertise and activities, scientists in the 21 st century also became ‘‘sorcerers of power and apprentices of politics’’. Joseph Rotblat, scientist and towering advocate for nuclear disarmament, played an important part in this modern drama involving science, politics and war. Science, which was developed on humanistic foundations and for the betterment of humankind, contributed significantly to military purposes during the 20 th century. In World War I, the German chemist Fritz Haber and others used their scientific genius to develop new chemical agents to unleash poison gas as a weapon in waging wars. He described his thinking in these words: ‘‘Science belongs to humanity in peace time and to the fatherland in war.’’ 1) The use of scientific and technological innovations and systematic research for military purposes is not new: see: William H. McNeill: The Pursuit of Power, Chicago 1984 or Ernest Volkman: Science goes to War, New York 2002.

215

The industrial and the scientific revolutions of the 19 th and 20 th centuries also politicized science, reaching its most visible culmination in World War II with projects such as missiles, radar, operation research and cryptography.2) Scientific discoveries were turned into instruments of warfare and used directly to wage war. Leading physicists in the USA, many of them refugees or exiles from fascism, urged governments to build the first atom bombs.3) In the beginning, the main motivation of many of them was to prevent the use of the bomb by Hitler. Without their insights and knowledge to unleash the energy of the atom, politics and the military would have never achieved the destructive force of nuclear weapons. The US scientists’ last-minute struggle to prevent politicians and the military from dropping the bomb on Japanese cities shows their ‘‘political passion’’ but it was ultimately unsuccessful.4) Hobsbawn continues: ‘‘At the same time the war finally convinced governments that the commitment of hitherto unimaginable resources to scientific research was practicable and, in future, essential.’’ 5) In the Cold War scientific-based military research was institutionalized and in some areas of science there was a heavy concentration of resources to find scientific and technical solutions in the military field. This led to an arms race especially in the area of missiles and nuclear weapons.6) The superpowers established huge isolated military research laboratories (USA) and secret cities (Soviet Union) where scientists and engineers were paid to solve practical 2) See f.e. Tom Shachtman: Laboratory Warriors. How Allied Science and Technology Tipped the Balance in World War II, New York 2002 3) See the book: Gerard J. DeGroot: The Bomb. A Life, Cambridge/MA, 2005 4) In June 1945 a group under the leadership of James Franck and Leo Szilard submitted a written proposal to the Secretary of War, the so-called Franck-Report, urging the government not to use the bomb over an inhabited region In particular, the report argued that:

216

‘‘If the United States were the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would . . . precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons. 5) Eric Hobsbawn: Age of Extremes. The Short Twentieth Century 1914– 1991, London, 1994 6) For the relations between science and war see: Jean. Jacques Salomon: Le Scientifique et le Guerrier, Paris 2001.

The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists

military problems. The proclaimed ‘‘bomber gap’’ (1950) and ‘‘missile gap’’ (1960) and atmospheric testing drove the arms competition which also involved scientific laboratories and institutes. Science became an essential and systematically sponsored factor of national security and scientists began to intervene in politics. Some scientists such as Oppenheimer, Szila´rd or Kapitsa became aware of what their work had spawned, and altered their course. They feared that sooner or later nuclear weapons would again be used – this time on a global scale – and started to educate the public on the possible consequences of a nuclear war. Leo Szila´rd, Joseph Rotblat and Eugene Rabinovitch helped to found organizations such as the Atomic Scientists Association, the Federation of Atomic Scientists,7) the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (1957) and the Council of a Liveable World (1962). Others continued to advise governments and worked on the hydrogen bomb. As political advisors, scientists such as Edward Teller, John von Neumann, Hans Bethe or Andrei Sacharov played an active role in the arms race.8) The H-Bomb, a weapon with a destructive energy potential many times greater than a ‘‘simple’’ atom bomb, was created. Oppenheimer called the hydrogen bomb ‘‘technically sweet’’. Lord Zuckerman, chief adviser to the British government, commented: ‘‘For it is the man in the laboratory who at the start proposes that for this or that arcane reason it would be useful to improve an old or to devise a new nuclear warhead . . . It is he, the technician, not the commander in the field, who is at the heart of the arms race.’’ The arms competition of the superpowers reached its absurd peak on October 30, 1961 when the Soviets tested a 50 megaton bomb, the biggest nuclear bomb ever exploded. The yield was ten times the combined total of all the explosives used in World War II. This bomb was an absurd demonstration of Soviet might, and it demonstrated how dangerous the ongoing arms race had become.

7) See i.e the memoirs of Jeremy Stone: ‘‘Every Man Should Try’’ Adventures of a Public Interest Activist, New York 1999.

8) See f.e. Robert Gilpin: American Scientists and Weapons Policy, Princeton/New Jersey 1962

The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists

217

Joseph Rotblat: ‘‘One man can make a difference and every man should try’’ (J. F. Kennedy) Jo Rotblat, physicist and life-long advocate of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, said in a speech in December 2004: ‘‘I am one of the scientists who helped to develop nuclear weapons.’’ But why did scientists start working on these weapons of terror? What was the driving force of their work during World War II and today? And what can be done to get rid of these dangerous weapons now? Jo Rotblat himself gave strong answers to these fundamental questions and he matched his actions to his words. After the invasion of Poland he came to England to work with James Chadwick at Liverpool University. The idea of the bomb took shape in February 1939. Based on his strong and clear humanistic convictions he stated: ‘‘It is not the job of a scientist to work on weapons of mass destruction.’’ Nevertheless he reluctantly participated in the British research on the bomb and went to Los Alamos in 1944. Towards the end of 1944, he learned that Nazi Germany had long since abandoned the project. Consequently he resigned from the project and returned to England. About the discussions and motives in the Manhattan Project he recalled: The Los Alamos team regularly discussed the whole problem of the bomb and future world security. I think most scientists, those who initiated the work, like myself, had the same idea, that we needed the bomb in order to prevent its use. Although by that time it was obvious that Germany was defeated without the threat of the bomb they felt, having gone so far, they would like to see whether all these theoretical calculations would really come out in practice. Some, at least, wanted to wait until the bomb was tested, and then leave the project. But by that time, after Japan had entered the war, many people had changed their views; they felt we may have to use the bomb to bring the war in the Far East to a rapid end. The war psychology is that once we enter war, we lose our moral values and we are encouraged to kill people who were, on the previous day, our partners and our friends . . . This moral dilemma existed all the time, and is still going on up to this day. Once you begin this game and work, then you lose some moral values. You become engrossed in dealing with gadgets and in inventing newer and newer gadgets.9)

9) Joseph Rotblat: Science and Nuclear Weapons: Where do we go from here? The Blackaby Papers Nr. 5 December 2004

218

The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists

After the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Rotblat decided to become a professor of medical physics. In 1946 he began educating the British public about nuclear dangers and advocating the control of nuclear energy. He organized a mobile exhibition, ‘‘The Atom Train’’, and he changed his research subject. From then on he dedicated his professional life to the exploration and use of radioactive radiation in medicine and biology.10) In 1954, strongly affected by the hydrogen bomb tests, Rotblat came into contact with Bertrand Russell, who introduced the Russell–Einstein Manifesto to the world press in July 1957.11) As the youngest signatory of that famous document Rotblat dedicated his life to the implementation of the key sentences of the manifesto: the abolition of nuclear arms and war as such. In 1957 Rotblat helped to found the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs in the small fishing village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Canada, with an initial conference at which 22 scientists from East and West met during the height of the Cold War.12) Since then there have been approximately 300 Pugwash meetings during which important ideas to control armaments have been raised and new security structures discussed. Contacts were initiated between governments and scientists from East and West and important foundations for future arms control treaties were elaborated in an open atmosphere. In particular, Rotblat helped to bring together scientists, diplomats and politicians from East and West, North and South to overcome ideological differences and stalemates, and dangerous confrontations. Jo Rotblat served from 1957 to 1973 as Secretary-General of Pugwash, and from 1988 to 1995 as President of the Pugwash Conferences. Under his leadership the small organization expanded and attracted more and more scientists. Today there are more than 50 national Pugwash groups. He was also a constant supporter of younger scientists. He represented a wonderful combination of responsible science, moral integrity and continuous striving for dialogue and kindness with10) See Joseph Rotblat’s seminal book: Nuclear Radiation in Warfare, London 1981. 11) See Sandra Ionno Butcher: The Origins of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, Pugwash History Series 2005 [See: www.pugwash.org

12) See Joseph Rotblat: Proceedings of the First Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs. Published on the Occasion of the 25 th Anniversary of Pugwash, 1982

The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists

219

out neglecting his humanistic principles. He was not only one of the first nuclear critics, but also the conscience of a science which stands up for the elimination of the nuclear weapon. The message of Jo Rotblat is clear: ‘‘Either the world will eliminate nuclear weapons, or we are confronted with the perspective, that such weapons will eliminate us.’’ It was the Nobel Prize of 1995 that focused the eyes of the world public on the work of Joseph Rotblat. In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech he opposed the ‘‘ivory tower mentality’’ of science: ‘‘From my earliest days I had a passion for science. But science, the exercise of the supreme power of the human intellect, was always linked in my mind with benefit to people. I saw science as being in harmony with humanity. I did not imagine that the second half of my life would be spent on efforts to avert a mortal danger to humanity created by science.’’ 13) Jo Rotblat was eloquent, committed and passionate in working for a world that would be more secure, more just and more humane. For Pugwash and for others, who felt an obligation to these objectives, he was a splendid mentor and a continuous inspiration to take further steps towards nuclear disarmament. He often stressed the positive role scientists can play in preventing wars.14) They can provide accurate information and objective assessments of military projects, foresee dangerous consequences of scientific research and exert some influence on political decisions. On this he says: ‘‘Since the consequences are not always easily recognized, it is important for scientists to be vigilant at all times, and pay close attention to areas of research with potential for misuse.’’ In his last years he especially supported the initiation of a campaign for the improvement of public awareness of nuclear dangers (see: www.comeclean.org.uk). His objective was the abolition of the nuclear weapons, arguably the most frightful weapon created by humankind and, ultimately, the abolition of war itself: ‘‘If we are to safeguard the future of mankind, we have to destroy not only the instruments of war management, but war itself.’’ His objective, the elimination of nuclear 13) Joseph Rotblat: Nobel Lecture, Stockholm 1995, http://nobelprize. org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ 1995/rotblat-lecture.html.

220

14) See: Joseph Rotblat: Misuse of Science, in: 50 th Pugwash Conference: Eliminating the Causes of War, Cambridge/UK, August 2000, p. 139–147.

The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists

weapons, has not been reached. These efforts must be multiplied persistently and decisively if this goal is to be achieved.

‘‘To prevent this disaster – for the sake of humanity – we must get rid of all nuclear weapons’’ (Joseph Rotblat) In his speech ‘‘Science and Nuclear Weapons’’ Jo Rotblat said: ‘‘The nuclear arms race was actually mostly a game between scientists on both sides.’’ Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War the results of this ‘‘game’’ are the following: Some 12,000 nuclear weapons are still deployed; 90% of those are in the arsenals of Russia and the USA. Each of these warheads is roughly ten times more destructive than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Twenty of these warheads targeted on cities would kill 25 million Americans or Russians. The strategic arsenals of France, the UK and China are smaller, but amount to 1,000 warheads in total. The number of deployed and undeployed nuclear weapons is estimated to be 27,000. Lessons from the Cold War such as the Berlin crisis or the Cuban missile crisis show how close the world came to a nuclear disaster. In the words of Jo Rotblat: ‘‘This is the reality of nuclear weapons: they may trigger a world war; a war which, unlike previous ones, destroys all of civilization.’’ So-called tactical nuclear weapons which are supposed to be used as battlefield weapons have been removed, but can be redeployed in a very short time. Their exact numbers are unknown and they are not subject to any arms control arrangement. But NATO has retained around 580 nuclear gravity bombs in Europe at eight NATO air bases in six NATO countries despite the aircraft which could deliver these weapons having a very limited range. Jo Rotblat was a lucid critic of this ‘‘extended deterrence’’: ‘‘This policy is simply an inertial continuation from the Cold War era. The Cold War is over but Cold War thinking survives. Then, we were told that a world war would be prevented by the existence of nuclear weapons. Now, we are told that nuclear weapons prevent all kinds of war.’’ 15) 15) Joseph Rotblat: Nobel Lecture, Stockholm 1995, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1995/ rotblat-lecture.html The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists

221

The bilateral disarmament process between the USA and Russia seems to be over. The American and the Russian governments have reaffirmed the central role of nuclear weapons in their security doctrines. The huge stockpiles underline the reality that nuclear weapons are still a ‘‘central currency of power’’. Such a huge number of nuclear arsenals carries the risk of deliberate use in regional scenarios. Accidents could lead to local disasters. Miscalculations or unauthorized use could annihilate large regions. The huge stocks of fissionable material and the theft of nuclear materials by terrorists or criminals could open up the possibility of individuals or groups triggering the destructive release of nuclear energy. Additionally, the acquisition and the possession of these monstrous weapons are conceived by other states as threats to their security and could result in further proliferation. Jo Rotblat knew that nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented, but he stressed the fact that nuclear disarmament is not only ‘‘an ardent desire of the people’’, but also a legal commitment of the five official nuclear weapon states. ‘‘The use of nuclear weapons is fundamentally immoral, affecting civilians as well as military personnel, innocents and aggressors alike, killing people alive now as well as the generations yet to come.’’ 16) The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) divides the world into five nuclear weapon states and more than 180 non-nuclear weapon states. Additionally, three non-NPT states, India, Pakistan and Israel are building their own nuclear weapon capabilities, thus fuelling arms races and nuclear ambitions in neighboring states. The dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities is unresolved. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions have been a source of concern since the 1990s – only enhanced when the country announced its withdrawal from the NPT early in 2003. The erosion of the nonproliferation regime is continuing due to blocked nuclear disarmament, the noncompliance of some countries, inadequate verification and the inability of states to develop their constraining regimes further. No new major arms control initiatives are to be expected. The prospects for further nuclear reductions are looking dim. Once again Jo’s optimism, 16) Joseph Rotblat: Foreword for ‘‘Addressing the Nuclear Weapons Threat: The Russell-Einstein Manifesto Fifty Years on’’, Pugwash Occasional Papers Vol. 4 (19, December 2005, p. 9.

222

The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists

his tireless activities and his vision of working toward a world that has no nuclear weapons is required. The nuclear agenda is charged with worrying problems and the task of the Pugwash community to eliminate nuclear weapons is far from over. In addition to all his political and ethical concerns, Jo Rotblat’s main focus was on individual scientists and the scientific community. He was one of first scientists who wholeheartedly committed his time and creativity to averting the dangers created by advances in science and technology. In his Nobel lecture he said: ‘‘At a time when science plays such a powerful role in the life of society, when the destiny of the whole of mankind may hinge on the results of scientific research, it is incumbent on all scientists to be fully conscious of that role, and conduct themselves accordingly. I appeal to my fellow scientists to remember their responsibility to humanity.’’ Explicitly, this perspective was derived from the humanistic roots of science: ‘‘The basic human value is life itself; the most important of human rights is the right to live. It is the duty of scientists to see to it that, through their work, life will not be put into peril, but will be made safe and its quality enhanced. The problem is how this is to be achieved.’’ 17) In his last speech as President of Pugwash he was fully aware of the increasing pressure on and changes in the structure of modern science: The reality is that science has lost its innocence. The reality is that for increasing areas of scientific research the time interval between a scientific finding and its practical application is becoming so short, that the difference between pure and applied science is disappearing. The reality is that – as a consequence – science nowadays plays an important role in every walk of life; scientific research increasingly affects political relations between nations, and vice versa, political events affect the way scientific research is done.18)

Scientists have a special responsibility due to their role and understanding of scientific results, their humanistic roots and their inter17) Joseph Rotblat: Science and Nuclear Weapons: Where do we go from here? The Blackaby Papers Nr. 5 December 2004

18) Joseph Rotblat: Pugwash – The Social Conscience of Scientists, Plenary Paper; 47 th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Lillehammer, Norway, 1–7 August 1997.

The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and the Social Conscience of Scientists

223

national orientation. They can raise public awareness and they can provide technical advice for solving daunting problems. Scientists speak a common language and form an ‘‘international fraternity’’ to work for global understanding and peace. In the 21 st century science and scientific-based innovations will create new threats, which will pose new ethical dilemmas. New research areas in physics and the life sciences such as neuroscience or nanotechnology will present new challenges for societies in both their military and their peaceful applications. Joseph Rotblat was a towering figure in the search for peace and common understanding. He dedicated his life to trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and ultimately of war itself by applying the extraordinary combination of scientific rigor and moral integrity. One person can make a difference and the generations to come need to learn about Jo Rotblat, his life and his basic philosophy: The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task. Above all remember your humanity.

How Many Minutes to Midnight? A High-Level Panel Convenes to Check the State of the ‘‘Doomsday Clock’’ John Polanyi

For over 40 years (from the time of our first meeting at a Pugwash Conference in Moscow in 1960) Jo Rotblat was my colleague, inspiration and friend. I missed him most keenly as I sat at a table not long ago with the sponsors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in Chicago, to reflect on the past and future of the Bulletin’s celebrated ‘‘doomsday clock’’. Starting in 1947, not long after Jo made his principled decision to leave the Manhattan Project, the clock has warned of the degree of nuclear peril. Interestingly – since our sense of what is fitting plays such a major part in our lives – the artist who designed the clock set the hands at seven minutes to midnight for aesthetic reasons. It did not take long, however, for the editors to realize that it might, from time to time, be reset. At first it ticked year by year toward midnight, reaching a frightening two minutes to by 1953, the year that the USA and the Soviet Union both exploded primitive hydrogen bombs. The much-vaunted secret of the bomb, on which peace was supposed to depend, seemed no longer to be a secret. Ensuing decades saw the minute hand draw back from midnight as arms control agreements (many proposed in the Bulletin) became a part of the international debate. But the hand crept forward again as US–Soviet relations stumbled over familiar issues: ‘‘deadlocked talks’’, ‘‘conflict in Afghanistan’’, ‘‘repression of human rights’’, ‘‘terrorist activities’’ and the ‘‘widening gap between rich and poor nations’’. But hope remained, as it always will. In 1990 democracy came to Eastern Europe with a rush. Then both superpowers signed the long-stalled Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The custodians of the clock set it back to an unprecedented 17 minutes to midnight.

225

It did not last. Poorly guarded nuclear stockpiles in Russia, coupled with the burgeoning interest of states and ‘‘non-state actors’’ (terrorists) in acquiring nuclear weapons, caused fresh alarm. When, in 1998, India and Pakistan elected to become nuclear powers, the hands of the clock moved forward again, at first to nine minutes to midnight and then to the canonical seven minutes to midnight where they had begun. There the clock hands stand today, as they did four years ago. The clock, now grown a little faint on the cover of the Bulletin, appears to have stopped. The participants in the Chicago meeting were there to examine its state. Not surprisingly, they found that the clock ticks on, though we no longer see its hands as clearly. The experts around the table included specialists in pandemics induced by genetic engineering, mayhem from cyber-warfare, and enveloping ‘‘goo’’ from uncontrolled nanotechnology. Shivering in their air-conditioned meeting room, they lamented the imminent fuel shortage as well as the ominous signs of global warming. But in the background at all times lurked the peril that heightens others: the instruments of Armageddon. To some, this reference to nuclear weaponry will seem quaint. A political scientist at the meeting, who draws his audiences from students with an interest in current affairs, distributes questionnaires to his class at the start of term to assess their level of knowledge. A typical question is: ‘‘How many nuclear weapons remain in the world?’’ Answers range chaotically from zero up. The present nuclear arsenal is estimated to comprise some 30,000 nuclear warheads. Additionally, there are stockpiles of nuclear materials – enriched uranium and plutonium – sufficient to construct about 30,000 more. As for the destructive power of such devices, it is enough to note that the appearance of a small aircraft bearing one would, in the ancient language of TNT, correspond to the simultaneous arrival of 10,000 conventional bombers over that point. This was the reality that confronted the founders of the Bulletin half a century ago. It has not changed, except in its magnitude and complexity. Many nuclear weapons have been retired, but new ones have taken their place. In parts of the world, notably in the USA and Russia, thousands, mounted on missiles, are kept ready for firing in minutes.

226

How Many Minutes to Midnight? A High-Level Panel Convenes to Check the State

The decision to fire them will be made on an ad hoc basis, under the worst possible circumstances. Listen to the cautious report of the Center for American Progress, entitled ‘‘Restoring American Military Power’’ (Washington, January 2006): The decision to use nuclear weapons rests with the president alone. There is no formula at the president’s disposal. The president would have to make the call during a period that is likely to be characterized by significant uncertainty and enormous stress, with time being of the essence.

At the same time, new uses are being suggested for nuclear weapons by influential zealots in the USA, new capabilities by President Vladimir Putin of Russia, new rationales (deterring terrorist attack) by President Jacques Chirac of France. Meanwhile, arms control moves at a glacial pace, if at all. The only agreement that can affect the worst excesses of the nuclear age is the 2002 Moscow Treaty (the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty – SORT) that is supposed to reduce the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles in the USA and Russia to about 4,000 in total by 2012, over 20 years after the Cold War ceased to provide any justification for their existence. Old habits, one might say, die hard. But that is too complacent a summary. Military postures and the threats they entail can be expected ultimately to translate into actions. No nation will, of course, want to use nuclear weapons. All will, however, want to prevail, and, failing that, to escape humiliation. These are difficult demands to meet at every hand in a world of towering weaponry. The greatest danger stems from misunderstanding. Since the purposes of nuclear weapons, with their vast potential for destruction, will forever be unclear, their very existence is an invitation to misunderstanding. The la la land of unreality extends, however, well beyond the nuclear. From the vantage point of nuclear-armed China, to give an alarming example, Taiwan is a part of the mainland. From the vantage point of Taiwan, a democracy, it just as clearly is not. On the other side of the world the USA, with the conventional and nuclear forces at its command, is committed to maintaining both these conflicting realities by means of a third dubious proposition, namely that this US commitment constitutes a vital national How Many Minutes to Midnight? A High-Level Panel Convenes to Check the State

227

interest. The Cuban missile crisis provided a less obvious fuse leading to the nuclear powder keg. The future, the participants in Chicago agreed tritely, is replete with unknowns. Nuclear terrorism represents a frightening prospect. How, though, would it figure on the scale of doomsday? Most obviously if a terrorist attack were planned to provoke nuclear war. And global warming? That is a very real threat, in the longer run. It does not take much imagination to picture protest and panic among its multitude of victims. Rather than wait for help, they may resort to arms. The wider the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, the more fearful the consequences. One comes back to the same point. It is vital to reduce our decades-long addiction to nuclear weapons, to decrease their number, end their production and outlaw their use. This, of course, presumes a concern for the primacy of law over war, a quest we have temporarily abandoned. Temporarily, since we shall discover that we have only a limited amount of time. We would do well to keep an eye on the clock.

228

How Many Minutes to Midnight? A High-Level Panel Convenes to Check the State

Joseph Rotblat: Peacemaker Martin Rees

The attitudes of my generation were molded by the early CND marches and the Cuba crisis. I read Bertrand Russell’s essays, and the text of his BBC lectures on ‘‘Man’s Peril’’. I later learnt of the historic Russell–Einstein declaration, whose authors claimed to be ‘‘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’’. I learnt only later that the impetus for this manifesto came from Jo Rotblat. Nor could I foresee that I would have the privilege, from the 1980s onwards, of participating in Pugwash activities with this astonishing man. Jo Rotblat helped to make the first atomic bomb. But for decades thereafter, he campaigned to control the powers he had helped unleash. Until the last few months of his long life, he pursued this aim with the dynamism of a man half his age, inspiring many others to join the cause. Even in his 90s, he still could captivate student audiences – inspiring them as he had earlier inspired so many of us. In the 1960s or 1970s, the superpowers could have stumbled towards Armageddon through muddle and miscalculation. Jo advocated ridding the world entirely of nuclear weapons. This view was widely derided as woolly idealism. But it gained broader ‘‘establishment’’ support over the years. Indeed, the 1997 Canberra Commission – on which Jo sat, along with among its members distinguished politicians and ex-military figures – put forward step-by-step proposals for moving towards eliminating nuclear weapons completely. Its report stated that ‘‘The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used – accidentally or by decision – defies credibility.’’ Among those on the Canberra Commission was Robert McNamara. As US Secretary of Defense in the 1960s, McNamara was in charge of the US nu-

229

clear arsenal at the time of the Cuba missile standoff. He later wrote that this was the most dangerous moment in history: ‘‘We came within a hairbreadth of nuclear war without realizing it. It’s no credit to us that we escaped – Krushchev and Kennedy were lucky as well as wise.’’ In his later years, McNamara attended several Pugwash meetings. In 2005, aged 88, he spoke at the Hay Festival; his confessional movie ‘‘Fog of War’’ had just appeared. Jo Rotblat, aged 96, was due to be on the platform with him but sadly his health did not permit him to be there. This pairing of McNamara and Rotblat might have seemed incongruous – just as Jo’s friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev did. But in later years these men converged in a realization that eliminating nuclear weapons was a prime goal. The scientists who spearheaded the Pugwash meetings had generally been active in World War II – they had worked on the bomb project, on radar or on operations research. Among them were some of the great intellects from the ‘‘heroic age’’ of nuclear science – Hans Bethe and Rudolf Peierls, for instance. When war ended, most returned to academia, but maintained an informed concern for the rest of their lives. No senior participants in the Manhattan Project now survive in the Pugwash movement. In the USA, that generation has been replaced by an impressive cohort of younger scientists – people who have done a spell in government, or in high-tech industry, and who serve regularly as consultants to the Pentagon or on advisory committees. In the UK, there are depressingly few younger scientists who can match the credentials and expertise of their US counterparts in forwarding the Pugwash agenda. The reasons for this transatlantic asymmetry are not hard to find. In the USA, senior staff shuffle between government jobs and posts in (for instance) the Brookings Institute whenever the administration changes. There are always some who are ‘‘out’’ rather than ‘‘in’’. The UK, in contrast, does not have a ‘‘revolving door’’ system; government service is generally a lifetime career. For this reason, and because secrecy is more pervasive, discussions of defense issues tend, in the UK, to be restricted to a closed official world. Indeed it was the realization that hardly any independent UK scientists were taking even an informed interest that led to my modest involvement in Pugwash – I could never aspire to the wis-

230

Joseph Rotblat: Peacemaker

dom and expertise of the World War II generation, but it seemed important that at least some younger people should carry the torch. Another incentive was that Pugwash agenda was broader than during the Cold War era, when UK influence seemed marginal. The nuclear threat is based on basic science that dates from the 1930s, when Jo Rotblat was a young researcher. The spin-offs from 21 st -century science offer immense hope, and exciting prospects. But they also, like nuclear science, may have a downside. Small sub-national groups can be empowered by new kinds of weapons that are easier to develop and far harder to monitor than nuclear weapons. The collective impacts of humankind on the biosphere, climate and oceans are unprecedented. These environmentally driven threats – ‘‘threats without enemies’’ – should loom as large in the political perspective as did the East/West political divide during the Cold War era. Jo Rotblat favored a ‘‘Hippocratic Oath’’ whereby scientists would pledge themselves to use their talents to human benefit. Whether or not such an oath would have substance, scientists surely have a special responsibility. It is their ideas that form the basis of new technology. The post-World War II nuclear scientists set us a fine example. They did not say that they were ‘‘just scientists’’ and that the use made of their work was up to politicians. They took the line that all scientists should retain a concern with how their ideas are applied. In his valedictory address as President of the Royal Society, Michael Atiyah took up this theme. Scientists should not be indifferent to the fruits of their ideas – their intellectual creations. They should try to foster benign spin-offs of their research, but constrain, so far as they can, the threatening ‘‘dark side’’. Academic scientists have a special obligation because they have more freedom than those in government or those subject to commercial pressures. Michael Atiyah added that: ‘‘the ivory tower is no longer a sanctuary’’. It was fitting that the vote of thanks to his Royal Society speech was given – and given memorably – by Jo Rotblat. This was the year of Jo’s Nobel Prize; and of his absurdly belated election to the Royal Society. As he said, ‘‘My fellowship is of the latest vintage – though in other ways I am of some maturity.’’ He continued by warning against exchanging the ivory tower for the thick Joseph Rotblat: Peacemaker

231

walls of a secret laboratory, quoting Solly Zuckerman: ‘‘When it comes to nuclear weapons . . . it is the technician who is at the heart of the arms race.’’ The challenges of the 21 st century are more complex and intractable than those of the nuclear age. Wise choices will require idealistic and effective campaigners – not just physicists, but biologists, computer experts, and environmentalists as well: latter-day counterparts of Jo Rotblat, inspired by his vision and building on his legacy.

232

Joseph Rotblat: Peacemaker

Rotblat Appreciation Douglas Roche

Steadfast adj a. firmly fixed in place: immovable. b. not subject to change. c. firm in belief, determination or adherence: loyal. Searching for the word that would best describe Jo Rotblat, I thought of ‘‘steadfast’’ and, when I checked the dictionary, I became convinced that that is the word that sums up the irrepressible Rotblat. He was definitely immovable in his determination to rid the world of the evil of nuclear weapons. He was loyal to his Pugwash colleagues (not all of whom always agreed with him) in building Pugwash into a great movement; and most of all Jo was loyal to his conscience. His conscience told him that one should be loyal to civilization, not just to a nation state, but in so doing, one’s service to the state was enriched by helping the state to reach out to embrace global strategies for survival and peace. Jo and I had several conversations after I met him in the 1980s about this outreach of conscience and he even asked me to write an article or two on the subject. I am sure that the current book on global conscience in which I am working has its roots in those conversations with Jo. The theme of conscience surfaced again in Jo’s last major statement, issued in the form of a letter to the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Here is the core passage: Morality is at the core of the nuclear issue: are we going to base our world on a culture of peace or on a culture of violence? Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral: their action is indiscriminate, affecting civilians as well as military, innocents and aggressors alike, killing people alive now and generations as yet unborn. And the consequence of their use might be to bring the human race to an end. All this makes nuclear weapons unacceptable instruments for maintaining peace in the world.

233

These words are the quintessential Rotblat. They combine the intermingling of the scientist and the ethicist that characterized his personality. The language he used transcends religion as such, yet is deeply moral. It is the language that crosses all boundaries and becomes inextricably interwoven with all the processes of daily life. It can resonate with politicians, who need to be able to relate to all segments of their constituencies. Throughout Rotblat’s work, the influence of the Russell– Einstein Manifesto of 1955 was always apparent. As the last survivor of the eleven signatories, Rotblat frequently quoted the stirring ending: ‘‘We appeal as human beings to human beings: remember your humanity and forget the rest.’’ Jo used those very words in the last lecture he gave in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, when he visited the Thinkers’ Lodge in 2003. His lecture on that occasion was both a hail and farewell. His criticism of the nuclear weapons states was biting, his prescription eminently feasible, his attitude ever hopeful. Jo’s first visit to the Thinkers’ Lodge occurred on July 6, 1957 when 22 scientists from the USA, the Soviet Union and several other countries arrived in Pugwash as the guests of Cyrus Eaton. Eaton, a self-proclaimed ‘‘village boy from Pugwash’’, had become an American industrialist and peace activist. Eaton brought the group together to discuss how to contain the burgeoning nuclear arms race in the Cold War. That meeting gave birth to the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an organization with offices in Rome, Washington, Geneva and London, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for its work on nuclear disarmament. The heart of the movement has always been Eaton’s home in Pugwash, which became known as the Thinkers’ Lodge, where workshops and seminars have been held over the years. This legacy is now the basis for a new development, the Pugwash Peace Exchange, a new organization, which will construct a building beside the Thinkers’ Lodge containing interactive displays illustrating the nature of war and peace. Some time ago, Stephen and Dennice Leahey, two retired executives in Pugwash, came to the Pugwash Park Commission, which owns the Thinkers’ Lodge, with a plan not only to renovate the Lodge but add a new facility to be an interpretive, educational and

234

Rotblat Appreciation

research center. The idea caught on, and the Pugwash Peace Exchange attracted Senator Romeo Dallaire, the famous Canadian general, as its patron along with a distinguished Board of Advisors. With a fund-raising and membership drive under way, the Pugwash Peace Exchange hopes to turn the sod of the new building at Pugwash’s 50 th anniversary celebrations in July 2007. The planners think that the Pugwash past can be turned into a vibrant future with a mission to promote learning about the realities of war and the necessity of peace and nuclear disarmament, all in the context of history, science and personal commitment. During the 50 th anniversary celebrations in 2007, an Extraordinary Workshop of 20 world leaders in the nuclear disarmament movement will be convened at the Thinkers’ Lodge to help likeminded governments prepare plans for a nuclear weapons-free world. The Workshop, co-sponsored by the Pugwash Conferences and the Middle Powers Initiative, and hosted by the Pugwash Park Commission and the Pugwash Peace Exchange along with the Canadian Pugwash Group, will produce an Action Plan to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament steps, which could lead to the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention banning all nuclear weapons. Thus the legacy of Jo Rotblat has become the inspiration for a new vision of the future. Pugwash faces a double challenge: to advance the short-range agenda of reducing nuclear dangers in the world; and the long-range agenda of helping to build the security architecture to support a nuclear weapons-free world. While concentrating on the steps towards the abolition of nuclear weapons, Pugwash must continue to illuminate the integrated agenda for human security. Towards the end of his life, Rotblat began insisting that Pugwash must reach out to other civil society groups, collaborating in appropriate ways to work for human security and nuclear weapons abolition. Many nongovernmental organizations need the expertise on nuclear weapons issues that Pugwash can provide. Pugwash itself can be strengthened by working relationships with others who have expertise in the range of human security fields. All this is the Rotblat vision. We honor Jo Rotblat by being as steadfast as he was in pursuit of true human security. Rotblat Appreciation

235

The Elder Niece’s Tale1) Halina Sand

I am unqualified to speak of the scientific achievements of Joseph Rotblat, and both unqualified and unworthy to speak of his humanitarian ones. Fortunately, many eminent people are ready to testify to both. However, there is one point on which I cannot be challenged: I knew him longer than anyone now living. We met on the day I was born to his sister Eve, 70 years ago. Naturally, I remember nothing about that that first meeting; but subsequently I often heard the story of how, after a long day’s work in his laboratory, on an evening in late December he went to visit his sister at the clinic where she had just given birth to a premature baby, not expected to live. After my father, he was my first visitor. However, as soon as I was able to be aware of anything, I realised that in Joseph I had a superlative uncle, who knew how to find his way to a child’s heart. He had a natural ease of approach to children which I have never known to be rejected. He had a propelling pencil that he used for work – it wrote in four colours, very hightech in those days – and he used to let me play with it and even to cut my first teeth on it – he didn’t mind. His weekly visits to our flat were always looked forward to, especially as he used to bring me chocolate moulded in the shape of animals and other things – I remember a chocolate baby in its cradle. But what impressed me hugely was that, when I was about three, he and his wife, Tola, told me that I need not call them ‘aunt’ and ‘uncle’. So after that I always called him by his name – and he had so many! His Polish name was Jo´zef; to his family he was Jo´zio: but when, after a seven-year separation during the last world war, I met him again, I was shy about calling him that, and called him ‘pro1) Reprinted from ‘‘War and Peace’’, edited by Peter Rowlands and Vincent Attwood, University of Liverpool Press, 2006.

237

fessor’. He wasn’t one yet, just a senior lecturer at Liverpool University, but a couple of years later he really became a professor, at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London. By that time he had another niece, my cousin Frances Rotblat, the daughter of his brother Michael, and she, as a toddler, gave him his next name, Josh, and the whole family came to use that. To his students he was Prof: and his colleagues, at Pugwash or elsewhere, called him that, or Joseph, or Jo. He answered cheerfully to any of these, for he was free of self-importance, and when, in his later years, he was knighted, he never insisted in being addressed as ‘Sir Joseph’ and many people he came in contact with never knew he had a title. As I said earlier, the war created between us a seven-year separation. The war found him in England, at Liverpool University, where he had come to work with James Chadwick, and unable to communicate with his wife and family in Poland, or to know their fate under the murderous German occupation. My closest family, comprising six persons, had the almost unbelievable luck to survive. My mother tried to contact Joseph by telephone at Liverpool University, the only address for him she knew, and much to her surprised relief, succeeded. She had no idea that he had not spent the whole of the war there, and it was much later that his family learnt of his work at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project, and his resignation on grounds of conscience, matters of which he had been forbidden to speak. It was immensely painful for my mother to be the one to tell him, in the first phone call they exchanged, that his beloved wife had died as a victim of the Nazis, in a concentration camp. He immediately set to work to organise visas to England for the six survivors. In addition to my mother, my father and me, they included his long-widowed mother, his brother Michael, and Maria, his brother’s wife. Joseph sent us presents, and I remember very clearly the two beautiful lengths of cloth that were made into winter clothes for me. They must have cost him a year’s worth of clothing coupons. His kindness and generosity continued, once we were in England. He found us a flat in Liverpool, and eased our way into our new life. To me he was always an intellectual beacon. Alas, it soon became clear that I could not follow his lead into science: it was for his English-born younger niece, my cousin Frances, to do that, making her career in medicine. But he accepted with a good

238

The Elder Niece’s Tale

grace that my turn was for the humanities, and encouraged that. He gave me novels by Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters: and when, in adolescence, I developed a passionate admiration for Bernard Shaw, he gave me Shaw’s collected plays. I still treasure that thick volume, which came apart under the strain of frequent reading, and has had to be rebound. It was never difficult to engage him in an intellectual argument – and he was argumentative – and he always argued as with an equal which, to a less well-informed opponent, could be quite challenging, even crushing. But intellect wasn’t all he cared for: he used to preside over my birthday parties, and they were more interesting and livelier than anyone else’s. He found new games, and even did conjuring tricks. His warmth and kindness to me continued throughout his life, descending through the generations to my two daughters and their children. In his mid-nineties, and in poor health, he was still able to charm his small great-great-niece and twin great-great-nephews, just as he had once enthralled their mothers and their grandmother. Joseph Rotblat quite literally devoted his life to his work – he took no holidays and very little rest – and he will be remembered for his achievements and his determination that war should be abolished. But he always found time for one pleasure, when it came his way: amusing and entertaining children, especially those of his own family, and by them he will always be remembered as a marvellous uncle, proving that a concern for humanity at large need not exclude more ordinary family affections.

The Elder Niece’s Tale

239

Einstein on the Military Mentality, and Rotblat on the Culture of Violence John Stachel

The names of Albert Einstein and Joseph Rotblat are forever linked by the Russell–Einstein Manifesto of 1955. In an interview with The Guardian in 2005, Rotblat told the story: I met Bertrand Russell and became a source of information for him. There was the idea that high-level scientists should issue a manifesto to the world to draw attention to the dangers of a nuclear war. Russell wanted to get the best scientists in the field and the greatest scientist at the time was Einstein. So Russell wrote a letter. By the time Einstein’s reply reached London, he was dead. He had immediately replied, the last act of his life. We called it the Russell–Einstein Manifesto. It was signed by 11 scientists. Russell insisted they were Nobel laureates, but asked me to sign even though I was not one. He said: ‘You will get it, I’m sure.’

As the 76-year-old Einstein laid down the torch of leadership in the struggle against nuclear weapons, the 47-year-old Rotblat felt impelled to pick it up and carry it, never flinching in the struggle for nuclear disarmament, for the next 50 years. And indeed he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995. Now I’m the only one of the signatories still alive. Because of this I feel it is my duty to go on carrying the message from Einstein.

Soon after writing this, he in turn laid down the torch last year – or rather handed it over to us. But Einstein and Rotblat were united not just in opposition to nuclear weapons, but in understanding that the greatest danger these weapons present is not their technological potential for destruction – enormous as that undoubtedly is – but the psychological effect that their possession has in fostering what Einstein called ‘‘the military mentality’’. It fosters this mentality not only in

241

the leaders of those states that possess nuclear weapons, but in too many of the citizens of these states. By the military mentality Einstein meant the ‘‘dangerous delusion’’ that all international problems can be settled by military power. In a 1947 article entitled ‘‘The Military Mentality’’ he wrote: It is characteristic of the military mentality that non-human factors (atom bombs [this was written before the development and testing of the hydrogen bomb in 1951], strategic bases, weapons of all sorts, the possession of raw materials, etc.) are held essential, while the human being, his desires and thoughts – in short, the psychological factors – are considered as unimportant and secondary. The individual is degraded to a mere instrument; he becomes ‘human material.’ The normal ends of human aspiration vanish with such a viewpoint. Instead, the military mentality raises ‘naked power’ as a goal in itself – one of the strangest delusions to which men can succumb.

With remarkable prescience, only two years into the Cold War, he foresaw where this trend was leading the USA: Today, the existence of the military mentality is more dangerous than ever because the offensive weapons have become much more powerful than the defensive ones. This fact will inevitably produce the kind of thinking that leads to preventive wars. The general insecurity resulting from these developments results in the sacrifice of the citizen’s civil rights to the alleged welfare of the state. Political witch-hunting and governmental controls of all sorts (such as control of teaching and research, of the press, and so forth) appear inevitable, and consequently do not encounter that popular resistance that, were it not for the military mentality, might serve to protect the population. A reappraisal of all traditional values gradually takes place and anything that does not clearly serve the utopian goal of militarism is regarded and treated as inferior.

Rotblat speaks about the same problems, using the phrase: ‘‘the culture of violence’’. In ‘‘Remember Your Humanity’’, a message to the Seventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in May 2005, he wrote: Morality is at the core of the nuclear issue: are we going to base our world on a culture of peace or on a culture of violence? . . . Nuclear weapons have been kept as a deterrent, to prevent war by the threat of retaliation. For the deterrent to be effective, the threat of retaliation must be real. . . . George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, or Tony Blair, must show convincingly that they have the kind of personality that would en-

242

Einstein on the Military Mentality, and Rotblat on the Culture of Violence

able them to push the button and unleash an instrument of wholesale destruction. I find it terrifying to think that among the necessary qualifications for leadership is the readiness to commit an act of genocide, because that is what it amounts to in the final analysis. . . . It makes a mockery of the claim by George W. Bush that his antiterrorist campaign is based on moral principles. What sort of morality is it that justifies military action against some states, because of their alleged possession of nuclear weapons, while at the same time insisting on keeping these weapons for oneself, to be used like any other military implement, even in pre-emptive strikes?

But, as he emphasizes, it is not just a matter of the moral corruption of our leaders: Furthermore, by acquiescing in this policy, not only the leaders but each of us figuratively keeps our finger on the button; each of us is taking part in a gamble, in which the survival of human civilization is at stake. We rest the security of the world on a balance of terror. In the long run this is bound to erode the ethical basis of civilization.

It is ‘‘the effect on the young generation’’ that most concerned him: How can we persuade the young generation to cast aside the culture of violence, when they know that it is on the threat of extreme violence that we rely for security?

Judging by what is going on in my country, and throughout much of the world in the name of my country, I would say that ‘‘the long run’’ is here. The ethical basis of American civilization has always been tenuous: think of the genocidal wars against native American peoples, the acceptance of human slavery for a century after the Declaration of Independence and the disenfranchisement of women for a century-and-a-half, the imperial wars against Mexico, Spain and the self-liberated people of the Philippines, for example. But there is also a proud tradition of struggle against these stains on our democratic ethos. Under the banner of ‘‘the war on terror’’, the opening years of this century have seen an attack on the American democratic ethos that is unprecedented in its ferocity. Today, the struggle against the military mentality and the culture of violence is no luxury – it is a necessity, literally a matter of life and death. My generation will Einstein on the Military Mentality, and Rotblat on the Culture of Violence

243

soon pass from the scene, surely long before victory in this struggle is even in sight. May succeeding generations, those of my children and my grandchildren, pick up the torch so long and nobly held by Joseph Rotblat, and – in spite of all the formidable obstacles – finally achieve success. In the immortal words of Frederick Douglass, the great black American leader, ‘‘Without struggle there is no progress.’’

244

Einstein on the Military Mentality, and Rotblat on the Culture of Violence

In Recognition of the Legacy of Joseph Rotblat Jack Steinberger

It is not clear that I can add here something meaningful on the contributions of Joseph Rotblat, since I knew him less well than other contributors to this collection of memories. In the 1990s I had the privilege to participate in the annual meetings of the Pugwash Conferences on nuclear disarmament, which Rotblat was instrumental in organizing in 1957, of which he was the president, which he led, and to which he devoted a good part of his creative energy for much of his life. Rotblat was perhaps the first to recognize the potential danger of nuclear weapons, and so left Los Alamos before the first nuclear explosion. The Pugwash forum for discussions of this problem, he led with skill, conviction, determination and insight, which I could admire for a decade or more. An example of this insight was his formulation of the question of global nuclear disarmament. Although no one could deny the danger posed by the nuclear arsenals, the common reply to the plea for nuclear disarmament was ‘‘they cannot be disinvented’’. Rotblat then formulated the questions in two parts: global nuclear disarmament, (1) is it desirable? and (2) is it feasible? If the answer to the first part was yes, it was more difficult to avoid trying to find a solution to the second part. Rotblat did what he could to rid us of this problem, and he will be missed. He helped to create worldwide recognition of the problem, but unfortunately could not solve it in his lifetime. Let us hope that it will not be long before the nuclear weapons states, especially the USA, will realize that they are as much threatened, perhaps more, than others, and will soon move towards the global abolition of nuclear weapons.

245

Rotblat and Korea Mark B. M. Suh

There was very little news about Korea in the 1970s and 1980s and it was always negative and shocking as it mostly is today. But unlike today, most of the reports were about South Korea. However, starting in the 1990s news about Korea was frequent but now it was mostly about North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Besides Koreans, only a few people understood the background and the true situation. Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat was no exception. When I first met him in Rome, Italy, in the summer of 1978 while I was attending the International School on Disarmament and Research on Conflicts (ISODARCO), he kept on asking me about Korea. Apologizing for not knowing much about Korea as a nuclear physicist, he wanted to know more. Why was Korea divided in the first place? Why did the Koreans fight each other during the Korean War? Why is North Korea so isolated? This was the beginning of a long friendship which lasted for 27 years until his passing in 2005.

First Impressions Rotblat was a determined man who was interested in people and cared about others. He was a fascinating person not only because of his unique experiences but also because of his humanistic world-view. He explained to me why he was more of a pacifist than others and why he had striven for many years to reduce the dangers of a nuclear holocaust and wars. He told me much about his life and about his founding of the Pugwash Conferences. My impression of him is that he was a very determined person who saw things in different ways and tried to understand complex matters with an open mind throughout of his long life. ‘‘Thinking in a new

247

way’’ was the motto of the Pugwash Conferences which then tried to establish the culture of dialogue in order to build confidence with the countries behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War era. Rotblat took an interest in me because of my background as a Korean who survived the Korean War as a child and went to South Vietnam in the late 1960s to fight against communism. I explained to him why I ended up being a pacifist and how I began to perceive wars as failure of politics. I told him that this was the reason why I decided to study political science – instead of nuclear physics or English literature in the West – in order to seek non-military answers to the Korean question. He began to understand the situation in Korea and showed much interest in resolving the Korean question, promising to help me in any way possible to improve the situation. He kept on showing much sympathy for and interest in Koreans in the following years.

South Korea In the last decade, I invited him to South Korea three times in order to try to influence the policy-makers in defense establishments. He met some top leaders and succeeded in convincing them that South Korea needed no nuclear weapons for its security, because it would only hurt Koreans and make the situation worse. He stressed that only dialogue and confidence could help to sort out the differences and to overcome the deeply rooted mistrust between North and South. It was in August 1998, when the then Prime Minister, Kim Jong Pil, for the first time, admitted that in the past South Korea had attempted to develop a nuclear capability; but he assured Professor Rotblat that South Korea would now never go nuclear. The Prime Minister asked Professor Rotblat to convince North Korea to do the same and help to keep Korea free of nuclear weapons. He also visited the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) in Panmunjom with me and was not only shocked but also moved by the tense military situation at the border between the two Koreas. It was then that he said that we should visit North Korea and talk with the leaders. Rotblat was convinced that the Korean question could only be solved in a regional context, as a US–North Korean dialogue would

248

Rotblat and Korea

be unrealistic. Therefore, in April 2001 we started the Pugwash Workshops on East Asian Security in Seoul. During his visit to Seoul he also met with President Kim Dae Jung and discussed the political military situation in Korea. Both had much in common and agreed that Korea needed no nuclear weapons. Rotblat asked me to host the 54 th Pugwash Annual Conference which had the theme ‘‘Bridging the Divided World through Disarmament and International Cooperation’’ in October 2004. He was very eager and promised me that he would definitely attend the conference, although his health was deteriorating and his doctor advised him not to travel so far. I guess he sensed that it would be his last Pugwash meeting. He also wrote very personal letters to the Director General of the IAEA, Dr. ElBaradei, and others to join him in Seoul. When he came to Korea, he and his speeches inspired the Pugwashites and the South Koreans. Although we failed to have North Korean participants, due to unfortunate press leakage, he was very pleased about the conference. In July 2005, immediately after 55 th Pugwash conference in Hiroshima, I called him and we spoke about the meeting. I told him that for the first time a Pugwash annual meeting was held without him and we all missed him very much. But he asked me only about North Korea and wanted to know how things were doing. I told him that things were moving slowly but in the right direction. Thanks to our efforts as Pugwashites the two Koreas were talking directly again. He then asked me when I was coming to London. I told him that I had to be in Seoul and may visit even North Korea before I could return to Europe. For the first time, he asked me to come to him as soon as possible because he was an old man and he did not know what would happen to him. I had never heard him say that he was old, so I was a bit surprised. I was going to see him after the trip, so I could report on current developments. But I did not know that it was the last time I would hear his voice. He knew that I was carrying out his work in Korea.

North Korea Closer contact with North Korea was established in 1992 during a conference at Stockholm where two North Koreans diplomats Rotblat and Korea

249

attended. In the following years North Koreans began to attend Pugwash meetings and showed much interest in participating in various activities. When North Korea announced it was leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1993, Rotblat promptly sent a letter to the North Korean leader urging him not to do so. Finally, in 1994, North Korea decided to negotiate with the USA in Geneva to solve the nuclear issue and to remain in the NPT system. As a result, the nuclear crisis could be averted through the Geneva Framework Agreement in October 1994 and the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995. Rotblat and Pugwash could contribute to the process through direct contact and personal engagement with North Korea. Rotblat and I visited North Korea immediately after the Pugwash workshop in Seoul in April 2001 and met with North Korean leaders and nuclear scientists at the Kim II Sung University. North Korea showed much respect to Professor Rotblat by publishing a long and detailed article in the State newspaper prior to his visit describing his life-long efforts to abolish nuclear weapons and the work of the Pugwash Conferences. The visit was significant, as we could exchange views and build confidence as well as establish contact with the North Korean leadership. Pugwash, as a neutral institution of scientists, was able to build bridges to the West and promised to help to build scientific capacities for national development. The news about his passing came to me just as I was visiting North Korea in early September 2005. The North Korean Pugwashites expressed their sadness to me and expressed condolences to Rotblat’s family and the Pugwash Conferences.

Rotblat’s Legacy in North and South Korea Through his visits to North and South Korea, Rotblat is well known and respected especially by intellectuals and policy-makers for his life-long efforts to abolish nuclear weapons and wars. He delivered many moving and convincing speeches to Koreans. At every occasion he urged Koreans not to develop nuclear weapons but to remember ‘‘humanity’’. Thanks to his good example, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs is respected in Korea as the conscience of scientists.

250

Rotblat and Korea

Rotblat was awarded the honorary citizenship of Metropolitan Seoul in 2001 just as he had been, years earlier, in his home city of Warsaw. He was very pleased about this recognition and felt close to Korea. He will be remembered by many Koreans for his love for humanity and as an extraordinary visionary for peace. Although I miss him more than ever for his fresh ideas and vision in this difficult time, I will continue his work until the Korean problem is solved by peaceful means so that all Koreans can live together in peace and harmony.

Rotblat and Korea

251

Jo Rotblat and Enduring Human Security M. S. Swaminathan

Jo Rotblat joined Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein in 1955 to help in formulating the immortal Russell–Einstein Manifesto which even today serves as the guiding light to the Pugwash movement. Jo was the very embodiment of the principles of scientific integrity and ethical responsibility of scientists for the consequences of their work. The Pugwash Council in its statement of September 2, 2005 made the following commitment: As it approaches its 50 th anniversary, in 2007, Pugwash will continue to strive for those ideals so wonderfully and eloquently articulated by Jo throughout his lifetime. We may have lost his companionship, humour and intellectual guidance, but we will never lose his steadfast sense of purpose in knowing the right thing to do.

In my Presidential Address to the Annual Pugwash Conference held at Hiroshima in August 2005, I proposed the following sixpoint action plan for ensuring the success of the tireless efforts of Jo Rotblat in helping to foster a nuclear peril free world. 1. All nations with nuclear weapons should adopt a legally mandatory policy of ‘‘no first use for nuclear weapons’’, as homage to the survivors of the nuclear tragedy of 1945. 2. Respect commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), conclude a fissile material cut off treaty, and ban all research relating to the development of new nuclear weapons. 3. Conclude a nuclear weapons convention outlining a road map for getting to zero by 2020. 4. Avoid prospects for nuclear terrorism and adventurism by eliminating all unsecured nuclear fissile material and by implementing the concrete steps proposed by Pugwash for the elimination

253

of highly enriched uranium; otherwise there is risk of nuclear power groups and individuals emerging, in addition to nuclear power states. 5. Because of the multidimensional threats posed to human security by climate change, and the consequent need for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, interest and investment in nuclear power plants are growing. The civilian uses of atomic energy are likely to grow. Hence, the UN may convene an International Conference on the Civilian Uses of Atomic Energy to develop a Code of Conduct to ensure that the nonmilitary use of nuclear fuels does not get abused and to further strengthen safeguards and the inspection role and monitoring capacity of IAEA. 6. Democratic systems of governance are fast spreading in the world, which involve the holding of free and fair elections periodically. It would be useful to develop a Hiroshima–Nagasaki 60 th anniversary appeal which calls upon all political parties in every country to include in their next election manifesto, a firm commitment to work for speedy nuclear disarmament with a view to rid the world of the nuclear peril as soon as technically feasible. Without global political commitment, this goal cannot be achieved. At the same time, it would be useful to introduce in all school curricula information relating to the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, so as to bring home the immediate and long-term disastrous impact of a nuclear war. Without public and political education, the climate for peace and nuclear disarmament will not exist. Will Rogers once said, ‘‘When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.’’ Humankind is in a hole today and the more we dig along the nuclear path of protecting ourselves, the deeper we will sink. Jo Rotblat followed Mahatma Gandhi’s principle ‘‘be the change you want to bring about’’. If we are to follow Jo’s footsteps and become the change we wish to see in the world, we must promote the culture of nonviolence as well as of love and understanding of pluralism and diversity in relation to race, language, color, religion, ethnicity, gender and political belief. This is the best tribute we can pay to the life and work of Jo Rotblat.

254

Jo Rotblat and Enduring Human Security

Joseph Rotblat Maj Britt Theorin

The phone rang in my office in parliament one day in November and a journalist asked me what I thought about the Nobel Peace Prize winner. ‘‘Who is it this year?’’ When the answer was Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash movement I shouted: ‘‘Wow, at last the right man got it!’’ I had, as President of the International Peace Bureau in Geneva (IPB), nominated both Jo and the Pugwash Conferences in January, but I had no idea that the Nobel Committee would make the right choice. No one could be more worthy than Joseph Rotblat. A man who devoted his life to humanity and to combating nuclear weapons. A man who stood up as a nuclear scientist against Hitler and gave his knowledge to the Manhattan Project in order not to let the Nazis conquer the world. A man who then, alone, proposed that the project should stop, when he learned that Hitler could not produce nuclear weapons, because there was no longer any reason to develop and build such a horrible weapon. A man who had integrity when he was attacked for this position and did not pull back when they threatened him and denied him the American citizenship he had been offered. A man who then decided to give up his career as a nuclear scientist and decided to use the rest of his life to combat nuclear weapons. And as we know he had a long and interesting life and he followed his beliefs all the way through. His ability to consistently but nicely stick to his ideas pleased young people. Jo was such a good example for them because he gave them not only the belief that they could change the world but also the facts and the tools to do it. He was long-suffering and fearless in his struggle. No government, no president or prime minister was impossible to reach in his mind. And he was always think-

255

ing of new ways of informing and arguing about nuclear weapons and a nuclear-weapon-free world. I remember a well-organized Pugwash meeting in Crete where, after several days’ debate, we could choose between going to a temple or on a hike in a very deep valley. Of course Jo chose the valley and in just ordinary shoes climbed like a goat. And he was quite an old man at that time. One day at the beginning of the 1990s, Jo asked me to join a group in London in order to discuss the possibility of editing a book about a world free of nuclear weapons. To me it was fascinating to meet those clever and very well educated people; among them Frank Blackaby, Richard Garwin, Vitalii Goldanski, Martin Kaplan, Robert McNamara, Jack Steinberger and Ted Taylor. When they introduced themselves as professors or highly ranked scientists I became shy. I could not show any academic title. I only had my political and peace work experiences and a PhD h.c. from the University in Gothenburg. But they convinced me that a PhD h.c. was really something to be proud of because somebody else had chosen me to receive it. Not all of them, most of whom were nuclear scientists, believed in Jo’s goal – a program for a nuclear-weapon-free world. Some of them were looking at Jo as a dreamer. It was not possible to attain a nuclear-weapon-free world. The discussions were very heated and deep and Jo argued very well for his case: patient, dogged but kindly. All of us had to write and argue our positions and we met several times in order to move forwards. Suddenly the book A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Desirable? Feasible? was published. It was a wonderful experience. Jo had managed to put together a great deal of knowledge in the book and pointed out that what humankind had developed could also be destroyed. There is no doubt that this book was the source of the Canberra Commission. The prime minister of Australia read the book and took on his shoulders the responsibility to collect a group who could present a realistic program of getting rid of all nuclear weapons. We were sixteen men and I the only woman and we had nine months to deliver our ‘‘baby’’: the Canberra Commission Report. The Commission had many personalities from all over the world including all five nuclear weapon states such as Jacques-Yves Cous-

256

Joseph Rotblat

teau and Michel Rocard from France, Jayantha Dhanapala from Sri Lanka, Celso Amorim from Brazil, Robert McNamara and General Lee Butler from the USA and of course Joseph Rotblat. We were open to both the scientific world and the peace movement and received lots of proposals. The debates were rather tough, but Jo, by his deep knowledge of the facts, convinced even the former prime minister of France Michel Rochard, who in the beginning was doubtful of our course. Jo’s convincing arguments brought a result. The former Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Air Command with responsibility for all US Air Force and Navy nuclear deterrent force, General Lee Butler, became our strongest supporter. With his deep experiences of the risk of nuclear war by mistake, he felt very strongly that there should be a world totally free of nuclear weapons. In November 1995 we proposed practical steps towards a nuclear-weapon-free world, including necessary verification and control mechanisms and international legal obligations. Not least General Butler’s experience gave rise to our first recommendation that immediate steps be taken to take nuclear forces off alert and to remove warheads from delivery vehicles. The Canberra Commission Report was not a wishful dream but a realistic way of eliminating all nuclear weapons. Jo had really come close to achieving his goal. The issue had moved from the academic world and become political. Even though the Canberra Commission Report did not directly lead to a result, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Conference in 2000 included in their 13 steps the proposals from the Canberra Commission. The NPT Conference in 2000 did not break down. It is signed by all member states including the nuclear weapon states and is still valid. Also, in the report ‘‘Weapons of Terror’’ (2006) with the subtitle ‘‘Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms’’ (Blix Report) Jo’s ideas and proposals for ways towards a world free of nuclear weapons are deeply reflected. Joseph Rotblat’s patience, persistence and conviction – never aggressive – led him closer to his goal and is a good pattern for the young generation. With facts and determination you can change the world. I am convinced that one day Joseph Rotblat’s dream – a nuclear-weapon-free world – will come true.

Joseph Rotblat

257

Sir Joseph Jody Williams

Unfortunately for me, I did not have the great pleasure of meeting Sir Joseph Rotblat until the celebrations marking the 100 th anniversary of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, in December 2001. For a group photo of the Laureates present, we had been asked to sit in chronological order by the year when we had been awarded the Peace Prize. As luck would have it, Sir Joseph and Pugwash had received the Prize in 1995 – two years before the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and I had been so recognized – so I was not seated next to him and had to wait to actually meet him. Later, Sir Joseph and I were part of a panel discussion held during that Nobel Prize anniversary. The elegant gentleman sitting there did not look frail, but certainly old. To be honest, because of his age, I expected that he might be given to reminiscing about important issues of his past work or telling stories that did not quite have to do with what was going on around him or the questions asked of him – as do so many people as they get older. To both my ageist embarrassment and profound delight, Sir Joseph did neither. Quick witted and witty, he was as elegant intellectually as he was in his physical appearance and he completely dominated all the questions thrown at him. Clear and sharp, he was as connected to the threats facing us all in today’s world as he was to his decades-long work to stop the nuclear madness before it is too late. The moral clarity of his life decisions should stand as example to us all. In the years after that, I was able to see him at a couple of events where Nobel Laureates had been invited to speak. It remained a tremendous incentive to me to participate in those activities if I knew Sir Joseph would also be there. We would frequently commu-

259

nicate by email about various issues and seeing his name pop up on my screen always made me smile. I imagine that almost everyone who had a chance to be in his presence developed a ‘‘crush’’ on him. What was there not to love? Intellect, intellectual elegance, moral clarity, and the courage to exercise all of those virtues in the face of a world where too many people hide behind ‘‘I didn’t know.’’ Or, ‘‘I don’t want to know.’’ Or, ‘‘Leave me out of this, my work is ‘pure science.’ ’’ Examples of moral mediocrity and intellectual dishonesty. My greatest wish would have been to have known him longer – and that everyone in the world know of Sir Joseph’s courage in leaving the development of the bomb and his commitment since then to a better world for us all. Our world was greatly enhanced because of his life; it is now diminished by his loss. Those who knew him and his tireless work for peace in the world have the responsibility to make sure that neither Sir Joseph nor his contributions are forgotten. Instead, every opportunity to hold Sir Joseph Rotblat and his work up as examples of the best that humankind has to offer must be used to the maximum. Part of the legacy of his effort to get rid of nuclear weapons will be told in those who come behind and take up that task.

260

Sir Joseph

Part 3 Appendix

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

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.

263

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

264

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

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:

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

265

‘‘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 Fre´de´ric Joliot-Curie Herman J. Muller Linus Pauling Cecil F. Powell Joseph Rotblat Bertrand Russell Hideki Yukawa

266

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace1) J. Rotblat

It is my task to review the biological hazards that have arisen from the large scale development of atomic energy, as well as the effects which may follow if the achievements of science were applied for war purposes. Although in the latter case most of the destruction of life and property would occur by blast and fire, it is the biological hazard, resulting from the release of radioactivity, that appears to have caused the greatest concern – and even panic – among the population, and which was the subject of much discussion among scientists and politicians. I feel, however, that one ought first to prove the need for such a discussion in a gathering like this. I have heard several arguments against such a discussion. Some people say that these problems are already being adequately studied by many other bodies, such as the Medical Research Council in Great Britain or the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, or by the special Commission appointed by the United Nations. Other people argue that since not much can be achieved in the very short time available here, we cannot hope to make any worthwhile contribution to this problem. While I cannot deny the force of these arguments it seems to me that there are nevertheless very good reasons why this meeting should devote some time to a discussion of these problems. First of all, we have here the unique opportunity to talk and argue about these things in a way that is denied to any of the other committees. The work of the various official bodies is of necessity somewhat restricted. I am not casting any doubt on the integrity of the members of those committees, but the fact remains that their terms of reference are usually decided by the Governments or other official 1) The First Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, 7–10 July 1957, Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Canada.

267

bodies which appointed the committees, and consequently, they are not entirely free in their work. Moreover, in any national committee the scope of study is to a large extent limited to problems relating to the given country. This argument does not apply to the United Nations Commission but there we have an even worse situation that its members are delegates of their countries, they represent their governments, and as such must always bear in mind that whatever they say is judged primarily from that angle. Here in Pugwash we have no such limitations, all of us can speak freely. We are meeting in private, and with the assurance that whatever we say here will not be taken down and used in evidence against us. As Lord Russell said, we are here representing nobody but ourselves and our conscience. Secondly, I believe that despite the shortage of time we are in a position to make a useful contribution to the whole problem of radiological hazards, if only by separating clearly and unambiguously the scientific from the political and ethical aspects. The lack of a clear separation of these aspects has bedevilled the whole issue from the very beginning; it has done more to confuse, bewilder, dismay and even alienate the public towards scientists than anything else in the recent years. I believe that some government scientists and their spokesmen are mainly to blame for this state of affairs. It appears that a line of policy on nuclear weapons and tests was first decided on purely strategic and political grounds, and then the scientific data were treated so as to suit this policy. One can see this fairly clearly in the writings of Dr. Libby, for example, whose line of argument is something like this: firstly, there are no risks whatsoever associated with nuclear weapons tests; secondly, bombs are being developed in which those risks are very small; and, thirdly, any risks are worthwhile taking in view of the security which they offer us. Another example is Lord Cherwell, who speaking in the House of Lords in Great Britain – said ‘‘it is moonshine to insist that the gamma-rays resulting from debris of nuclear tests will cause adverse genetic effects,’’ and then goes on to say ‘‘surely we all agree that almost any sacrifice is worthwhile to prevent subjugation by communism.’’ However, one cannot help feeling that a large measure of the blame rests with independent scientists as well. Many of us have wittingly or unintentionally contributed towards the exaggeration

268

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

of the possible effects of nuclear tests, either by incautious statements to the Press, or by allowing our writings to be interpreted or misrepresented so as to produce such a result. Some scientists did this perhaps as a reaction against the dishonest policy of the governments, others because for political or ethical reasons they are opposed to tests, and consequently they bring out all the arguments which may help campaigns against the tests. The result of all this agitation was to build up a strong popular feeling against tests in many countries, but probably for the wrong reasons. Some Western Governments have tried to combat this feeling by making sweeping generalizations that anybody who criticizes the tests, or shows scientifically that they may be harmful, is either a fellow traveller or a communist. It has come to a state of affairs when every scientific paper which deals with any problem relating to the biological effects of radiation, is immediately reported in the daily press and used as a political argument one way or another. In fact, this raises the question of the proper attitude of a scientist in such circumstances; should he go on publishing his results, notwithstanding that they may be misinterpreted or utilized politically, or should he in such cases refrain from publication or put it in such obscure form that the newspapers will not stumble on to it. This is one of the problems of the responsibilities of the scientist towards the public which I hope will be discussed later on. In passing, I should perhaps mention that the exaggeration of fears, however deplorable, does sometimes lead to unexpected but useful results. For example, the near panic about the effects of nuclear weapons which occurred in Great Britain, and to a certain extent in the United States, about two years ago, resulted in the setting up of the national committees to which I have already referred. These committees reported that the increase of the radiation level from tests is so far insignificant, but in the course of their studies they discovered a much larger and more serious hazard to the population, namely from the mass use of diagnostic Xrays. It is quite possible that this hazard would not have been brought out into the open so soon, were it not for the public scare about bombs. Therefore, those who are strongly opposed to the socalled atom hysteria should bear in mind that something useful has come out of it. Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

269

Returning now to the problems confronting us in Pugwash, it seems to me that one of our tasks today will be to separate scientific from political and ethical issues. The important point about this meeting, however, is that unlike other scientific gatherings we do not shun politics. Indeed, the main purpose of this Conference is to discuss scientific problems in the light of the present political and military situation; tomorrow’s debate is in fact entirely concerned with this aspect. I should like to suggest, therefore, that what we do today is to attempt to summarize our knowledge about the effects of radiations and the hazards arising from the use of nuclear energy, and that we do this purely on scientific grounds, dispassionately and divorced from any political or ethical considerations. I shall now review the data about the various biological hazards. Since I have already mentioned the problem of nuclear weapon tests, I should perhaps begin with this issue. As far as the biological effects of radiations are concerned, we shall probably all agree that the hazards from tests carried out so far are small compared with other hazards of life. The real menace from nuclear weapons is their use in war and not in tests. Nevertheless, the problems posed by testing of weapons, namely the likely biological effects resulting from exposing large populations to small doses of radiation, is of great importance. We can see this when we consider that in many countries the populations are already exposed to significant doses through diagnostic radiology, and that in future there might occur an increase in the level of radiation due to the development of nuclear power plants, the industrial uses of isotopes, etc. I should like, therefore, to review briefly what we know about the effects of small doses of radiation from whatever source they may arise. When we deal with low exposures, of the order of the natural background of radiation, we need to consider only late effects, as distinct from acute effects. The main problem is then what, if any, effect is produced by radiations, and what is the relationship between the effect and the dose. In this respect the simplest of all appears to be the genetic hazard. The geneticists seem to agree: (1) that the number of mutations produced by radiations is proportional to the dose; in other words, there is no threshold dose; (2) that the effect is independent of dose rate; (3) that it is cumulative,

270

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

i.e., that the total number of mutations is obtained from the summation of all the doses received by the whole population over the whole period of reproductive life, but the way the dose is distributed among the population is immaterial; (4) that the vast majority of new mutations is detrimental. All these assumptions are based on observations in other species, mainly in Drosophila and mice but there is apparently no reason to doubt that the findings can be extrapolated to the human species. A certain degree of doubt exists, however, about the socalled ‘‘doubling dose’’, the dose of radiation necessary to double the rate of mutations which occur spontaneously, and which are due either to the natural background of radiation or to other causes. The consensus of opinion seems to be that this doubling dose is somewhere between 30 and 80 r, but some geneticists express doubts about the whole concept of the doubling dose. They say that different genes and loci may have widely different degrees of susceptibility to specific mutagenic agents, e.g., to radiations or to chemical mutagens. This means that by exposing a species to the doubling dose the mutations of some sensitive loci may be very much increased, although other loci may be left almost untouched. I hope that Professor Muller will enlighten us on this subject and will tell us whether this makes matters a little worse. Anyhow, it is clear that from the genetic point of view any increase in the intensity of radiation, however small, is harmful and should be avoided. The situation is much more obscure where somatic effects are concerned. Among these effects are the induction of neoplasms, e.g., leukaemia and bone sarcoma, cataracts and other tissue changes, and the shortening of the life span. It is known that all these effects can be produced with large doses of radiation but it has not yet been established whether the rate of incidence is a linear function of dose, of whether it follows a sigmoid or other type of function, which in practice would mean the existence of a threshold. Even for large doses it is not known whether the effect is dose-rate dependent i.e., whether a single dose will give the same result as the same dose spread out over a long period of time. The least doubt appears to exist about leukaemia. A recent paper in Science by E.B. Lewis summarizes the evidence available about the induction of leukaemia by ionizing radiations. It seems to supNuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

271

port fairly conclusively the linear relationship between incidence of leukaemia and the dose of whole-body radiation, the gradient of the line giving a probability of 2  106 per r per year. If we combine this figure with the natural incidence of leukaemia in Great Britain and the United States, we arrive at the interesting result, that the doubling dose for leukaemia is about 30 r, about the same as for the genetic effect. The calculation of the induction of bone sarcoma by small doses is based on much more slender evidence. Cases of bone sarcoma were observed among people treated with radium, or who have ingested radium incidentally during their work. The number of these cases is too small to enable us to deduce from it whether the relationship between dose and effect is linear or not. In the case of radiostrontium experiments with animals in Argonne seem to indicate the existence of a threshold type of dependence, but these experiments are somewhat suspect. All one can say now is that we do not know what the relationship is. If, however, we assume a linear relationship then from the observed cases of bone sarcoma due to radium ingestion it is possible to calculate the probability of cancer induction for a given dose. Curiously enough the result comes out to be not greatly different from that for leukaemia. These agreements for entirely different effects may of course be fortuitous, but, on the other hand, they may indicate that all biological effects of radiation are of a common origin. For example, they may result from mutations of either somatic or genetic cells, as was suggested years ago by Professor Muller. Incidentally, it may be well worthwhile spending a little time explaining to physicists the point mutation theory of carcinogenesis, becasue it appears to be quite incomprehensible to some physicists. Lord Cherwell, for example, in the speech to which I have already referred, ridicules the idea of a linear relationship holding down to very small doses. He said ‘‘if anyone were to tell you that because half the people who took one grain of some poison died, it followed that the taking of 1/600th of a grain would kill one person in 1200 I think you would be rather surprised.’’ Being a physicist myself I admit that it took me some time to get used to the idea of cancer resulting from a very tiny dose. Finally, there is the effect on the life span. Here too there is much uncertainty. The evidence contained in the report of the Na-

272

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

tional Academy of Sciences of the United States, that radiologists live five years less than other medical people in the USA, was recently proved to be inconclusive. The effect itself appears, however, to have been established beyond doubt in animals, and hence we may conclude that it occurs in man too. But it is not at all certain whether the reduction of life-span in a linear function of dose, and we do not know how it depends on the dose rate. Assuming linearity it appears that the exposure of the whole body to a dose of 1 r would reduce the life-span by about five days. This reduction is thought to be caused by an acceleration of the general processes of ageing, so that an individual who received a dose of radiation would physiologically be older than an unirradiated individual of the same calendar age. Having discussed the various biological effects of small doses of radiation – as far as we know them now – the next step is to calculate the number of casualties that are likely to result from the various uses of radiation. This may be done either by quoting absolute numbers, or by relating them to the spontaneous occurrence of the given effect. These two ways of presentation produce quite different reactions in the public: to say that one bomb test may result in 1,000 leukaemias is frightening; to say that the result is the same as if we lived 100 feet higher up makes the whole thing sound almost attractive; both these statements may be correct. The proper way, maybe, is to give both the absolute and relative numbers. In view of the large uncertainty which exists about the magnitude of the hazard, it seems to me that the yardstick for effects produced by radiations should be the natural background and its fluctuations. The natural background varies according to the nature of the soil, type of building one lives in, altitude and latitude. Although under extreme conditions – say for people living in the Andes, where the soil is granite, at an altitude of 15,000 ft – the background may be three times higher than in Great Britain, for the majority of the populated areas the fluctuations are much smaller. Taking into account the distribution and ways of life of the population it is possible to calculate roughly the standard deviation for the natural background. I suggest that if the dose received from a given source is very small compared with this standard deviation, then it may be considered statistically insignificant, even though the effect may still be high in absolute terms. If however, the dose Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

273

is of the same order of magnitude as the standard deviation, then it must be viewed with some concern. As far as the dose to gonads is concerned, the average yearly dose from natural background is about 100 mr, or 3 r throughout the reproductive period of 30 years. The standard deviation amounts to about 0.8 r. The dose to the gonads which the population is receiving from various other sources has been estimated for Great Britain and the United States in the reports of the national committees. Their figures are as follows: (1) X-ray diagnosis – about 3 r; (2) occupational exposure in industry etc., – about 0.05 r; (3) luminous watches – 0.03 r; (4) shoe-fitting devices-about 0.003 r; (5) weapons tests (if tests continued at the same rate as up to now) – 0.03 r in the UK and about 0.1 in the USA. These figures apply only to external radiation; the effect of caesium in the body may perhaps double the dose to the gonads. I have no data about the dose received by the population in other countries, but it seems likely that the first item will on the whole be much less important, since diagnostic radiology is not so widespread outside Europe and the USA. The same will apply to items 2, 3 and 4. On the other hand, the dose from weapons tests may be somewhat higher in other countries since in those calculations a considerable margin of safety was allowed for the shielding provided by buildings, in which – it was assumed – people spend most of their lives. Many nations live in less solid buildings and spend much more time in the open. These considerations would reduce the difference between items 1 and 5, but even then, the final conclusion will probably be that, as far as external radiations is concerned, the genetic effect of bomb testing is hardly significant when compared with the natural background. On the other hand, the genetic damage which may result from diagnostic X-rays is definitely significant. If any action is called for to reduce additional doses to which the population is exposed, this certainly is the case. Another source of radiation which needs careful watching is that arising from occupational exposure in industry and medicine. In Great Britain it already amounts to 0.05 r. With the growth of nuclear power and with the wider application of radioactive isotopes, the dose from this source may rise considerably. The setting up of nuclear reactors all over the world may further cause an increase in the gonad dose. Finally, the vexed problem of the safe disposal of

274

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

the waste products of atomic energy, will have to be solved if it is not to become the most serious hazard. I shall now turn to the calculation of the somatic hazard. Here the criterion of safety is often taken to be the maximum permissible dose, or the maximum permissible concentration, as established by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. One repeatedly hears the statement that as long as the radiation received is less than the maximum permissible there is no risk whatsoever. This is a fallacy. First of all, these maximum permissible levels were established for people occupationally exposed to radiations, and no account was taken of the greater radiation sensitivity of children. Secondly, these doses would be safe, even in a selected group, only on the basis of a threshold effect, but as we have seen the induction of leukaemia may follow a linear relationship, and this may be also true for bone sarcoma. As long as only a small fraction of the population, much less than 1%, is occupationally exposed, the number of leukaemias or bone sarcomas will be quite small, but this would not be true if the whole population were exposed. It seems to me therefore, that in the case of neoplasms also, the yardstick should be the natural background of radiations and not the maximum permissible dose. If we assume an average life span of 50 years in which cancer may be induced, then the total dose to bone marrow from natural sources is 6 G 1 r. Using the previously quoted probability for the induction of leukaemia – on the basis of a linear relationship – we find that in such countries as the UK and the USA the natural background may account for about 20% of the natural incidence of leukaemia. As far as the man-made sources are concerned, the fall-out from nuclear tests appears to be a much more significant factor than in the case of the genetic effect. The hazard arises mainly from the ingestion of strontium-90. The concentration of this isotope is measured in so-called S.U., one such unit corresponding to 1012 curies per gramme of calcium. The maximum permissible concentration of strontium-90 is 1,000 S.U., for occupational exposure. If one takes into account the amount of strontium which is still circulating in the stratosphere and will be coming down in the course of years, we find, that if no further tests were carried out, the equilibrium value of strontium-90 in bone would amount to 4 S.U. This is about 10% of the natural backNuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

275

ground and nearly equal to the standard deviation. According to our criterion the strontium hazard is, therefore, significant even on a relative basis. In absolute numbers it may mean about 50,000 cases of leukaemia and bone sarcoma all over the world from tests already carried out. Finally, we are left with the question of the reduction of lifespan. On the basis of 5 days per r we find that the shortening of life due to the natural background amounts to 40 days in 70 years. This is so small compared with the normal fluctuation in life expectation, that any radiation source of the same order as the natural background will be quite insignificant from this point of view. On the other hand, this problem becomes serious for those individuals who habitually receive doses up to the maximum permissible level. According to the regulations laid down by the ICRP in 1955, the maximum permissible level amounted to 0.3 r per week which would mean a loss of life of 1.5 days every week. After 40 years of work such an individual – even allowing for four weeks holiday every year – may have his life reduced by 8 years. This is rather a large amount and shows that if only for this reason alone, the maximum permissible level must be revised and reduced, by much more than three-fold as suggested now, for people occupationally exposed to radiation. I shall now discuss the most important problem for us: the results of a full-scale nuclear war. As stated at the beginning, I am mainly concerned with the radiological damage both to the belligerent countries and to the population of the rest of the world. At first sight this seems an extremely difficult problem to tackle, if only for the many tenuous assumptions which have to be made. For example, how many bombs would be used; what type of bomb, clean or dirty; what size; at what height will they be exploded; how will they be distributed in time and space? Depending on the assumptions made the results may vary over such a wide range that one may wonder whether such calculations have any sense at all. Actually, however, a little reflection shows that one can make predictions with a fair degree of plausibility. First, let us define who the belligerents would be. It seems fairly certain that if a full-scale war broke out it would occur between the two great powers, the United States and the USSR. I shall further assume that the war will take place in about 5 to 10 years, by

276

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

which time both sides will have developed the inter-continental ballistic missile, and so be capable of delivering bombs across long distances and with a short time of flight. Under such circumstances it seems reasonable to assume that retaliation to aggression would have to be almost instantaneous. There would be no time for the central government to issue orders; long before the war broke out both sides will have set up a number of posts armed with nuclear weapons in various parts of the world, the Commanding Officer of which would be instructed to dispatch the bombs as soon as he gets the news that the other side is attacking. This means that as soon as war broke out both sides will immediately deliver the maximum number of bombs they possess. In these calculations I assume that each side managed to explode 1,000 bombs over the enemy’s territory. The second point, about the type of bomb, can also be fairly well predicted. We hear a lot of talk about the development of clean bombs, and the claim is made that such bombs are humane in the sense that they do not kill by radiation. But is it likely that in a fullscale war such consideration will carry much weight, except in specific conditions? Every thermonuclear weapon must have some sort of tamper to contain the fusion material long enough for the reactions to develop. In a clean bomb this tamper would be of inert material, in other words, dead weight. In a dirty bomb, the tamper is made of uranium, which means that for the same weight of the bomb a far greater explosive power is obtained than in the clean bomb. It would be foolish for any side to throw away the advantage of the extra explosive power, particularly when it adds very little to the cost. The need of extra explosive power becomes obvious when one considers that with the large distances the aiming accuracy might be greatly reduced; a larger explosive power would thus be of great advantage. For these reasons, I believe that should a war break out dirty bombs would be used. The same considerations lead to the conclusion that the height at which the bombs were exploded would be such as to cause the maximum damage from heat and blast effects i.e., about 10,000 ft. above ground. With regard to the size of the bomb, the largest explosive power is likely to be aimed at; I shall assume in these calculations that the bombs will be of the largest size tested so far, that is 20 megatons. Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

277

Thus, in this imaginary war, the United States will drop one thousand 20 megaton dirty bombs over Russia, and Russia will drop a similar number of bombs over the USA. This number of 1,000 bombs is of course arbitrary, but in arriving at it, I have taken into account the amount of uranium which will be available for the shells of these bombs, and that perhaps not more than one third of the bombs will reach their targets. The shock and heat waves will probably cause the destruction of about 10% of the area of the USA and somewhat less of Russia. Even with poor aiming, however, all the major cities would be destroyed on both sides, and a high proportion of the population of both sides would be killed immediately. Our problem is what is going to happen to the remaining population, and this is where the radiological hazard comes in. At an explosion height of about 10,000 ft. local fall-out may amount to about 25% of the total fission yield. Assuming this to be spread uniformly over the whole area of the countries concerned, that is 3 million square miles for the US and 8 million square miles for the USSR, one can work out what would be the dose rate in the open at various times after the explosion. From such calculations, we find that people in the USA remaining in the open would receive 1,400 r during the first 8 hours; 3,000 r during the first 24 hours, 4,000 r during the first 7 days, 4,500 r during the first month and 5,000 r during the first six months. I quote all these figures, despite the fact that the first few hours would be enough to kill everybody, because with a reasonable system of warning few people would remain in the open, and any sort of shelter would afford a great deal of protection. For example, people living in a basement of a solid house would have the dose reduced by a factor of 20, those living in specially constructed deep shelters may have a protection factor of 1,000. What the above figures prove is that even if people remained in such a shelter for the whole week after the war, they would still be liable to receive a lethal dose if they came out and remained in the open afterwards. One can, of course, imagine a system of deep shelters prepared for the whole population and provided with enough food to keep the people alive until either the activity has died out or has been removed by contamination squads. Certainly, if one is prepared to spend enough money it is always possible to save a certain fraction

278

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

of the population, but even then there will be a number of problems which may affect the fate of the survivors. For example, contamination of the soil may mean that no new food could be grown for some years; animal life would be seriously affected, all livestock would be killed and even those of the smaller species which did survive might acquire quite different characteristics, and thus upset the whole ecological balance of life. Let us now consider the effect on the non-combatant nations which comprise about 85% of the whole world population. Most of these would be affected only by fall-out other than local. This is mainly global fall-out, from the particles which have reached the stratosphere and which may take perhaps some years to descend. Under these circumstances, the main external effect would be due to caesium-137. On the assumption that the global fall-out would contain 50% of the initial fission activity, i.e., from 40,000 megatons of fission products, one can work out that the dose received by the gonads of people in the open would amount to about 10 r. This is well below the doubling dose for the genetic damage and only about three times the relevant dose from the natural background. It would, therefore, not be lethal but it may produce quite appreciable genetic damage. Apart from this there would be the internal radiation from strontium-90. The amount eventually concentrated in the bones of each inhabitant would be between 2,000 and 4,000 S.U., that is from 2 to 4 times the maximum permissible concentration. On the assumption of a linear relationship one would then expect that from 1 to 2% of the population would contract lukeaemia or bone sarcoma. Otherwise, no immediate disastrous effect would be expected. We have, however, left out from consideration another type of fall-out, the tropospheric fall-out, which comes down within the first few weeks in an annular region roughly within the latitude in which the explosions took place. Very little is known about the percentage of the activity which occurs in this fall-out, but in the Indian report a figure of 25% was mentioned for this effect. Assuming that this fall-out would occur within a belt from 30 to 60 latitude, thus covering a land area of 10 million square miles (in which incidentally about 60% of the world’s population lives) and at a rate of 10% per week, one can calculate that the dose received in the open by the whole population would amount to about 300 r. Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

279

This is not far from the LD-50 dose, which means that quite an appreciable proportion of the population in non-combatant countries might die from the effects of radiation. Apart from this there would be a concentration of strontium-89 amounting to about 2,000 S.U., and of strontium-90 amounting to about 3,000 S.U., giving a total of 5,000 S.U., about five times higher than the maximum permissible concentration. These considerations show that the real menace to the world’s population may come from troposheric rather than from the stratospheric fall-out. In order to evaluate this hazard more data would be required about the fraction of the fall-out coming within this category.

280

Nuclear Energy Hazards in War and Peace

Leaving the Bomb Project1) A Nuclear Physicist Responsible for Helping Design the Atomic Bomb Tells for the First Time Why He Decided to Leave Los Alamos in 1944

by Joseph Rotblat

Working on the Manhattan Project was a traumatic experience. It is not often given to one to participate in the birth of a new era. For some the effect has endured throughout their lives; I am one of those. This essay is not an autobiography; it describes only my involvement in the genesis of the atomic bomb. All extraneous personal elements are left out, but their exclusion does not mean that they are unimportant. Our hopes and fears, our resolutions and actions, are influenced by an infinite number of small events interacting with each other all the time. Because of this, each of us may react differently to the same set of conditions. The experience of every Los Alamite is unique. At the beginning of 1939, when the news reached me of the discovery of fission, I was working in the Radiological Laboratory in Warsaw. Its director was Ludwik Wertenstein, a pupil of Marie Curie and a pioneer in the science of radioactivity in Poland. Our source of radiation consisted of 30 milligrams of radium in solution; every few days we pumped the accumulated radon into a tube filled with beryllium powder. With this minute neutron source we managed to carry out much research, even competing with Enrico Fermi’s prestigious team, then in Rome, in the discovery of radionuclides. Our main achievement was the direct evidence of the inelastic scattering of neutrons; my doctoral thesis was on that subject. In the earlier experiments on inelastic scattering we used gold as the scatterer. By the end of 1938 I had begun to experiment with uranium, so when I heard of the fission of uranium, it did not take me long to set up an experiment to see whether neutrons 1) ‘‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,’’ August 1985.

281

are emitted at fission. I soon found that they are – indeed, that more neutrons are emitted than produce fission. From this discovery it was a fairly simple intellectual exercise to envisage a divergent chain reaction with a vast release of energy. The logical sequel was that if this energy were released in a very short time it would result in an explosion of unprecedented power. Many scientists in other countries, doing this type of research, went through a similar thought process, although not necessarily evoking the same reaction. In my case, my first reflex was to put the whole thing out of my mind, like a person trying to ignore the first symptom of a fatal disease in the hope that it will go away. But the fear gnaws all the same, and my fear was that someone would put the idea into practice. The thought that I myself would do it did not cross my mind, because it was completely alien to me. I was brought up on humanitarian principles. At that time my life was centered on doing ‘‘pure’’ research work, but I always believed that science should be used in the service of mankind. The notion of utilizing my knowledge to produce an awesome weapon of destruction was abhorrent to me. In my gnawing fear, the ‘‘someone’’ who might put it into practice was precisely defined: German scientists. I had no doubt that the Nazis would not hesitate to use any device, however inhumane, if it gave their doctrine world domination. If so, should one look into the problem to find out whether the fear had a realistic basis? Wrestling with this question was agonizing, and I was therefore glad that another pressing matter gave me an excuse to put it aside. This other matter was my move to England, where I was to spend a year with Professor James Chadwick in Liverpool, on a grant to work on the cyclotron which was then being completed there. This was my first trip abroad, and the upheaval kept me busy both before the journey in April 1939 and for some time afterward, because I spoke very little English, and it took me a long time to settle down. Throughout the spring and summer the gnawing went on relentlessly. It intensified with the increasing signs that Germany was getting ready for war. And it became acute when I read an article by S. Flu¨gge in Naturwissenschaften mentioning the possibility of nuclear explosives.

282

Leaving the Bomb Project

Gradually I worked out a rationale for doing research on the feasibility of the bomb. I convinced myself that the only way to stop the Germans from using it against us would be if we too had the bomb and threatened to retaliate. My scenario never envisaged that we should use it, not even against the Germans. We needed the bomb for the sole purpose of making sure that it would not be used by them: the same argument that is now being used by proponents of the deterrence doctrine. With the wisdom of hindsight, I can see the folly of the deterrent thesis, quite apart from a few other flaws in my rationalization. For one thing, it would not have worked with a psychopath like Hitler. If he had had the bomb, it is very likely that his last order from the bunker in Berlin would have been to destroy London, even if this were to bring terrible retribution to Germany. Indeed, he would have seen this as a heroic way of going down, in a Go¨tterda¨mmerung. My thinking at the time required that the feasibility of the atom bomb be established, one way or the other, with the utmost urgency. Yet I could not overcome my scruples. I felt the need to talk it over with someone, but my English was too halting to discuss such a sensitive issue with my colleagues in Liverpool. In August 1939, having gone to Poland on a personal matter, I took the opportunity to visit Wertenstein and put my dilemma before him. The idea of a nuclear weapon had not occurred to him, but when I showed him my rough calculations he could not find anything scientifically wrong with them. On the moral issue, however, he was unwilling to advise me. He himself would never engage in this type of work, but he would not try to influence me. It had to be left to my own conscience. The war broke out two days after I returned to Liverpool. Within a few weeks Poland was overrun. The stories that Hitler’s military strength was all bluff, that his tanks were painted cardboard, turned out to be wishful thinking. The might of Germany stood revealed, and the whole of our civilization was in mortal peril. My scruples were finally overcome. By November 1939 my English was good enough for me to give a course of lectures on nuclear physics to the Honors School at Liverpool University, but by then the department’s senior research staff Leaving the Bomb Project

283

had disappeared: they had gone to work on radar and other war projects. I had, therefore, to approach Chadwick directly with an outline of my plan for research on the feasibility of the atom bomb. His response was typically Chadwickian: he just grunted, without letting on whether he had already thought of such a plan. Later I learned that other scientists in the United Kingdom did have the same idea, some of them with similar motivation. A few days later Chadwick told me to go ahead and gave me two young assistants. One of them presented a problem. He was a Quaker and as such had refused to do war work. He was therefore sent to Liverpool University for academic duties – but was diverted to work with me on the atom bomb! I was not allowed to reveal to him the nature of our research, and I had qualms of conscience about using him in such an unethical way. The main idea which I put to Chadwick was that for the atom bomb the chain reaction would have to be propagated by fast neutrons; otherwise it would not differ much from a chemical explosive. It was therefore important to measure the fission crosssection for fast neutrons, the energy distribution of fission neutrons, their inelastic scatrering, and the proportion of those captured without producing fission. It was also relevant to find out whether stray neutrons might cause a premature start of the reaction, which meant determining the probability of spontaneous fission of uranium. We built up a small team of young but devoted physicists and used the cyclotron to tackle some of these problems. Later we were joined by Otto Frisch who measured the fast neutron fission crosssection for uranium-235. I had the idea of using plutonium, but we had no means of making it. As a result of these investigations, we were able to establish that the atom bomb was feasible from the scientific point of view. However, it also became clear that in order to make the bomb a vast technological effort would be required, far exceeding the manpower and industrial potential of wartime Britain. A top-level decision was reached to collaborate with the Americans. And so I found myself eventually in that ‘‘wondrous strange’’ place, Los Alamos. In March 1944 I experienced a disagreeable shock. At that time I was living with the Chadwicks in their house on the Mesa, before

284

Leaving the Bomb Project

moving later to the ‘‘Big House,’’ the quarters for single scientists. General Leslie Groves, when visiting Los Alamos, frequently came to the Chadwicks for dinner and relaxed palaver. During one such conversation Groves said that, of course, the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets. (Whatever his exact words, his real meaning was clear.) Although I had no illusions about the Stalin regime – after all, it was his pact with Hitler that enabled the latter to invade Poland – I felt deeply the sense of betrayal of an ally. Remember, this was said at a time when thousands of Russians were dying every day on the Eastern Front, tying down the Germans and giving the Allies time to prepare for the landing on the continent of Europe. Until then I had thought that our work was to prevent a Nazi victory, and now I was told that the weapon we were preparing was intended for use against the people who were making extreme sacrifices for that very aim. My concern about the purpose of our work gained substance from conversations with Niels Bohr. He used to come to my room at eight in the morning to listen to the BBC news bulletin. Like myself, he could not stand the U.S. bulletins which urged us every few seconds to purchase a certain laxative! I owned a special radio on which I could receive the BBC World Service. Sometimes Bohr stayed on and talked to me about the social and political implications of the discovery of nuclear energy and of his worry about the dire consequences of a nuclear arms race between East and West which he foresaw. All this, and the growing evidence that the war in Europe would be over before the bomb project was completed, made my participation in it pointless. If it took the Americans such a long time, then my fear of the Germans being first was groundless. When it became evident, toward the end of 1944, that the Germans had abandoned their bomb project, the whole purpose of my being in Los Alamos ceased to be, and I asked for permission to leave and return to Britain. Why did other scientists not make the same decision? Obviously, one would not expect General Groves to wind up the project as soon as Germany was defeated, but there were many scientists for whom the German factor was the main motivation. Why did they not quit when this factor ceased to be? Leaving the Bomb Project

285

I was not allowed to discuss this issue with anybody after I declared my intention to leave Los Alamos, but earlier conversations, as well as much later ones, elicited several reasons. The most frequent reason given was pure and simple scientific curiosity – the strong urge to find out whether the theoretical calculations and predictions would come true. These scientists felt that only after the test at Alamogordo should they enter into the debate about the use of the bomb. Others were prepared to put the matter off even longer, persuaded by the argument that many American lives would be saved if the bomb brought a rapid end to the war with Japan. Only when peace was restored would they take a hand in efforts to ensure that the bomb would not be used again. Still others, while agreeing that the project should have been stopped when the German factor ceased to operate, were not willing to take an individual stand because they feared it would adversely affect their future career. The groups I have just described – scientists with a social conscience – were a minority in the scientific community. The majority were not bothered by moral scruples; they were quite content to leave it to others to decide how their work would be used. Much the same situation exists now in many countries in relation to work on military projects. But it is the morality issue at a time of war that perplexes and worries me most. Recently I came across a document released under the Freedom of Information Act. It is a letter, dated May 25, 1943, from Robert Oppenheimer to Enrico Fermi, on the military use of radioactive materials, specifically, the poisoning of food with radioactive strontium. The Smyth Report mentions such use as a possible German threat, but Oppenheimer apparently thought the idea worthy of consideration, and asked Fermi whether he could produce the strontium without letting too many people into the secret. He went on: ‘‘I think we should not attempt a plan unless we can poison food sufficient to kill a half a million men.’’ I am sure that in peacetime these same scientists would have viewed such a plan as barbaric; they would not have contemplated it even for a moment. Yet during the war it was considered quite seriously and, I presume, abandoned only because it was technically infeasible.

286

Leaving the Bomb Project

After I told Chadwick that I wished to leave the project, he came back to me with very disturbing news. When he conveyed my wish to the intelligence chief at Los Alamos, he was shown a thick dossier on me with highly incriminating evidence. It boiled down to my being a spy: I had arranged with a contact in Santa Fe to return to England, and then to be flown to and parachuted onto the part of Poland held by the Soviets, in order to give them the secrets of the atom bomb. The trouble was that within this load of rubbish was a grain of truth. I did indeed meet and converse with a person during my trips to Santa Fe. It was for a purely altruistic purpose, nothing to do with the project, and I had Chadwick’s permission for the visits. Nevertheless, it contravened a security regulation, and it made me vulnerable. Fortunately for me, in their zeal the vigilant agents had included in their reports details of conversations with dates, which were quite easy to refute and to expose as complete fabrications. The chief of intelligence was rather embarrassed by all this and conceded that the dossier was worthless. Nevertheless, he insisted that I not talk to anybody about my reason for leaving the project. We agreed with Chadwick that the ostensible reason would be a purely personal one: that I was worried about my wife whom I had left in Poland. And so, on Christmas Eve 1944, I sailed for the United Kingdom, but not without another incident. Before leaving Los Alamos I packed all my documents – research notes as well as correspondence and other records – in a box made for me by my assistant. En route I stayed for a few days with the Chadwicks in Washington. Chadwick personally helped me to put the box on the train to New York. But when I arrived there a few hours later, the box was missing. Nor, despite valiant efforts, was it ever recovered. The work on the Manhattan Project, as I said at the outset, has had an enduring effect on my life. Indeed, it radically changed my scientific career and the carrying out of my obligations to society. Work on the atom bomb convinced me that even pure research soon finds applications of one kind or another. If so. I wanted to decide myself how my work should be applied. I chose an aspect of nuclear physics which would definitely be beneficial to human-

Leaving the Bomb Project

287

ity: the applications to medicine. Thus I completely changed the direction of my research and spent the rest of my academic career working in a medical college and hospital. While this gave me personal satisfaction, I was increasingly concerned about the political aspects of the development of nuclear weapons, particularly the hydrogen bomb, about which I knew from Los Alamos. Therefore, I devoted myself both to arousing the scientific community to the danger, and to educating the general public on these issues. I was instrumental in setting up the Atomic Scientists Association in the United Kingdom, and within its framework organized the Atom Train, a travelling exhibition which explained to the public the good and evil aspects of nuclear energy. Through these activities I came to collaborate with Bertrand Russell. This association led to the foundation of the Pugwash Conferences, where I met again with colleagues from the Manhattan Project, who were also concerned about the threat to mankind that has arisen partly from their work. After 40 years one question keeps nagging me: have we learned enough not to repeat the mistakes we made then? I am not sure even about myself. Not being an absolute pacifist, I cannot guarantee that I would not behave in the same way, should a similar situation arise. Our concepts of morality seem to get thrown overboard once military action starts. It is, therefore, most important not to allow such a situation to develop. Our prime effort must concentrate on the prevention of nuclear war, because in such a war not only morality but the whole fabric of civilization would disappear. Eventually, however, we must aim at eliminating all kinds of war.

288

Leaving the Bomb Project

Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government1) Closing Address by Joseph Rotblat

At this Quinquennial Conference we have adopted the Pugwash goals for the next five years. The discussion this morning elucidated some further specific and general tasks for Pugwash. In this closing address I want to advance ideas, which, I believe, are essential to the achievement of our ultimate goal, the elimination of all war; ideas which the polite among you may say are very ambitious, and others will call Utopian. What I have in mind – and I will spell it out straight away – is the idea of a Federal World Government. The tremendous changes in recent years have proved that nothing is beyond achievement in the world of politics: what was unimaginable yesterday is reality today; and what is Utopian today may be the actuality of tomorrow. May be, but it will not happen tomorrow if we shy away from talking about it today. Both our founding fathers, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, were strong advocates of a World Government, even though this was not spelled out in the Manifesto. In the Manifesto they elucidated the alternatives facing mankind: 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?

and they pointed out the requirement for the latter alternative: The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.

But the Manifesto stopped short of calling for a world government, because there was no chance of it being agreed to by some 1) 42nd Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, 11–17 September 1992, Berlin, Germany.

289

signatories of the Manifesto, notably Frederic Joliot-Curie. The communists were implacable opponents of a world government. But now we are living in a different world. At the opening session of this Conference, I said that the significance of the events that have occurred since the Beijing Conference a year ago, namely, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Communist regime there, has not yet fully penetrated into the minds of people. For most of this century we lived in a bipolar world, dominated by an ideological division, and described in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto as: the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.

It is very difficult to adapt oneself mentally to the new political configuration in which erstwhile mortal enemies have become, in the words of Boris Yeltsin, ‘‘friends and partners’’. This slow adaptation to the new situation is chiefly due to inertia: most people hate change; it is painful to abandon old beliefs, to accept new precepts. And this natural conservatism is reinforced by groups with vested interests, by people whose careers, or huge profits, are founded on the old concepts that kept the world divided and at war, concepts based on secrecy which fuels suspicion and mistrust. These concepts are just the opposite to those which, I am sure, most of you share with me, namely, oneness and openness. It was these concepts that scientists attempted to promote at the advent of the nuclear age, when the atom bomb was being made. From the very beginning, nuclear weapons were seen by many politicians and military leaders in the United States, as the major tool for waging the ideological war. The atom bomb was developed during World War II, not to deter Hitler from using it against the Allies – as many of those who initiated the work on the bomb believed – but to subdue the Soviets. And the Soviets, in turn, developed it to deny the Americans absolute superiority. And so we found ourselves engaged in an insane arms race, which – had it continued – would have inevitably resulted in a nuclear confrontation and, very likely, in the end of civilization. This was foreseen by scientists very early, especially by Niels Bohr, who already in 1944 predicted with prophetic vision the dire consequences of a nuclear arms race. The basic principle of Bohr’s

290

Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government

philosophy was openness. In science openness is of course a sine qua non, but Bohr advocated its extension to the realm of politics, to problems of security. He said: . . . it must be realized that full mutual openness, only, can effectively promote confidence and guarantee common security.

Bohr’s proposals were rejected, but after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, other scientists made an attempt to prevent future such horror: foremost among them was Eugene Rabinowitch, a spiritual leader of Pugwash. Earlier, the Franck Report, of which he was the main author, said: Among all the arguments calling for an efficient international organization for peace, the existence of nuclear weapons is the most compelling one.

The Franck Report was the inspiration for the Acheson-Lilienthal Report, which advocated strict international control of nuclear weapons. Under the heading: Disclosure of information as an essential of international action

and following Bohr’s philosophy, it stated: We believe that this is the firmest basis of security: for in the long- term there can be no international control and no international cooperation which does not presuppose an international community of knowledge.

All this talk about openness was anathema to General Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project, but after the devastation of the Japanese cities the revulsion against the bomb was so great that nobody dared to come out openly against such a proposal; indeed, General Groves himself signed the Acheson-Lilienthal Report. However, in the end the hawks had their way. When the ideas of the scientists were formulated in the official proposals of the United States to the United Nations – the famous (or, some will say, notorious) Baruch Plan – significant changes had been made to them to ensure that the Plan would not be accepted by the SoTime to Rethink the Idea of World Government

291

viets. This was what in fact happened. We are all painfully familiar with the consequences of that failure of the ideas of the scientists. It was a stroke of luck that a visionary, sane man took over the leadership of the Soviet Union at a critical moment. Mikhail Gorbachev adopted the new way of thinking which we have always advocated in Pugwash; he revived the concepts on which the early proposals of scientists were based in relation to security. In his book Perestroika he said: The new political outlook calls for the recognition of one more simple axiom: security is indivisible. It is either equal security for all or none at all . . . The security of each nation should be coupled with the security of all members of the world community . . . Consequently, there should be no striving for security for oneself at the expense of others.

In order to sell these ideas to his own people, Gorbachev had to advance openness; he introduced glasnost. By doing this he unlocked the floodgates, and eventually he himself was engulfed in the flood. The finale was dramatic: the 75-year ideological struggle was over. However, the very removal of the oppressive communist regime has given birth to a new source of conflict and military confrontation, the splitting of nations. The drive for independence by various entities is of long standing, but the collapse of the Soviet Union gave it renewed impetus. Should this trend continue, we may end up with a hundred nations in Europe alone, but it is very doubtful whether under the present world political system this would lead to stability. One of the problems is that ethnicity can no longer be directly related to territory, as the tragic case of Bosnia is demonstrating. The perpetual conflict arising from this source, and from the refusal of states to grant independence to minority groups, is present even in long-established nations, and the problem has become acute after the recent changes in the political configuration. In my opinion there can be no lasting solution to it as long as the present concept of the nation-state persists, and this concept is bound to persist as long as the world political system is based on the present Charter of the United Nations. The basic principle of the United Nations is the sovereignty of all its members. The Charter forbids the United Nations to intervene in matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of any

292

Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government

state. The world community of nations is called upon to defend the territorial integrity of every member-state, but is prohibited from interceding in internal affairs of a state, even if that state carries out heinous crimes against its own people. People of good will – as we all are in Pugwash – are always keen to support movements for freedom and justice. But the inherent fragility of a newly born state is frequently exploited by unscrupulous individuals or cliques seeking power for themselves, and setting up despotic regimes which give their people anything but freedom and justice. Until recently, there were hardly any democratically elected governments in the many states of, what used to be called, the Third World. But even if a newly independent state adopts a democratic system, its chances of establishing a secure and economically viable regime are very small. The fervour of patriotism that accompanies the attainment of independence usually leads the country to acquire all the trappings of sovereignty: an army and air force with all modern conventional weapons, a huge bureaucracy with embassies in every country, a national airline, and technologies, such as nuclear reactors (with perhaps the underlying thought that this may ultimately lead to the possession of nuclear weapons). All this costs money, and it usually leads to a heavy debt burden and economic ruin. Poverty, famine and disease are frequent adjuncts of independence. In any case, the continuous division into many separate units flies in the face of the advances of science and technology, which have rendered the concept of the independent, sovereign nationstate obsolete. Just as in the past technological progress compelled the transition from fiefdom to the nation-state, so now the further technological advances dictate the replacement of the nation-state by a global entity. In the distant past it was possible for small communities to exist separately, each self-sustained, and capable of providing the needs of its members with little dependence on, and communication with, other communities. Such insularity is now impossible even for very large nations. Modern means of transport and communication have made isolationism an obsolete notion. Thanks to the progress of science the world has become signally interdependent: anything happening in one part of the globe may have an effect in Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government

293

any other part. And the remarkable advances in communication have made it potentially possible for everybody to witness what is happening anywhere. Never in the history of civilization has the world community been so intimately interwoven. Ironically, the same science that has done so much to raise the standard of living and to enrich out culture, has also provided powerful tools of destruction, even threatening to extinguish our civilization. Goods and information have become more accessible to all, but so have the means of killing; indeed, the most prosperous trade seems to be the trade in arms. Nations that cannot feed their people put priority on the acquisition of highly sophisticated armaments; missile technology is proliferating. Above all, there is the spectre of nuclear annihilation. The characteristic of this nuclear age is that for the first time in the history of mankind it has become possible for Man to destroy his own species. Science has given a new meaning to interdependence: if we do not learn to live together, we shall all perish together. From science we have received a warning to behave ourselves. And to science we should turn to provide the guidelines for proper behaviour. The main characteristics of science are universality and openness, and I believe that their adoption in the political arena will help to reduce incentives to war. A major difference between the natural sciences and politics is that the former are governed by immutable laws of nature which have universal validity, whereas there has not been a corresponding principle to govern relations between nations. It is my thesis that such an overriding principle does now exist: it has emerged from the advances in the natural sciences, namely, the survival of mankind. Survival of the species is the prime force in the living world. In the case of the human species, the high level of intellectual development extends this principle to the survival of civilization, because, as I have already remarked, progress in the natural sciences has created the potential for the destruction of civilization by manmade action. This new threat provides the motivation for the world community to organize itself in a way that would prevent such a catastrophe, as well as serving as the basis for a universal organizational structure. If we start from this premise, it is obvious that the common interest in preserving civilization calls for a global approach to

294

Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government

problems of security. This in turn calls on the inhabitants of all countries to recognize a new paramount duty to the world community: to accept a new loyalty, loyalty to mankind; to acquire a new citizenship, citizenship of the world. At present, loyalty to one’s nations is supreme: it overrides the loyalty to any subgroup, such as the family, local community or professional association, and it is enforced by national laws. These laws impose limitations on our freedom, but these limitations are generally accepted because of the recognition that this is the price paid for the protection provided by the state against outside enemies. Hitherto, the human species was not thought to need protection, because threats from natural causes, such as a collision with a large meteorite, were seen to have a very low probability. But now the threat comes from the inside, from the action of man: an abrupt end in a nuclear war, or slow extinction by poisoning the environment. Laws to protect us all are therefore urgently called for. What I have attempted to show so far is that a radical change is needed if we are to reconcile the strivings of many entities for selfexpression with the avoidance of war and preservation of our civilization. The radical change that I propose is the creation of a federal world government, with an international framework, which would include legislative power and a police force to ensure security to all its members; special organs would deal with requests for recognition by ethnic etc. groups, and protect the rights of minorities in any of its federal components. Apart from stressing openness as a vital characteristic of the proposed system, I will not attempt at this stage a more detailed description of the structure of the World Government. I envisage it as a gradual evolution of the United Nations organization, with the steps of that evolution emerging from comprehensive studies. At this stage, the important point is to accept the concept, to recognize it as an idea whose time has come. As I said earlier, both Einstein and Russell were strong proponents of World Government. In his ‘‘Open letter to the General Assembly of the United Nations’’ in 1947, Einstein said: As a matter of fact, the United Nations is an extremely important and useful institution provided the peoples and governments of the world Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government

295

realize that it is merely a transitional system toward the final goal, which is the establishment of a supranational authority vested with sufficient legislative and executive powers to keep the peace.

In his 1961 book ‘‘Has Man a Future?’’, Bertrand Russell goes into some detail about the need for, and structure of, a world government, which he saw as the only alternative to the selfdestruction of the human race. He wrote: These technical advances, while they have made present international anarchy infinitely more dangerous than it used to be, have also made it technically possible to establish a World Government which would be able to exert its power everywhere and could make armed resistance virtually impossible.

But, recognizing the realities of the time, he said: So long as the opposition between Communists and anti-Communists remains as fierce as it is at present, it will be difficult to win assent to any international institutions which might seem likely to impede the transition of individual nations from one camp to the other.

With the end of the titanic, ideological struggle, the main obstacle to a World Government has been removed. Many steps have already been, and are being taken towards it. The United Nations, after many years in the doldrums has come back to play an important role in world security, and this role will be greatly strengthened when the recent proposals by Dr. Boutros-Ghali are implemented. The time is propitious for starting the campaign for the next stage towards the goal of preventing war, to lay the foundation for a structure that will ensure lasting peace in the world. A long and arduous task will confront those venturing to erect this structure. There is a substantial vested interest in fomenting conflicts among nations. Even among people of good will there will be strong opposition, particularly about giving up national sovereignty which is so deeply inculcated. Some will be worried that the World Government may not always be in benign hands. Others will be apprehensive of the vast bureaucracy this may entail. All these are valid concerns. But those who harbour such doubts, should consider the alternatives: think of the dangers inherent in the present division in the world; recall the many wars that have taken

296

Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government

place since World War II with tens of millions of people killed in them; ponder on the present tragic situation in the Balkans which may be repeated scores of times; and meditate on the threat to all of us, should these conflicts escalate into a nuclear war. Pugwash has achieved much in its attempts to reduce the nuclear danger, but we still have a long way to go before this danger is eliminated. We have an even longer way to go to eliminate all kinds of war, and the incentives to wage war. This is a daunting task, but let us not be too timid in setting our sights. Pugwash should be tall enough, to enable it to keep its feet firmly on the ground, yet the head high above the clouds with a clear vision of the future. Let me conclude with a poem about such a vision. Tennyson wrote it exactly 150 years ago. Men, my brothers, men the workers ever reaping something new: That which they have done but earnest of the things that they shall do: For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales; Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain’d a ghastly dew From the nations’ airy navies grappling in the central blue; For along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm, With the standards of the peoples plunging through the thunder-storms. Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer and the battle-flags were furl’d In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the World. Time to Rethink the Idea of World Government

297

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge1) The Role of Scientists

By Joseph Rotblat

The memory of that Monday in September, 40 years ago, will always haunt me. I was in New York, walking in Times Square, when the flashing lights on the famous building spelled out the dreadful news: Dag Hammarskjo¨ld had died in an air crash. This tragic event occurred at a time of a further deterioration in relations between the superpowers. I was in New York on my way back from a Pugwash Conference in Vermont, a meeting overshadowed by the announcement of the resumption of nuclear testing by the Soviet Union. The voluntary moratorium of 1958 had been broken, heralding an intensification of the arms race, with an alarming series of atmospheric tests by both sides. A month later, the Soviet Union detonated the largest ever hydrogen bomb, with an explosive Power of 58 megatons – 4,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. A year later, our civilisation came close to annihilation in the Cuban Missile Crisis. But already then, in mid-September 1961, I could see what was coming. The nuclear arms race was gathering momentum; the Cold War was in danger of turning into a Hot War. And the organisation that had been set up ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’ was impotent, sidestepped by the superpowers. The person who had been fighting hardest for the United Nations to fulfil its role was dead. Nuclear weapons and the United Nations are historically linked. They were born at about the same time, only three weeks separating the signing of the Charter from the first nuclear test in Alamogordo, an event that rendered the Charter out of date even before it was ratified. The atom bomb radically changed the nature of war and the ways of dealing with it. The General Assembly made a val1) The Third Dag Hammarskjo¨ld Lecture, 16 May 2001, Uppsala University.

299

iant effort to tackle the new situation. Its very first resolution, No. 1 (1), adopted unanimously at its first meeting in London in January 1946, called for the establishment of an Atomic Energy Commission to: . . . proceed with the utmost despatch and . . . make specific proposals . . . for the elimination from national arsenals of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction.

Fifty-five years later, and after a multitude of resolutions by the General Assembly calling – by overwhelming majorities – for the elimination of nuclear arsenals, the nuclear-weapon states still ignore these resolutions and pursue policies that perpetuate the division of the world into nuclear haves and have-nots. In this lecture, dedicated to the memory of Dag Hammarskjo¨ld, I want to review the events that have led to a situation in which the will of the great majority of nations is continually thwarted by a Security Council dominated by the nuclear weapon states. Speaking as a scientist, I want, in particular, to stress the role played by scientists in bringing about this situation, and the lessons we should learn about the responsibilities of scientists in relation to potentially dangerous advances in science. The crucial issue in nuclear policies is deterrence. Deterrence was the starting point of the whole problem. The scientists who – like myself – began research on the atom bomb almost immediately after the discovery of fission, would normally have recoiled from work on military projects. Our rationale was the fear that the bomb might be developed in Germany and enable Hitler to win the war. The only way to prevent this happening, we reasoned, was by acquiring the bomb ourselves and threatening its use in retaliation. I developed the concept of nuclear deterrence in the summer of 1939. Looking back, I think it is very doubtful whether the deterrence argument would have worked with an irrational leader like Hitler. It is quite likely that even if both sides had had the bomb, Hitler’s last order from the bunker in Berlin would have been to drop it on London, in the full knowledge that this would bring terrible retribution upon Germany. This would have been in the spirit of his ¨ mmerung. philosophy of Go¨tterda

300

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

As it happened, this thesis was never put to the test. Hitler was defeated by conventional weaponry, before the atom bomb was manufactured. But the end of the war in Europe did not bring the bomb programme, known as the Manhattan Project, to an end. On the contrary, its momentum increased. The politicians and the military had decided that the bomb would be used on Japan. General Leslie Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project, said in 1945, ‘The target is and was always expected to be Japan’. By this time, moreover, many scientists had been recruited to the Project who did not share the motivation of the originators. Harrowing stories about cruel treatment of prisoners in Japanese camps had driven them to accept the use of the bomb against Japan in retribution, as well as to bring the war in the Far East to an end. Other scientists were, nonetheless, strongly opposed to this idea on both political and moral grounds. Outstanding among these was the great Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, who had much influence on Dag Hammarskjo¨ld’s thinking. With prophetic vision, Bohr predicted the dire consequences of the nuclear arms race that was bound to follow the use of the atom bomb by the United States. To forestall such an arms race he suggested that the Soviet Union be informed about the bomb before it was used, and that it be offered the chance to share in the great potentialities of the discovery of nuclear energy provided it agreed on a system of joint management and control of nuclear energy in all its aspects. Although Franklin Roosevelt was sympathetic to Bohr’s ideas, they were decisively rejected by Winston Churchill, who even wanted to have Bohr interned as a dangerous alien. He said: ‘It seems to me that Bohr ought to be confined or at any rate made to see that he is very near the edge of mortal crime.’ Nearer the time of the completion of the bomb, several other scientists on the Manhattan Project attempted to influence events. The most active among these was the Hungarian scientist, Leo Szilard. He prepared a petition to President Truman, appealing, on moral grounds, against the use of the bomb on civilian populations. Among the scientists Szilard approached for a signature was his countryman Edward Teller, who replied as follows: Since our discussion I have spent some time thinking about your objections to an immediate military use of the weapons we may produce. The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

301

I decided to do nothing. The accident that we worked out this dreadful thing should not give us the responsibility of having a voice in how it is to be used.

I have quoted Teller’s reply because it articulates a view held to this day by many scientists: a complete disavowal of responsibility for the consequences of their actions. In this particular case, however, there is something more: it illustrates the hypocrisy that pervades the nuclear issue; the hypocrisy, mainly exhibited by politicians but occasionally also by scientists, of saying one thing and doing just the opposite. For it was Edward Teller who, more than any other scientist, influenced the development of nuclear weapons; he was the prime mover in the H-bomb project and, later, the ‘Star Wars’ concept. Building the hydrogen bomb was the real start of the nuclear arms race; it resulted in the accumulation of obscenely huge nuclear arsenals by both superpowers, and gave a new dimension to the nuclear issue. Awesome as the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb was, it did not pose a threat to the existence of the human species. For this, one would need to detonate a very large number of nuclear weapons – of the order of 100,000. Even in the most pessimistic scenarios, we did not envisage the accumulation of arsenals of that magnitude, because we could not see any purpose for this. Yet, the unimaginable happened. Within a few decades, nuclear arsenals of that magnitude were built, with a total destructive power of more than a million Hiroshima bombs – a hundred times more than was needed for any conceivable deterrence purpose. How did this happen? To some extent it was due to the changing strategic doctrines: from massive retaliation, to counterforce, to mutually assured destruction (MAD), to flexible response, to countervailing, plus strategic missile defence. But to a large degree, it was due to the work of scientists; they masterminded the arms race and gave it its momentum. Scientists on both sides of the Iron Curtain were relentless in inventing new ways to make their own weapons more effective and those of the other side more vulnerable. Often, they would bring in new designs, not because of any real need but simply for the sake of the exhilaration experienced in inventing new gadgets. It became a kind of addiction.

302

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

This severe indictment of members of a highly respected group in society is echoed by scientists closely familiar with the problem. For example, Theodore Taylor, a former chief designer of atom bombs at the Los Alamos laboratory, had this to say about their motivation: . . . the most striking factor of all was simply the intense exhilaration that every scientist or engineer experiences when he or she has the freedom to explore completely new technical concepts and then to bring them into reality.

Scientists have much to answer for, for what they did during the Cold War period; and for what they are still doing today, as I will explain later. But other groups in society too must take a share of the blame for creating the dangerous situation. There is no doubt an element of truth in Eisenhower’s warning about the militaryindustrial complex. There are groups in various countries with an interest in, or motivation for, keeping nuclear weapons, or developing defences against them, and they try to find, or if needs be to invent, excuses for this. During the Cold War years this was quite easy; the ideological divide between East and West provided fertile grounds for propaganda. People in the West were manipulated into believing that the Soviet government was planning the conquest of the world by military means, using its overwhelming supremacy in conventional arms. We were led to believe that the only way to prevent this from happening was for the West to threaten retaliation with nuclear weapons. This was the rationale for the setting-up of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) under which the United States guaranteed the security of European states. The assertion in the West – still widely accepted today – that the possession of nuclear weapons prevented a Soviet military attack, is one of the deliberately propagated myths of the Cold War. Careful studies by reputable historians from the West have found no evidence for this assertion. The Soviet government would have liked, of course, to see Communist regimes all over the world, but they tried to achieve this through propaganda and by supporting subversive groups. All the evidence indicates that the build-up of nuclear armaments by the Soviet government was a response to that by the The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

303

United States. Almost every step in the nuclear arms race, every technological advance, was initiated by the United States, with the Soviet Union struggling to keep up. But although the Americans were usually ahead – initially in the number of warheads, later in the quality of their armaments – they were never satisfied that their offensive weapons would provide full security, and they made an attempt to achieve extra security through the Strategic Defense Initiative, commonly known as Star Wars. A likely response to this by the Soviet Union would have been an increase in its offensive arsenals, to ensure saturation of the defences – a situation that would eventually have led to a catastrophe, were it not for the emergence of a common-sensical leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Listening to the advice of Soviet scientists – most of them participants in Pugwash Conferences – he made a rational assessment of the situation, and called a halt to the arms race. The end of the Cold War brought a complete change in both military and political aspects of the superpower confrontation. Militarily, the roles were reversed: the United States emerged with great superiority in conventional weapons, and Russia had to rely on its possession of nuclear arms to maintain its superpower status. The Warsaw Pact Organization was dissolved, but its counterpart, NATO, not only stayed on but embarked on a policy of enlargement, bringing into its fold erstwhile Soviet satellites in Europe, thus raising apprehension in Russia. Politically, too, there was a thorough transformation. With the collapse of the Communist regime, the threat of an attack on the West could be entirely discounted. Under these conditions it would seem to be in the best interests of the United States to heed the call from the great majority of nations in the General Assembly and proceed towards nuclear disarmament. But although, officially, the United States acknowledges its commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons, its actual policy is a continuation of that during the Cold War, a policy implying the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons. US nuclear policy, supported by the UK, France and many NATO countries, is based on the concept of extended deterrence. It is a first-use policy: the use of nuclear weapons is the threatened response to an attack on the United States or its allies, not only with

304

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

nuclear forces but also with chemical, biological or even conventional weapons. If this is the purpose of nuclear weapons, then these weapons will be needed as long as disputes are settled by recourse to military confrontation; in other words, as long as war is a recognised social institution. Such a policy is unacceptable in a civilised society on many grounds: legal, logical, political, military and ethical. It is unacceptable on legal grounds. One hundred and eighty nations, that is to say 98 per cent of the UN membership – including all five official nuclear weapon states – have signed and ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), by which the non-nuclear states have undertaken not to acquire nuclear weapons, and the five nuclear states have undertaken to get rid of theirs. There was some ambiguity in the formulation of the relevant Article VI of the NPT, which provided the hawks with an excuse for the retention of nuclear weapons until general and complete disarmament had been achieved. This ambiguity has now been removed. The statement issued after the NPT Review Conference in New York, in April/May 2000, a statement signed by all five nuclear-weapon states, contains the following: . . . an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.

This makes the situation perfectly clear. The policy of extended deterrence, which implies the continuing existence of nuclear weapons, is in direct contradiction to the legally binding NonProliferation Treaty. It is a sine qua non of a civilised society that nations fulfil their legal commitments and adhere to international treaties. Without this, there would be complete anarchy in the world. The present policy is unacceptable on logical grounds. If some nations – including the most powerful militarily – say that they need nuclear weapons for their security, then such security cannot be denied to other countries which really feel insecure. Proliferation of nuclear weapons is thus the logical consequence of the policy of nuclear deterrence. The US and its allies cannot deny other countries the right to acquire nuclear weapons while retaining

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

305

them for themselves. The policy of extended deterrence is in contradiction to the non-proliferation policy. There is yet a further aspect of the logical argument, which strikes at the very basis of deterrence. This is the assumption that both sides in a dispute think and behave rationally; that they are capable of a realistic assessment of the risks entailed in any action contemplated. This would not be the case with irrational leaders. I mentioned this earlier in relation to Hitler. Even a rational leader may behave irrationally in a war situation, when facing defeat or mass hysteria incited by religious fanaticism or nationalistic fervour. The policy of extended deterrence is unacceptable on political grounds. It is highly discriminatory in that it allows a few nations to usurp certain rights, which should be the prerogative of the United Nations, such as policing the world (by imposing sanctions on nuclear proliferators). Indeed, it goes against the very purpose of the United Nations, an organisation set up specifically for the maintenance of international peace and security. The policy of extended deterrence also means a permanent polarisation of the world, with some nations being offered protection by one or other of the nuclear weapon states. It is not credible on military grounds. The enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons – which puts them in a class of their own – makes resort to their use, particularly in retaliation to anything but a nuclear attack, very unlikely, thus diminishing their military value as weapons. Witness the fact that they have not prevented the several hundred wars that have occurred since 1945. But above all, the nuclear deterrent is not acceptable on ethical grounds. The whole concept of nuclear deterrence is based on the belief that the threat of retaliation is real, that nuclear weapons would be used against an act of aggression. George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, even Tony Blair, must show convincingly that they have the sort of personality that would enable them to push the button and unleash an instrument of destruction, which would harm not only the aggressor but other innocent nations, in a dispute that could have been resolved at a much lower cost in casualties. By acquiescing to this policy, not only our leaders, but each of us, figuratively keeps our finger on the button; each of us is taking part in a gamble in which the survival of human civilisation is at stake.

306

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

We rest the security of the world on a balance of terror. In the long run this is bound to erode the ethical basis of civilisation. We all crave a world of peace, a world of equity. We all want to nurture in the young generation the ‘culture of peace’. But how can we talk about a culture of peace if that peace is predicated on the existence of weapons of mass destruction? How can we persuade the young generation to cast aside the culture of violence when they know that it is on the threat of violence that we rely for security? I do not believe that the people of the world accept this policy, or any policy that implies the continued existence of nuclear weapons. Numerous public opinion polls have shown general abhorrence towards nuclear weapons and a strong desire to get rid of them. Even the governments of the nuclear weapon states realise this; they feel compelled to issue statements, of the type quoted earlier, asserting their unequivocal commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons. But what they are preaching is quite different from what they are practising. The nuclear weapon states – or at least four of them – are persisting in the policy of extended nuclear deterrence. This hypocrisy must be challenged. We have to keep hammering home the fundamental thesis that compliance with international commitments is an essential element of a civilised state. We have to keep on reminding governments that world peace cannot be achieved without respect for international law and adherence to the Charter of the United Nations. Many non-governmental organisations, including the scientists in the Pugwash Conferences, are engaged in this task. Recently, governmental organisations, for example, the group of seven nations, known as the New Agenda Coalition, of which Sweden is a leading member, became prominent in these endeavours. All of these groups should now mount a grassroots campaign to compel the nuclear weapon states to implement their undertaking under the direct auspices of the United Nations. I envisage this being accomplished in two major steps. The first step should be a No-First-Use Treaty. All nuclear weapon states, official and de facto, should sign a treaty by which they undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. The great importance of such a treaty is that it would bring to an end the pernicious effects of extended deterrence and remove any alleged military utility of The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

307

nuclear weapons. The only ‘purpose’ of nuclear weapons, while these remain in the arsenals, would be to deter nuclear attack, not to solve disputes between nations. The No-First-Use Treaty would be relatively simple to negotiate, since it would not require an elaborate verification system. Once a No-First-Use Treaty has been agreed to, the main task – agreeing on a convention to eliminate, or prohibit, nuclear weapons – would become much easier. If the only purpose of nuclear arsenals is to deter a nuclear attack, then the rationale for retaining nuclear weapons if nobody else has them would disappear. The only problem would then be to prove that nobody has them; that is to say, to ensure that nobody has retained, or will in future build up in secret, a nuclear arsenal. This brings me to the second major step: establishment of an effective verification regime in the programme of nuclear disarmament. The fear of cheating or breakout is indeed the main argument advanced against a nuclear weapon-free world, and it is incumbent on those who seek such a world to show that the risk of such scenarios can be made very small by appropriate safeguards regimes, based on technological and societal verification. It is not claimed that such regimes would provide 100 per cent security. There is no such thing as absolute security. The claim that can be made is that they would make for a safer world than the alternative. As the above analysis has shown, the alternative – based on extended nuclear deterrence – is bound to fail sooner or later. Nonetheless, we must do our utmost to ensure that the probability of a nation violating a convention prohibiting nuclear weapons is very small. The tasks that I have outlined are essential and urgent because there is a real possibility of the situation deteriorating, with a return to the Cold War climate. The immediate threat arises from the US plan – strongly promoted by the new Administration – to go ahead with the national and theatre missile defence programmes, which may lead to the violation, or abrogation, of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In response to this, Russia and China may decide to increase their nuclear arsenals, and a new nuclear arms race may ensue. Actually, a sort of nuclear arms race may be going on already, although not openly. In the early 1990s – after the end of the Cold

308

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

War and the collapse of the Soviet Union – there was a period of goodwill when both sides agreed to take measures to reduce their enormous nuclear arsenals. As part of this, the United States government decided to halt the production of new nuclear warheads and to end nuclear testing. There is a general assumption that new nuclear weapons cannot be developed and made militarily usable without them being tested. Hence, the great importance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which has been signed and ratified by a number of nations, though not enough for it to come into force. President Clinton signed it on behalf of the United States, but when it came up before the Senate for ratification it was rejected by the Republican majority. Initially, this was seen as a purely political, rather petty act of vengeance against Clinton, which would soon be rectified. But, since then, arguments of a technical nature have been put forward against the ratification of the CTBT. The policy of extended nuclear deterrence requires the retention of a nuclear arsenal. This necessitates an infrastructure to ensure the safety and reliability of the warheads in the stockpile, as well as the capability to resume testing at short notice should a situation arise demanding it. An adequate core of scientists and engineers would be employed to carry out these tasks. This was the origin of the Stockpile Stewardship Management Programme which began in 1994 and is currently running on an annual budget of about USD 4.5 billion, which the new Administration wants to increase to USD 5.3 billion. The stewardship programme includes the following tasks: . . . maintain nuclear weapon capability; develop a stockpile surveillance engineering base; and demonstrate the capability to design, fabricate and certify new warheads.

This brief is broad enough to allow the scientists to do almost anything as long as it does not openly entail nuclear testing with critical masses and the actual production of new nuclear warheads. In light of what Theodore Taylor said about weapon laboratory scientists, it is a fair assumption that they will go to the limit of their brief. The development of new warheads is not allowed, but this obstacle can be circumvented by taking an old weapon and introducing The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

309

a number of modifications. These would be permitted under the terms of the programme but would in the end produce something that can be claimed to be a more usable weapon, although eventually it would have to be tested, to give the military people confidence in the improved product. Indeed, scientists in the nuclear weapon establishments are now openly calling for the resumption of nuclear tests. There are persistent rumours, reported in articles in reputable journals, that work in Los Alamos has resulted in the development of effective new warheads. Most of the military research in the national laboratories – in Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia – is carried out in secrecy, making it impossible to say how trustworthy these rumours are, but on the grounds described above they seem feasible. The main point is that even the suspicion that one of the nuclear weapon states is acquiring new capabilities is likely to induce some other nuclear weapon states to follow suit. In Russia, for example, there are still many scientists working in the former secret cities, such as Snezhinsk or Sarov. The end of the Cold War brought them a dramatic drop in stature and salaries. Many of them are incapable of adapting to the new situation, and are eagerly waiting for a change in the situation, for example, a decision by the US to proceed with the Ballistic Missile Defense system, to feel needed once again. The decision as to whether to continue with an old, or start a new, programme of nuclear development, rests, of course, with governments, but it is scientists who are the first to be called upon to implement any such programme. There would be no progress with nuclear arms proliferation if scientists as a body refused to do any work on weapons of mass destruction. This raises the general question of the moral responsibility of scientists: should scientists be concerned about the social impact of their work and the ethical issues that arise from it? Should they accept responsibility for the harmful consequences of scientific research? A large proportion of the scientific community refuses to take any such responsibility. These scientists claim that there should be no limitation on research that pushes forward the frontiers of knowledge and deepens our understanding of the world around us and its inhabitants. The only obligation on scientists,

310

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

they claim, is to make the results of their work known to the public. What the public does with these is their business. This laissez-faire attitude is a remnant of the old days, when science had hardly any impact on the life of the community, when pure science and its applications were well separated in time and in space. In those days it would take decades before a practical application was found for a scientific discovery; and even then, different people, working in different institutions, would take it up in different ways. All this has changed radically. Nowadays, the distinction between pure and applied research is barely discernible in many areas of science. Practical applications follow hard on the heels of scientific discoveries, and may be pursued by the same people. The most spectacular demonstration of this was in nuclear physics, in the development of nuclear weapons, as I have described earlier. The same scientists who were involved in the discovery of the fission process were also involved in establishing the scientific feasibility of the atom bomb. The close link between science and technology is also seen in other areas, notably in biotechnology, in the amazing progress made in genetic engineering, and in the dazzling growth of computing and communication technologies. The tremendous advances in pure science, particularly in physics during the first half of the 20th century, and in biology during the second half, have completely changed the relation between science and society. Science has become a dominant element, affecting us in every walk of life. It has brought enormous improvements to the quality of life, but has also created grave perils. Scientists can no longer claim that their work is unrelated to the welfare of the individual or to state politics. We live in a world community of ever greater interdependence, due largely to technical advancements arising from scientific research. An interdependent community offers great benefits to its members but, by the same token, it imposes responsibilities on them. Every citizen has to be accountable for their deeds. We all owe an obligation to society. The responsibility weighs particularly heavily on scientists, precisely because of the dominant role played by science in modern society. Scientists very often see the adverse effects of their work

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

311

earlier than other members of the community, and it is incumbent on them to take steps to prevent, or to minimise, such adverse effects. It is also in scientists’ self-interest to accept this responsibility and thereby avoid the consequences to science of having a bad public image. The public holds scientists responsible for the dangers arising from scientific advance. For example, human cloning is distasteful to the public, and viewed as immoral, and science as a whole is castigated because of the few scientists who want to pursue it. The general public, through elected governments, has the means to control science, either by withholding the purse, or by restrictive regulations. Obviously, it is far better that any control is exercised by the scientists themselves. It is vitally important that science regains the respect of the community for its integrity; that it recaptures public trust in its pronouncements. Scientists must reveal a human face. They must show that it is possible to combine creativity with compassion; venture into the unknown, yet care for their fellow creatures; allow the imagination to roam, while remaining accountable for their deeds. Achieving these desiderata calls for a number of measures to be taken, including the following: Firstly, the establishment of international guidelines and codes of conduct setting ethical norms for scientific work. It should be made mandatory for national academies of science to make explicit reference to ethical issues in their terms of reference. Secondly, the routine scrutiny of scientific research projects on ethical grounds. National academies should set up ethical committees in different disciplines to assess proposed research projects for potentially dangerous consequences at the same time as scrutinising on grounds of scientific merit and cost. Thirdly, the establishment of an international ‘Early Warning Committee’, comprising distinguished scientists drawn from a range of scientific disciplines, with a brief to attempt to identify, at the earliest possible time, areas of scientific research with the potential for leading to dangerous new military capabilities. Fourthly, the introduction of courses on ethical aspects of science in university curricula, in order to stimulate reflection by young scien-

312

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

tists on the wider implications of their chosen field of research before embarking on their professional careers. Fifthly, the formulation of pledges to be taken by scientists, along the lines of the Hippocratic Oath. We need specifically to look into the issue raised in this lecture: the responsibility of scientists working in military establishments on the secret development of weapons of mass destruction. Openness is a basic requirement of science. Science cannot progress unless its findings are published and made available to other scientists. Work in military establishments, by its very nature, violates this principle: workers are not allowed to publish their findings, unless the authorities decide that they can be declassified. Of even greater import is the very question of working on weapons of mass destruction. If the use of nuclear weapons is generally considered to be a crime against humanity, should not work on developing them come under the same category? There is growing awareness in the world community about individual and collective responsibility for one’s deeds, as exemplified by the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Individuals can no longer hide behind orders from their superiors, or on grounds of national needs, for doing work that does not conform with international treaties. The development of new nuclear weapons is in contradiction to the NPT. Should scientists work on them? Is it not time for military establishments to be boycotted by the scientific community? The nuclear age is a curse to civilisation. The use of nuclear weapons carries a potential threat to the very existence of the human species on this planet. For the first time in history the destruction of the human species as a result of human action has become possible. This is a challenge to all of us – particularly to scientists – to do our utmost to prevent this from happening, to ensure that this world of ours, with all its faults and blemishes, is preserved, and even made a better place for everybody to live in.

The Nuclear Age – A Curse and a Challenge

313

Remember Your Humanity Nobel Lecture, Oslo, December 10, 1995

by Joseph Rotblat London, United Kingdom

At this momentous event in my life – the acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize – I want to speak as a scientist, but also as a human being. From my earliest days I had a passion for science. But science, the exercise of the supreme power of the human intellect, was always linked in my mind with benefit to people. I saw science as being in harmony with humanity. I did not imagine that the second half of my life would be spent on efforts to avert a mortal danger to humanity created by science. The practical release of nuclear energy was the outcome of many years of experimental and theoretical research. It had great potential for the common good. But the first the general public learned about this discovery was the news of the destruction of Hiroshima by the atom bomb. A splendid achievement of science and technology had turned malign. Science became identified with death and destruction. It is painful to me to admit that this depiction of science was deserved. The decision to use the atom bomb on Japanese cities, and the consequent build up of enormous nuclear arsenals, was made by governments, on the basis of political and military perceptions. But scientists on both sides of the iron curtain played a very significant role in maintaining the momentum of the nuclear arms race throughout the four decades of the Cold War. The role of scientists in the nuclear arms race was expressed bluntly by Lord Zuckerman, for many years Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Government: When it comes to nuclear weapons . . . it is the man in the laboratory who at the start proposes that for this or that arcane reason it would be useful to improve an old or to devise a new nuclear warhead. It is he, the technician, not the commander in the field, who is at the heart of the arms race.

315

Long before the terrifying potential of the arms race was recognized, there was a widespread instinctive abhorrence of nuclear weapons, and a strong desire to get rid of them. Indeed, the very first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations – adopted unanimously – called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. But the world was then polarized by the bitter ideological struggle between East and West. There was no chance to meet this call. The chief task was to stop the arms race before it brought utter disaster. However, after the collapse of communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, any rationale for having nuclear weapons disappeared. The quest for their total elimination could be resumed. But the nuclear powers still cling tenaciously to their weapons. Let me remind you that nuclear disarmament is not just an ardent desire of the people, as expressed in many resolutions of the United Nations. It is a legal commitment by the five official nuclear states, entered into when they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only a few months ago, when the indefinite extension of the Treaty was agreed, the nuclear powers committed themselves again to complete nuclear disarmament. This is still their declared goal. But the declarations are not matched by their policies, and this divergence seems to be intrinsic. Since the end of the Cold War the two main nuclear powers have begun to make big reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Each of them is dismantling about 2000 nuclear warheads a year. If this programme continued, all nuclear warheads could be dismantled in little over ten years from now. We have the technical means to create a nuclear-weapon-free world in about a decade. Alas, the present programme does not provide for this. When the START-2 treaty has been implemented – and remember it has not yet been ratified – we will be left with some 15,000 nuclear warheads, active and in reserve. Fifteen thousand weapons with an average yield of 20 Hiroshima bombs. Unless there is a change in the basic philosophy, we will not see a reduction of nuclear arsenals to zero for a very long time, if ever. The present basic philosophy is nuclear deterrence. This was stated clearly in the US Nuclear Posture Review which concluded: ‘‘PostCold War environment requires nuclear deterrence,’’ and this is echoed

316

Remember Your Humanity

by other nuclear states. Nuclear weapons are kept as a hedge against some unspecified dangers. This policy is simply an inertial continuation from the Cold War era. The Cold War is over but Cold War thinking survives. Then, we were told that a world war was prevented by the existence of nuclear weapons. Now, we are told that nuclear weapons prevent all kinds of war. These are arguments that purport to prove a negative. I am reminded of a story told in my boyhood, at the time when radio communication began. Two wise men were arguing about the ancient civilization in their respective countries. One said: ‘my country has a long history of technological development: we have carried out deep excavations and found a wire, which shows that already in the old days we had the telegraph.’ The other man retorted: ‘we too made excavations; we dug much deeper than you and found . . . nothing, which proves that already in those days we had wireless communication!’

There is no direct evidence that nuclear weapons prevented a world war. Conversely, it is known that they nearly caused one. The most terrifying moment in my life was October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I did not know all the facts – we have learned only recently how close we were to war – but I knew enough to make me tremble. The lives of millions of people were about to end abruptly; millions of others were to suffer a lingering death; much of our civilization was to be destroyed. It all hung on the decision of one man, Nikita Khrushchev: would he or would he not yield to the US ultimatum? This is the reality of nuclear weapons: they may trigger a world war; a war which, unlike previous ones, destroys all of civilization. As for the assertion that nuclear weapons prevent wars, how many more wars are needed to refute this argument? Tens of millions have died in the many wars that have taken place since 1945. In a number of them nuclear states were directly involved. In two they were actually defeated. Having nuclear weapons was of no use to them. To sum up, there is no evidence that a world without nuclear weapons would be a dangerous world. On the contrary, it would be a safer world, as I will show later.

Remember Your Humanity

317

We are told that the possession of nuclear weapons – in some cases even the testing of these weapons – is essential for national security. But this argument can be made by other countries as well. If the militarily most powerful – and least threatened – states need nuclear weapons for their security, how can one deny such security to countries that are truly insecure? The present nuclear policy is a recipe for proliferation. It is a policy for disaster. To prevent this disaster – for the sake of humanity – we must get rid of all nuclear weapons. Achieving this goal will take time, but it will never happen unless we make a start. Some essential steps towards it can be taken now. Several studies, and a number of public statements by senior military and political personalities, testify that – except for disputes between the present nuclear states – all military conflicts, as well as threats to peace, can be dealt with using conventional weapons. This means that the only function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, is to deter a nuclear attack. All nuclear weapon states should now recognize that this is so, and declare – in Treaty form – that they will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. This would open the way to the gradual, mutual reduction of nuclear arsenals, down to zero. It would also open the way for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. This would be universal – it would prohibit all possession of nuclear weapons. We will need to work out the necessary verification system to safeguard the Convention. A Pugwash study produced suggestions on these matters. The mechanisms for negotiating such a Convention already exist. Entering into negotiations does not commit the parties. There is no reason why they should not begin now. If not now, when? So I ask the nuclear powers to abandon the out-of-date thinking of the Cold War period and take a fresh look. Above all, I appeal to them to bear in mind the long-term threat that nuclear weapons pose to humankind and to begin action towards their elimination. Remember your duty to humanity. My second appeal is to my fellow scientists. I described earlier the disgraceful role played by a few scientists, caricatured as ‘Dr Strangeloves,’ in fuelling the arms race. They did great damage to the image of science.

318

Remember Your Humanity

On the other side there are the scientists, in Pugwash and other bodies, who devote much of their time and ingenuity to averting the dangers created by advances in science and technology. However, they embrace only a small part of the scientific community. I want to address the scientific community as a whole. You are doing fundamental work, pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge, but often you do it without giving much thought to the impact of your work on society. Precepts such as ‘science is neutral’ or ‘science has nothing to do with politics,’ still prevail. They are remnants of the ivory tower mentality, although the ivory tower was finally demolished by the Hiroshima bomb. Here, for instance, is a question: Should any scientist work on the development of weapons of mass destruction? A clear ‘‘no’’ was the answer recently given by Hans Bethe. Professor Bethe, a Nobel Laureate, is the most senior of the surviving members of the Manhattan Project. On the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of Hiroshima, he issued a statement that I will quote in full. As the Director of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos, I participated at the most senior level in the World War II Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic weapons. Now, at age 88, l am one of the few remaining such senior persons alive. Looking back at the half century since that time, I feel the most intense relief that these weapons have not been used since World War II, mixed with the horror that tens of thousands of such weapons have been built since that time – one hundred times more than any of us at Los Alamos could ever have imagined. Today we are rightly in an era of disarmament and dismantlement of nuclear weapons. But in some countries nuclear weapons development still continues. Whether and when the various Nations of the World can agree to stop this is uncertain. But individual scientists can still influence this process by withholding their skills. Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons – and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.

If all scientists heeded this call there would be no more new nuclear warheads; no French scientists at Mururoa; no new chemical and biological poisons. The arms race would be truly over.

Remember Your Humanity

319

But there are other areas of scientific research that may directly or indirectly lead to harm to society. This calls for constant vigilance. The purpose of some government or industrial research is sometimes concealed, and misleading information is presented to the public. It should be the duty of scientists to expose such malfeasance. ‘‘Whistle-blowing’’ should become part of the scientist’s ethos. This may bring reprisals; a price to be paid for one’s convictions. The price may be very heavy, as illustrated by the disproportionately severe punishment of Mordechai Vanunu. I believe he has suffered enough. The time has come to formulate guidelines for the ethical conduct of scientists, perhaps in the form of a voluntary Hippocratic Oath. This would be particularly valuable for young scientists when they embark on a scientific career. The US Student Pugwash Group has taken up this idea – and that is very heartening. At a time when science plays such a powerful role in the life of society, when the destiny of the whole of mankind may hinge on the results of scientific research, it is incumbent on all scientists to be fully conscious of that role, and conduct themselves accordingly. I appeal to my fellow scientists to remember their responsibility to humanity. My third appeal is to my fellow citizens in all countries: Help us to establish lasting peace in the world. I have to bring to your notice a terrifying reality: with the development of nuclear weapons Man has acquired, for the first time in history, the technical means to destroy the whole of civilization in a single act. Indeed, the whole human species is endangered, by nuclear weapons or by other means of wholesale destruction which further advances in science are likely to produce. I have argued that we must eliminate nuclear weapons. While this would remove the immediate threat, it will not provide permanent security. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. The knowledge of how to make them cannot be erased. Even in a nuclearweapon-free world, should any of the great powers become involved in a military confrontation, they would be tempted to rebuild their nuclear arsenals. That would still be a better situation than the one we have now, because the rebuilding would take a considerable time, and in that time the dispute might be settled.

320

Remember Your Humanity

A nuclear-weapon-free world would be safer than the present one. But the danger of the ultimate catastrophe would still be there. The only way to prevent it 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. This need was recognized forty years ago when we said in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: 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?

The abolition of war is also the commitment of the nuclear weapon states: Article VI of the NPT calls for a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. Any international treaty entails some surrender of national sovereignty, and is generally unpopular. As we said in the RussellEinstein Manifesto: ‘‘The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.’’ Whatever system of governance is eventually adopted, it is important that it carries the people with it. We need to convey the message that safeguarding our common property, humankind, will require developing in each of us a new loyalty: a loyalty to mankind. It calls for the nurturing of a feeling of belonging to the human race. We have to become world citizens. Notwithstanding the fragmentation that has occurred since the end of the Cold War, and the many wars for recognition of national or ethnic identities, I believe that the prospects for the acceptance of this new loyalty are now better than at the time of the RussellEinstein Manifesto. This is so largely because of the enormous progress made by science and technology during these 40 years. The fantastic advances in communication and transportation have shrunk our globe. All nations of the world have become close neighbours. Modern information techniques enable us to learn instantly about every event in every part of the globe. We can talk to each other via the various networks. This facility will improve enormously with time, because the achievements so far have only scratched the surface. Technology is driving us together. In many ways we are becoming like one family.

Remember Your Humanity

321

In advocating the new loyalty to mankind I am not suggesting that we give up national loyalties. Each of us has loyalties to several groups – from the smallest, the family, to the largest, at present, the nation. Many of these groups provide protection for their members. With the global threats resulting from science and technology, the whole of humankind now needs protection. We have to extend our loyalty to the whole of the human race. What we are advocating in Pugwash, a war-free world, will be seen by many as a Utopian dream. It is not Utopian. There already exist in the world large regions, for example, the European Union, within which war is inconceivable. What is needed is to extend these to cover the world’s major powers. In any case, we have no choice. The alternative is unacceptable. Let me quote the last passage of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: We appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open for a new paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task. Above all, remember your humanity.

322

Remember Your Humanity

The Crime and Punishment of Mordechai Vanunu Opening Speech Given by Joseph Rotblat at the Conference on Democracy, Human Rights and Mordechai Vanunu

Tel Aviv, 14–15 October 1996

[On 14–15 October 1996, a meeting devoted to Mordechai Vanunu was held in Tel Aviv, Israel. J. Rotblat, in his personal capacity, chaired that meeting. We print below the text of his opening statement.] This is a unique conference. We have come here from many countries and from various walks of life. The participants in the conference represent a multitude of groups from different cultures, religions and political persuasions. We are here for the sake of one man. Mordechai Vanunu. Forty-two years old yesterday, he has been lingering in Ashkelon prison for a quarter of his life, in solitary confinement. Our mission is to plead for the restoration of his freedom on humanitarian grounds. But in presenting our plea, we have to examine the motivation and the consequences of his deed; we have to look into the crime and punishment of Mordechai Vanunu. At this Conference we will discuss several aspects of the case: the story of his disclosure of what was going on in the Dimona plant; the legal aspect of his imprisonment; and the effect of his solitary confinement on his mental health. We will consider the motivation of his whistle-blowing; the relevance of his disclosures to Israel’s security; and the general human rights issue. A number of papers will be presented on these topics, with opportunities for questions and comments from the floor. But, to start with, I wish to avail myself of the Chairman’s prerogative to present my own views, largely based on my long involvement and experience in the matter of nuclear weapons. I do not intend to present him as a hero, or as a martyr; I am concerned about him as a human being. According to the laws of this country, Vanunu committed a punishable offence, but I submit that there were substantial mitigating circumstances, mainly

323

the highly subjective element of motivation. I also submit that the punishment was disproportionately harsh. We have here a classic case of the dilemma which in this nuclear age faces many scientists and engineers with a social conscience; a conflict of loyalties, between loyalty to one’s nation and loyalty to mankind. In this specific case the dilemma was between complying with a written undertaking not to divulge the nature of the work in which he was employed, and his conviction that the product of this work, nuclear weapons, constituted a threat to mankind. Mordechai Vanunu felt very strongly on the issue of nuclear weapons. This is an issue on which there exists a sharp difference of opinion. There are many who believe that nuclear weapons are needed for peace and security. There are many more – indeed the great majority of nations – who believe that nuclear weapons are evil and should be banished completely. This view is endorsed by the United Nations and is enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty which, by now, has been signed by 183 nations. Israel is not among these 183. Israel decided that its special situation – a country surrounded by hostile neighbours – demanded the possession of nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent. This decision, taken a long time ago, was never announced formally, although it was common knowledge long before Vanunu came on the scene. Many people, including friends of Israel, were unhappy about this decision. As they saw it, far from bringing security, it would be an additional cause of strife, a new source of danger to the whole region. I was one of those people, and I expressed my misgivings to David Ben-Gurion more than 30 years ago, when I met him in June 1965. I was involved in the making of the atom bomb from the very beginning, and have been advocating their abolition ever since the Hiroshima bomb. I am a disciple of the great Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, the champion of openness in society. As far back as 1944 he warned that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by one country would induce other countries to acquire these weapons. Instead of becoming more secure the country would become a nuclear target. Events have proved him right. America’s acquisition of the atom bomb provoked the Soviet Union to do the same, leading to the insane nuclear arms race which nearly brought our civi-

324

The Crime and Punishment of Mordechai Vanunu

lization to an end. On a smaller scale, a similar situation has arisen between India and Pakistan, although neither has formally admitted to the possession of nuclear weapons. The reliance by Israel on the atom bomb for its security is, in my opinion, also misguided. It has created a nuclear asymmetry in the Middle East; provoking other nations in this region to attempt to restore the balance by acquiring nuclear weapons for themselves. So far these attempts have been defeated, but for how long? We have to remember that this is not an issue of concern to just one region. It is a matter of concern to all people. It is not yet generally appreciated that a full scale nuclear war may destroy not only our civilization but the whole of the human race. Any use of nuclear weapons, anywhere, carries the risk of escalating to a much wider use, and threatening everybody on the globe. This risk was particularly acute at the time when Vanunu acted, because the world was then polarized by the ideological struggle between East and West. We were then in a state of war: a cold war which could easily have turned into a hot war. The threat of global destruction in a nuclear war makes it the duty of each of us to strive to prevent such a catastrophe. A prerequisite for this is that the general public is kept informed about what is going on. We are all entitled to know about any activity that may endanger our lives and threaten future generations. The task of providing information falls particularly on scientists and technologists, because they are likely to be the first to learn about activities which carry a potential threat to the future of mankind. This was Vanunu’s motivation for his deed. I appeal to those who do not subscribe to this view on nuclear weapons, that they should try to understand the strong motivation of people such as Vanunu. They should see him not as a traitor to his country, but as a sincere, even if misguided, whistle-blower, who attempted to warn the world of a potential source of danger. The profound effects which science and technology now have on the destiny of mankind make it necessary for whistle-blowing to become part of the ethos of scientists. Several examples of whistleblowing will be presented at this conference. In each of these cases, the whistle-blower has had to face the consequences of their action. I faced such a problem myself – although with much less personal risk – when in 1955 I disclosed that tests of hydrogen bombs preThe Crime and Punishment of Mordechai Vanunu

325

sented a much greater health hazard to the public than governments had led us to believe. There are now campaigns to make whistle-blowing an accepted form of societal behaviour. For example, it is proposed that the convention on the abolition of nuclear weapons – which I hope will be agreed in the next few decades – should contain a clause mandating every country to pass national laws that would make it the right and duty of every citizen to notify an international authority about any attempt to violate the convention. Such legislation would provide immunity to whistle-blowers. Alas, we are still a long way from it being generally accepted. Mordechai Vanunu acted ahead of his time. Human society does not take kindly to individuals who are ahead of their time; nonconformism is disapproved of. Vanunu has had to pay for his whistle-blowing. This brings me to the second part of my statement, the punishment of Mordechai Vanunu. It is an axiom of every civilized society, that the punishment should fit the crime, that there should be some proportionality between the magnitude of the offence and the severity of the punishment. In the case of Vanunu, the trial was held in secret and I do not know the details of the offence with which he was charged, but the sentence is known. And to every decent, law-abiding person, who has given serious thought to this matter, a sentence of 18 years in solitary confinement seems out of proportion to the harm his act might have caused to the State of Israel. In saying this I recall other known offences in relation to nuclear weapons. A specific case that I have in mind is that of Klaus Fuchs, whom I knew personally from my days on the Manhattan project. It is the general opinion that his spying activities were the crime of the century, because of their immense impact on the whole course of world affairs. I spoke with sympathy about Vanunu, but I have no sympathy for Klaus Fuchs. I have always utterly condemned his doings. The common factor in the two cases is unauthorized conveyance of information, but other than this they are completely different, both in their method and in the consequences. Vanunu told the story of the Dimona installation openly, he gave it to the whole world, but Fuchs transmitted information in secret, to a regime notorious for its suppression of freedom of information. Vanunu brought to

326

The Crime and Punishment of Mordechai Vanunu

the knowledge of the general public data which were of no significant value to the enemies of Israel. Klaus Fuchs gave vital information to the Soviets, he gave them the blueprint of the Nagasaki bomb complete with the technical dimensions, and this enabled them to manufacture the bomb several years earlier than they would have been able to do otherwise. For his heinous spying activities, Fuchs was sentenced to 14 years in prison, but was released after serving nine years, and these nine years in prison were under conditions which would seem luxurious to Vanunu. Vanunu received 18 years, and is incarcerated under conditions which are generally considered as inhuman. I said that Vanunu’s deed was of no significant value to Israel’s enemies. This needs elaboration. In a secret trial he was convicted for spying activities. In Israel he is depicted as a traitor to his country and is an object of hate; he is condemned for endangering the security of Israel. I have already explained his motivation, and now I want to state my opinion that what he has done has in fact caused little harm to Israel. Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that Israel did make the right decision in acquiring a nuclear arsenal. What could be the main purpose of that arsenal? Surely, not for the weapons to be actually used after an attack on Israel. No, the main purpose was to prevent such an attack, to be a deterrent to any attempt to destroy Israel with conventional or other types of weapons. For this purpose it is essential that the would-he attacker would know of the existence of the nuclear deterrent. But Israel did not want to be branded as a nuclear power. This is why Israel’s nuclear policy is one of deliberate ambiguity: it does not formally acknowledge the possession of the bomb, but it wants everybody to know that it does have the bomb. Vanunu provided this knowledge. It is possible that Israel would have preferred for this information to be conveyed to its enemies in an indirect way, rather than by direct disclosure from an Israeli employee. But this by itself did not imperil the security of the State of Israel. The location of the establishment was known. And the disclosure about the throughput of the reprocessing plant was of no material help to any other country intending to make its own nuclear weapons. In view of all this I find it difficult to understand why he received such a severe sentence. The Crime and Punishment of Mordechai Vanunu

327

In my Nobel lecture last December, I said that Vanunu had suffered enough. In stating this I merely echoed the sentiments of people from all over the world. Indeed, to be kept in complete isolation for ten years is enough punishment for crimes far worse than his. There is genuine concern about the effect on his health. I am told that prolonged solitary confinement is bound to have a harmful effect on one’s mental faculties, and may cause permanent damage. Surely this cannot be the aim of Israeli justice. What, in fact, can be the purpose of continuing to keep him in prison? One explanation is that he is being used as an example; as a warning to others not to attempt a similar deed. If so, spending 10 years in prison should be enough to serve as a deterrent. A more widely perceived explanation is that he must be kept in isolation in order to prevent him from revealing further information harmful to Israel. If this refers to the disclosure of new nuclear secrets, then it is nonsense. Having followed developments in nuclear weapons throughout the years, I am firmly of the opinion that there is nothing of significance that he could tell at the present time that is not already known and published. Thus, I fail to see any reason why Vanunu should not be released now. Hence the plea for the restoration of his freedom. I call on Israel’s legal authorities to declare that in the name of humanitarian justice the rest of the sentence can be remitted. I appeal to the Israeli government to make a gesture towards the creation in the Middle East of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction, by acknowledging that the Vanunu case is no longer relevant. And I beg the President of the State of Israel, General Ezer Weizman, to use his prerogative for clemency to order the release of Mordechai Vanunu. To them, and to all the people of Israel, I plead: remember your humanity.

328

The Crime and Punishment of Mordechai Vanunu

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies1) Sir Joseph Rotblat President Emeritus, Pugwash Conferences

This paper is mainly concerned with the nuclear issue, specifically with the dangers to the world that may arise from the nuclear policies of the George W. Bush Administration. But in order to put these policies into a proper perspective, I have to start with observations on the general doctrines and strategies of this Administration. I should declare, from the start, that I am strongly critical of the present US Administration in its conduct of world affairs. In the highly charged political climate of the recent months – largely related to the Iraq debacle – anyone criticizing the Bush Administration has immediately been branded as anti-American, and placed in the defensive position of having to begin with a statement that one is not anti-American. So let me say this clearly: I am not anti-American. On the contrary, I submit that it is the policies of the current Administration that should be called anti-American, because – in my opinion – they do not represent the views of the majority of the American people. I am convinced that these policies would not have been pursued if Al Gore had won the election in 2000. You will remember that – even with the distraction of Ralph Nader – Al Gore had a majority in the national vote, and it was only through some questionable manoevres that he was deprived of the Presidency. It seems to me very unlikely that, had he been elected, Al Gore would have alienated so many to such an extent. It is important to note that the current polarization of the world is largely the consequence of the Bush slogan: ‘‘You are either with

1) Public Forum, 53rd Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Friday 18 July 2003, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

329

us or against us’’. This was initially applied to the campaign against al-Qaeda, but it puts all those who do not fully agree with the Bush policies into the category of villains. There are many, perhaps a majority in the world, who are strongly against terrorists, and ready to join in actions against them, but are not happy with the Bush policies. These policies are seen by many outside the United States as aiming at establishing a US hegemony in the world, and treating international undertakings with contempt, to be adhered to only if they suit the interest of the United States. What I find so repugnant about these policies is their blatant hypocrisy. The USA proclaims itself as the champion of democracy in the world, while actually imposing its will in a dictatorial manner. It is supposed to uphold the rules of law, yet violates legal commitments under international treaties. It castigates members of the United Nations for exercising their rights under existing rules but takes military action against a member state without the authority of the United Nations. A central criticism of the United Nations made by the Bush team is that it is ineffective, a useless and enfeebled organ, incapable of taking decisive action. This sort of criticism has traditionally been leveled at democracies by totalitarian regimes. Long discussions and protracted negotiations are an inherent feature of a democratic system, in which the needs and aspirations of many groups or nations have to be reconciled in a peaceful manner. The Bush Administration has no truck with such approaches, even though it professes to champion democracy. In my view, such policies are unacceptable in a civilized society because in the long run, they would spell the ruin of civilization. The pursuit of these policies was evident in the campaign against Iraq. The stated justification was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but others see it primarily as an attempt to increase the US influence in the Middle East. There is plenty of documentary evidence to support the thesis that the main reason for bringing down the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq – and making similar threats against Syria and Iran – was to change the political configuration in the Middle East so as to give the United States political, economic and military control of that region. The history of these endeavours, is now general knowledge, but I want to recall some salient points.

330

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

Even during the Cold War years, various right wing groups in the United States – who have become known as neo-conservatives – advocated strong aggressive foreign policies. These groups had considerable sway during the Reagan Presidency, but is was after the end of the Cold War – and the outcome of the first Gulf War, which they saw as having left the business unfinished – that they became really active. In the spring of 1992 a document was produced, called Defense Policy Guidance, which was stunning in the clarity and ambition of its vision of a new US foreign and military policy. It called for US dominance by preventing the rise of any potentially hostile power, and for a policy of pre-emptive military action against states suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction. The document was written by two relatively unknown functionaries in the Pentagon’s policy department. They were Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby; their boss at the time was Dick Cheney, then Secretary for Defense. All three are now prominent members of the Bush Administration. In July 1996, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies issued a document entitled ‘‘A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm’’. The head of the Institute was Richard Perle – for years known as the Prince of Darkness, for his extreme views, and strong support of the Israel lobby. The document called on the then Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to adopt a radical change in policy, starting with a repudiation of the Oslo Accords, and to be followed by a campaign to eliminate Saddam Hussein and destabilize the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. In February 1998, Richard Perle wrote an Open Letter to President Clinton, demanding a full-scale drive for a regime change in Baghdad. It had 25 signatories, including many who are now in the Bush Administration, e.g.: Donald Rumsfeld – now Defense Secretary, and Paul Wolfowitz – now Deputy Defense Secretary. The al-Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001 provided the opportunity for these policies to be put into practice. The case for a Pax Americana had been set out, and its first stage was implemented in the war against Iraq. The prolonged squabbles over UN Resolutions and inspections, aiming at giving legitimacy to the war, seem to have been just a charade, intended to create the impression that it was not the USA The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

331

alone but a coalition that was involved in the anti-Iraq campaign. The decision to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime having been taken much earlier, it was only the time for its implementation that had to be chosen. This was probably dictated not by the outcome of the Hans Blix inspections, but by the need to assemble the necessary military strength. The military strength of the USA is truly awesome. Since the end of the Cold War, the Americans have built up an enormous military potential. Making use of the latest advances in science and the achievements in technology – and supported by budgets of astronomical dimensions – the United States has become the greatest military power that ever existed; nearly exceeding in sophistication all other nations combined. Against this might, the Iraqi army, with antiquated tanks and no air-power to provide cover, did not stand a chance. Of course, the fact that Saddam Hussein’s regime was rotten, and was kept from falling apart entirely by the terror imposed by a small number of thugs, contributed to its rapid demise. The claim by Rumsfeld et al. that Iraq posed a threat to other nations, including the United States, was just laughable. Indeed, the official reason for the military attack on Iraq – the removal of weapons of mass destruction – has proven to be completely indefensible, since no such weapons have so far been found, despite the intense search carried out by large groups of experts appointed by the USA. As time goes on, and the WMDs are not found, there will be an attempt to play down the importance of finding them, but this will not alter the fact that the war was started on false premises. All the same, it would be hypocritical for those of us who were against the war not to rejoice over the downfall of a tyrannical regime, and not to admit that this would not have come about so quickly without military intervention. But the price we paid for this is far too high: it has reinstated in world affairs the old maxim that the ends justify the means. The events of the recent months are a severe setback to those who believe that morality and adherence to the rules of law should be our guiding principles. For the time being, the rule seems to be: might is right, and in submitting to this rule, the governments of many countries may be driven to adopt a pragmatic policy; they

332

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

may be forced to acknowledge that there is now a single superpower; they may feel obliged to accept the role of the United States as the world’s policeman. But this cannot be a permanent solution. Even if the Americans were less arrogant in pursuing that role than they are now, a system with a built-in inequality is bound to be unstable. It is bound to create resentment, a resentment that will find expression in various ways, including an increase in international terrorism. This in turn will force the ‘‘policemen’’ to take countermeasures, which will make the inequality even more acute. Democracy in the world, as we know it today, would be ended. This is a possible scenario, but it need not happen. My main hope is that the opposition to it will come from within the United States itself. At present, Bush is very popular and carries a majority of public opinion: this is the usual wave of patriotism which comes with a military victory, but it is already decreasing significantly. I believe that the strong anti-war demonstrations that we saw earlier are a true reflection of the views of the majority of the American people. Somehow, I do not see the American people accepting the role assigned to them by the clique that has hijacked the Administration. Public opinion is bound to turn when the dangers associated with the current policies become apparent. My main worry is that in the meantime these dangers may lead to catastrophic results. The greatest dangers derive from the nuclear doctrines pursued by the Bush Administration. These new doctrines have been comprehensively analysed by Steven Miller in a paper, ‘‘Skepticism Triumphant’’, an updated version of a presentation he made at the Pugwash conference in Agra last year. He contrasts the views of the ‘‘Skeptics’’, by which he means the Bush Administration, against those of the arms controllers. His conclusion is that arms control is dead. This conclusion is probably correct, but it does not follow from this that we have to accept fatalistically the new doctrines. Arms control and unilateral policies are not the only options. In his paper, Steven Miller was mainly concerned with contrasting these two, and therefore he left out from consideration another alternative to arms control, namely, nuclear disarmament. In Pugwash we faced, from the beginning, the dilemma of the two approaches: arms control versus disarmament. A few years ago The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

333

we spent much time, in the Council and in special workshops, discussing the pros and cons of the two approaches. This dispute has now been brought to an end by the entry onto the scene of the new approach. Arms control is now dead. But, as discussed earlier, the policy of the Bush Administration, envisaging US world dominance, is unacceptable. I submit that this leaves only one option for Pugwash: to pursue nuclear disarmament. The elimination of nuclear weapons has always been the goal of Pugwash, following the call in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. We have pursued this goal for moral reasons, because ethical issues have always played a major role in Pugwash: any use of nuclear weapons has been seen as immoral. But we have also seen in our goals a basic purpose: survival. Any use of nuclear weapons would carry the danger of escalation and a threat to our continued existence. But the use of nuclear weapons is explicitly contemplated in the policies of the Bush Administration. These policies have been promulgated in a number of statements, most of them made during the last year. The following documents are of particular importance:    

Nuclear Posture Review. January, 2002 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. September, 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. December 2002 National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense. May 2003

These policies seem to have two aims: one, a defensive strategy to make the USA invulnerable to an attack from outside; the second, an offensive strategy, to threaten an unfriendly regime with military action, including the use of nuclear weapons, if it attempts to acquire WMDs for itself. For the first purpose, the decision was made to give a high priority to missile defence. As a first step, the USA abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which had been previously considered the bedrock of the arms control system. A hugely increased budget has been provided for a missile defence project, which is said to

334

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

be essential in a world of potential threats from weapons of mass destruction. But it is in the offensive aspect that the biggest changes have occurred. The new Nuclear Posture Review spells out a strategy which incorporates nuclear capability into conventional war planning. The previous doctrine of deterrence, by which the actual use of nuclear weapons was seen as a last resort, when everything else had failed, has been thrown overboard. In the new doctrine, nuclear weapons have become a standard part of military strategy; they would be used in a conflict just like any other explosives. This represents a major shift in the whole rationale for nuclear weapons. The main reason for this change seems to be the fear that states seen as unfriendly to the USA may acquire weapons of mass destruction: ‘‘We will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons’’. In this pursuit, the Bush Administration is prepared to go very far, including pre-emptive strikes: ‘‘We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.’’ And it goes on: ‘‘To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.’’ The implementation of this policy has already begun. The United States is designing a new nuclear warhead of low yield, but with a shape that would give it a very high penetrating power into concrete, the ‘‘robust nuclear earth penetrator’’. It is intended to destroy bunkers with thick concrete walls in which weapons of mass destruction may be stored, or enemy leaders may seek shelter. To enable this project to go ahead the US Senate has already decided to rescind the long-standing prohibition on the development of low yield nuclear weapons. Other types of warheads are also contemplated. The new weapons will have to be tested. At present there is a treaty prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons (except in subcritical assemblies), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the United States has signed but not ratified. Given the contempt of the Bush Administration for international treaties, little excuse

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

335

would be needed to authorize the testing of the new weapon. Indeed, the need to resume testing is now openly advocated. If the USA resumed testing, this would be a signal to other nuclear weapon states to do the same. China would be almost certain to resume testing. After the US decision to develop ballistic missile defences, China feels vulnerable, and is likely to attempt to reduce its vulnerability by modernizing and enlarging its nuclear arsenal. An opinion is building up that: ‘‘China should realize that the present minimum nuclear arsenal is inadequate to meet the new challenges, and therefore should greatly expand its nuclear force to the extent that it can be actually used in different scenarios.’’ At present this is a minority view, but it may become significant should the USA resume testing. Other states with nuclear weapons, such as India or Pakistan, might use the window of opportunity opened by the USA to update their arsenals. The danger of a new nuclear arms race is real. Another worry about the development of the new bomb is that it would blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons. The chief characteristic of a nuclear weapon is its enormous destructive power, unique even in comparison with current chemical or biological weaponry, also designated as weapons of mass destruction. This has resulted in a taboo on the use of nuclear weapons in combat, a taboo that has held out since Nagasaki. But if at one end of the spectrum a nuclear bomb can be manufactured which does not differ quantitatively from ordinary explosives, then the qualitative difference will also disappear; the nuclear threshold will be crossed, and nuclear weapons will gradually come to be seen as a tool of war, even though the danger they present to the existence of the human race will remain. For the USA, the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons has already been eroded, as was made clear in the Nuclear Posture Review, but the situation has become even more threatening with the additional disposition to act pre-emptively. The danger of this policy can hardly be over-emphasized. If the militarily mightiest country declares its readiness to carry out a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, others may soon follow. The Kashmir crisis, in May last year, is a stark warning of the reality of the nuclear peril. India’s declared policy is not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. But if the United States – whose nuclear policies are largely

336

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

followed by India – makes a pre-emptive nuclear use part of its doctrine, this would give India the legitimacy to similarly threaten pre-emptive action against Pakistan. George Fernandes, India’s Minister for Defence, said recently: India had ‘‘a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq.’’ More likely perhaps is that Pakistan would carry this out first. Taiwan presents another potential scenario for a pre-emptive nuclear strike by the United States. Should the Taiwan authorities decide to declare independence, this would inevitably result in an attempted military invasion by mainland China. The USA, which is committed to the defence of Taiwan, may then opt for a pre-emptive strike. And we still have the problem of North Korea, described by Bush as one of the ‘‘axis of evil’’. Under the Bush dictum not to allow the possession of weapons of mass destruction by any state considered to be hostile, North Korea will be called upon to close down all work on nuclear weapons. It is by no means certain that Kim Jong Il will submit to these demands, and a critical situation may arise in that part of the world. A major worry in this respect are developments in Japan. So far Japan has been kept out of the nuclear weapons club by Article 9 of its constitution: . . . the Japanese people forever renounce . . . the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

However, partly at the urging of the USA, strong tendencies are now appearing – with the backing of the Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi – to revise the constitution so as to make it legal for Japan to become a nuclear-weapon state. Altogether, the aggressive policy of the United States, under the Bush Administration, has created a precarious situation in world affairs, with a greatly increased danger of nuclear weapons being used in combat. Moreover, if the use of nuclear weapons is made legal, it would preclude passing of laws to prevent the development of new types of weapons, with even greater destructive potential than current WMDs – a truly horrifying prospect. Sir Martin Rees, the British The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

337

Astronomer Royal, gives civilization a 50/50 chance of surviving this century. Others believe that this is optimistic. What should be the Pugwash stand on this matter? Does the new situation call for a corresponding change in our activities? Let me first state that I fully support the efforts made by the Secretary-General towards the resolution of local conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. His success in bringing together personalities from opposing camps encourages us to continue these activities; they may prevent a regional crisis from getting out of control. But it is the central issue that I am concerned about. A year ago, in La Jolla, we have adopted the Goals of Pugwash for the next five years. The relevant document states: ‘‘Pugwash is strongly committed to the goal of abolishing all nuclear weapons. It is imperative that Pugwash constantly remind the international community of the immorality, illegality, and peril inherent in nuclear weapons, and to propose concrete steps towards their elimination.’’ In the second year of the Quinquennium it is high time to take these steps. Any attempt to achieve our goals by persuading the Bush Administration to change its policies through logical persuasion, or by appealing to moral instincts, would be hopeless and a complete waste of time. But it may not be a waste of time if such an appeal is made to the general public. As I said earlier, hope lies in a change of public opinion, particularly in the United States, to rise in opposition to the current policies, and throw them out in the process usually employed in democratic countries, namely, in free elections. Therefore, my suggestion is that the Pugwash effort should be towards an acceleration of that process in a campaign to influence public opinion, a campaign based on principles of morality and equity. The immorality in the use of nuclear weapons is taken for granted, but this aspect is very seldom raised when calling for nuclear disarmament. We are told that a campaign based on moral principles is a non-starter, and we are afraid of appearing naı¨ve, and divorced from reality. I see in the use of this argument evidence that we have allowed ethical considerations to be ignored for far too long. We are accused of not being realistic, when what we are trying to do is to prevent real dangers, the dangers that would result from the current policies of the Bush Administration.

338

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

The public at large is ignorant about these dangers and we urgently need a campaign of public education. The other basic principle is adherence to international law. It is a sine qua non of a civilized society that nations fulfil their legal obligations and respect international law. World peace cannot be achieved without adherence to international treaties. There is much deliberate obfuscation and brainwashing in this respect. Let me illustrate this with the example which happens to be at the heart of the problem, the problem of the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). Pugwash was very much involved in this treaty, in its earliest years, when we saw it as an important measure towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Let me recall the salient facts about the NPT, to which 98 percent of nations have subscribed. In accordance with the treaty, all non-nuclear states that signed it undertook not to acquire nuclear weapons in any way. At the same time, the five states which officially possessed those weapons – by virtue of the fact that they had tested them by a certain date – undertook to get rid of theirs. The relevant Article VI reads: Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

By signing and ratifying the NPT, the nuclear member states are legally committed to nuclear disarmament. The hawks in those states, in an attempt to retain nuclear weapons, utilized an ambiguity in Article VI, which makes it appear that nuclear disarmament is linked with the achievement of general and complete disarmament. But the NPT Review Conference – an official part of the implementation of the NPT – at its session in 2000, removed this ambiguity in a statement issued by all five nuclear weapons states. It contains the following: . . . an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States Parties are committed under Article VI.

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

339

This makes the situation perfectly clear. The Bush policy, which is based on the continued existence (and use) of nuclear weapons, is in direct contradiction to the legally binding NPT. But the Bush Administration seems to have managed to convince the public that only a part of the NPT, the part that applies to the non-nuclear states, is valid, and that therefore states which violate it – as Iran now stands accused of doing – must be punished for the transgression. The part concerning the obligation of the nuclear states is deliberately being obliterated. Let me cite two items which recently appeared in British national newspapers: At a meeting of the IAEA today, the US will urge it to declare Tehran in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty seeks to confine nuclear weapons to Russia, Britain, France, China and America.

I have emphasized the second sentence because it displays the complete reversal of the purpose of the NPT. The other newspaper – none other than The Times – reports similarly: It [the NPT] was established to stop the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the original declared nuclear powers of the US, China, Russia, the UK and France.

There is no mention of the obligation of the latter. We are being told all the time how dangerous nuclear weapons are and that they must not be allowed to fall into the hands of undesirable elements or rogue regimes: Weapons of mass destruction . . . nuclear, biological, and chemical – in the possession of hostile states and terrorists, represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States.

What we are not being told is that these weapons are just as dangerous in the possession of friendly nations. We are not being reminded that – with the realization of these dangers – even the United States has undertaken to get rid of its own nuclear arsenal. We are facing here a basic issue in which the ethical and legal aspects are intertwined. The use of nuclear weapons is seen by the great majority of people in the world as immoral, due to their in-

340

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

discriminate nature and unprecedented destructive power. Their possession – and therefore likely use – is thus equally unacceptable, whether by ‘‘rogue’’ or benevolent regimes. The elimination of nuclear weapons has been the declared aim of the United Nations from the beginning, and resolutions to this effect are passed, year after year, by large majorities of the General Assembly. These resolutions are ignored by the nuclear weapon states, as are all attempts to discuss the issue by the organ set up for this purpose, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. There is a need to keep hammering home the point that America’s stand on the NPT issue is iniquitous. It has signed and ratified an international treaty which commits it to get rid of nuclear weapons, yet it is pursuing a policy which demands the indefinite retention of these weapons. We have to keep on highlighting the fundamental inconsistency in the US policies. The USA must make a choice: if it wants to keep nuclear weapons, then it should withdraw from the NPT (which would probably result in a massive increase in the number of nuclear weapon states). Otherwise, it must abide by the terms of the NPT and get rid of its nuclear arsenals. Tertium non datur. There is no third way. I believe that a campaign to educate and influence public opinion, centered on the issue of the NPT, would stand a good chance of being successful. The task of influencing public opinion is far too big for an organization like Pugwash to undertake by itself. Collaboration with other organizations would be essential. This would go against our traditional modus vivendi; Puwash has often been accused – perhaps justifiably – of being an exclusive club. But even if our mode of work has been justified in the past, I believe that the time has come to open up. I am not advocating that Pugwash should become a mass movement; what I am suggesting is that we should be more willing to collaborate with other organizations in the sense of spearheading a large effort to provide information to the general public. Pugwash is a movement of scientists, but the job of the scientist is not only to do original research; education is an essential element of it. And this is in essence what I propose. An initiative in this direction has already been started by the British Pugwash Group. In setting up a ‘‘Nuclear Weapons AwareThe Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

341

ness Project’’, the British Pugwash Group is collaborating with about a dozen other British organizations, ranging from BASIC (the British American Security Information Council) to MEDACT (Medical Action), from CND to Greenpeace. An account of this Project is presented by John Finney in a paper submitted to this Conference. I suggest that the Pugwash Council should take it up and find ways to implement it on an international scale. Let me now conclude with some simple observations of a more general nature, but relevant to the problems I have raised in this paper. I believe in the inherent goodness of Man. What would be the point of keeping the human species if this were not true! But then our task must be to ensure that this belief gains general acceptance. We still conduct world affairs on the outdated principle that our survival demands being militarily strong. This is a remnant of our early history, when Man had to resort to violence in order to survive or to ensure continuation of the species. It completely ignores the radical changes that have occurred as a result of the advances in science and technology, changes which make such a stand no longer necessary. If equitably distributed, our resources could be sufficient to meet the basic needs of the world population, despite its huge increase. Moreover, thanks largely to the fantastic progress in technology, our world is becoming more and more interdependent, more and more transparent, more and more interactive. Inherent in these developments is a set of agreements, ranging from confidencebuilding measures to formal international treaties; from protection of the environment to the clearance of mine fields; from Interpol to the International Criminal Court; from ensuring intellectual property rights to the Declaration of Human Rights. Respect for, and strict adherence to, the terms of international agreements are at the basis of a civilized society. Without this, anarchy and terrorism would reign, the very perils President Bush is allegedly committed to eradicate. While he intends to tackle this issue by military means, we must strive to achieve it by peaceful means. While the Bush Administration plans to act unilaterally, we have to ensure that world security is entrusted to the United Nations, the institu-

342

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

tion set up for this purpose. And we must link our respect for the law with strong moral principles. Many of you are professional people, trained to look at problems in a detached, realistic, non-sentimental approach. But we are all, primarily, human beings, anxious to provide security for our nearest and dearest, and peace for fellow citizens of our nation and the world. We want to see a world in which relations between people and between nations are based on compassion, not greed; on generosity, not jealousy; on persuasion, not force; on equity, not oppression. These are simple, some will say romantic, sentiments, but they are also realistic necessities. In a world armed with weapons of mass destruction, the use of which might bring the whole of civilization to an end, we cannot afford a polarized community, with its inherent threat of military confrontations. In this technological age, a global, equitable community, to which we all belong as world citizens, has become a vital necessity.

The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies

343

Curriculum Vitae Sir Joseph Rotblat

Born Warsaw, 4 November 1908 (British citizen since 1946) Educated at the Free University of Poland and the University of Warsaw

Academic Degrees: MA, Free University of Poland, 1932 Doctor of Physics, University of Warsaw, 1938 PhD, University of Liverpool, 1950 DSc, University of London, 1953

Membership of Academies of Science: Foreign Member, Polish Academy of Sciences, 1966 Honorary Foreign Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1972 Foreign Member, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 1988 Foreign Member, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, 1994 Fellow of the Royal Society, 1995 Honorary Fellow, Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1998 Honorary Fellow, Academy of Medical Sciences, 2000

Honorary Degrees: Hon DSc, University of Bradford, 1973 Hon Fellow, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, 1985

345

Dr honoris causa, University of Moscow, 1988 Hon DSc, University of Liverpool, 1989 Doctor of Science (honoris causa), City University, 1996 DSc (honoris causa), Slovak Academy of Science, 1996 Doctor of Science (honoris causa), Acadia University, 1998 Doctor of International Relations (honoris causa), Richmond University, 1998 Doctor of Science (Medicine), University College London, 2001

Honors and Awards: Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), 1965 Bertrand Russell Society Award, 1983 Commander, Order of Merit (Poland), 1987 Gold Medal, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 1988 Order of Cyril and Methodius (1st Cl.) (Bulgaria), 1988 Kt Commander’s Cross, Order of Merit (Germany), 1989 Distinguished Citizen Award, Int. Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, 1989 Honorary Member, British Institute of Radiology, 1990 Albert Einstein Peace Prize, 1992 Honorary Professor, University of Blagoevgrad, 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with the Pugwash Conferences 1995 Copernicus Medal, Polish Academy of Sciences, 1996 Honorary Fellow, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, 1996 Honorary Freeman of the London Borough of Camden, 1996 Lifetime Achievement Award, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 1997 Honorary Fellow, Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine, 1997 Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (KCMG), 1998 Kt. Commander’s Cross and Star of the Order Polonia Restituta, 1998 Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Radiologists, 1998 Jamnalal Bajaj Peace Award, 1999 Toda Peace Prize, 2000 Honorary Fellow, Institute of Physics, 2001

346

Curriculum Vitae

Linus Pauling Centenary Award, 2002

Professional Career: 1933–39 1937–39 1939–40 1939–44 1940–49 1945–49 1948 1950–76 1950–76

Research Fellow of Radiological Laboratory of Scientific Society of Warsaw Assistant Director of Atomic Physics Institute of Free University of Poland Oliver Lodge Fellowship, University of Liverpool Work on atom bomb, University of Liverpool and in Los Alamos Lecturer and afterwards Senior Lecturer in Department of Physics, Liverpool University Director of Research in nuclear physics at Liverpool University Fellow of Institute of Physics Professor of Physics in the University of London, at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College Chief Physicist to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital

Publications: About 400 publications, including 24 books, in the following areas: Nuclear Physics Medical Physics and Radiation Biology Radiation Hazards and the Consequences of Nuclear War Nuclear Power and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Arms Control and Disarmament; Elimination of Nuclear Weapons The Pugwash Movement and the Social Responsibility of Scientists

Curriculum Vitae

347

List of Contributors

Michael Atiyah, mathematician, honorary professor University of Edinburgh; President Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs 1997–2002. Fields Medal 1966, Abel Prize 2004. Joyce Bazire, academic, senior lecturer (retired) Department of English Language, Liverpool University. Reiner Braun, journalist, Executive Director of IALANA Germany and VDW, Council of INES, staff member of the Max Planck Institute for Historical Science, Project Einstein 2003 to 2005 Sandra Ionno Butcher, writer and consultant, formerly senior analyst British American Security Information Council; former Executive Director Student Pugwash USA, Joint Executive Secretary British Pugwash Group.

Francesco Calogero, physicist, professor of theoretical physics University of Rome ‘‘La Sapienza’’; Secretary-General of Pugwash 1989–97, Chair Pugwash Council 1997–2002; member Governing Board SIPRI 1982–92. Ana Marı´a Cetto, physicist, research professor in physics Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico; Deputy Director General International Atomic Energy Agency and Head of Department for Technical Cooperation; former Chair Pugwash Executive Committee. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, physicist, professor of mathematical physics University of Milan; former Secretary General Union of Italian Scientists for Disarmament; Secretary-General Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Kim Dae-jung, statesman, former President South Korea.

349

‘‘Nobel Peace Prize’’ Nobel Peace Laureate 2000. Jayantha Dhanapala, diplomat, UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs 1998–2005; Special Advisor to the President of Sri Lanka; President 1995 Review and Extension Conference.

International Peace Research Institute, Oslo; Director Transcend Peace and Development Network. Alternative Nobel Peace Prize (Right Livelihood Award) 1987. Richard L. Garwin, physicist, IBM Fellow Emeritus Thomas J. Watson Research Center New York. National Medal of Science 2003.

Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, President US Space Studies Institute. Lorentz Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Medal 1966, Max Planck Medal statesman, President of the Soviet Union, 1990–91. Nobel 1969. Peace Laureate 1990. Mohamed ElBaradei, diplomat, Bryce Halliday, Engineer, former Director General International Principal Scientific Officer Atomic Energy Agency. Nobel University of Liverpool; Peace Laureate with the IAEA Technician on the ‘Atom Train’. 2005. Maintained and ran the John Finney, physicist, professor cyclotrons at Liverpool University. Involved in design of physics and astronomy study for a CERN accelerator. A University College London; Trustee British Pugwash Trust, UK representative on national and international Standard Chair WMD Awareness Committees for Vacuum Programme UK. Technology. Michael Foot, politician and John ( Jack) Harris, physicist, author, Leader British Labour formerly Manager in charge of Party 1980–83; prominent member Campaign for Nuclear Nuclear Fuel Cycle Research Berkeley Nuclear Laboratory, Disarmament. Central Electricity Generating Board; former Editor Johan Galtung, sociologist, Disciplinary Science Reviews; professor of peace studies Deputy Chair British Pugwash. University of Hawaii; founder

350

List of Contributors

Robert A. Hinde, biologist psychologist, formerly Royal Society Research Professor and Master St. John’s College Cambridge; Chair British Pugwash Trust, Chair British Pugwash Group. Christopher (Kit) Hill, physicist, professor emeritus Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Marsden Hospital; Honorary Secretary British Pugwash. John P. Holdren, environmental scientist and political consultant, Director of the Woods Hole Research Center (Massachusetts); Chair Committee on International Security and Arms Control, National Academy of Sciences; Chair Executive Committee Pugwash Conferences1987–97. Accepted Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs 1995.

Fred Jerome, science writer and journalist; invented Media Resource Service (putting scientists in touch with journalists) 1979; former teacher of Columbia Journalism School; developed course at New School University ‘‘Scientists as Rebels’’ 2002. Bruce Kent, peace campaigner, President International Peace Bureau 1985–92; Chairman Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament 1987–90; founder and Vice-President Movement for the Abolition of War. Michiji Konuma, physicist, professor emeritus Keio University; Advisor International Student/Young Pugwash; former member Pugwash Council.

David Krieger, peace campaigner and writer; President Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Deputy Chair International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility John R. Holt, physicist, emeritus (Germany); member professor of physics Liverpool International Steering University. Committee Middle Powers Initiative. Daisaku Ikeda, Buddhist philosopher, educator and man Harry Kroto, chemist, Francis of peace, President Soka Gakkai Eppes Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry Florida State International. List of Contributors

351

University; founder Vega Science Trust. Nobel Laureate 1996. Mikhail A. Lebedev, Executive Secretary of the Russian Pugwash Committee at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Chairman Russian Student/Young Pugwash Group; Head Program for International Security, Cooperation and Regional Problems, International Federation for Peace and Conciliation (IFPC) Moscow. Mairead Corrigan Maguire, peace campaigner. Nobel Peace Laureate with Betty Williams 1976.

Council 1974–97. First Class, Large Cross of ‘‘Polonia Restituta’’ for promotion of science 2002. Go¨tz Neuneck, physicist, Senior Fellow Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy, Hamburg; Council member Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. John C. Polanyi, chemist, university professor University of Toronto. Nobel Laureate 1986. Martin Rees, astronomer and cosmologist, University of Cambridge; President of the Royal Society and Astronomer Royal; Trustee British Pugwash Trust.

Ron S. McCoy, physician, University of Malaya; former President and Co-President of Douglas Roche, politician, IPPNW; founder Malaysian member Senate of Canada; Physicians for the Prevention of Chairman Middle Powers Nuclear War. Initiative; former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament; Tom Milne, education policy Council member Pugwash advisor, Specialist Schools and Conferences on Science and Academies Trust; former World Affairs. United Nations researcher and assistant to Association’s Medal of Honor Joseph Rotblat British Pugwash; 1995. member British Pugwash Executive Committee. Halina Sand, Elder niece of Sir Joseph Rotblat, daughter of his Maciej Nalecz, medical sister, Eve. physicist, Chairman Pugwash

352

List of Contributors

John Stachel, physicist, Director of the Boston University Center for Einstein Studies. Jack Steinberger, physicist, professor Columbia University 1950–71; research physicist CERN. Nobel Laureate 1988. Mark Byung-Moon Suh, South Korean political scientist, Senior Researcher and Korean Studies Coordinator Free University of Berlin; President Korean Pugwash; Council member Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.

M. S. Swaminathan, agricultural scientist and scientific leader of the Green Revolution; Chairman MS Swaminathan Research Foundation; President Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Maj Britt Theorin, Ambassador for Disarmament 1982–91; Member Swedish Parliament 1970–95; Member European Parliament 1995–2004. Jody Williams, political scientist, founder and coordinator International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Nobel Peace Laureate with the Campaign 1997.

List of Contributors

353

Acknowledgments

In the name of all the editors I would like to thank all authors who have taken the time, beside their numerous other commitments, to support this project by contributing their thoughtful and inspiring articles to the book. Thanks are also due to the Wiley-VCH publishing house, especially to Dr. Alexander Grossmann, for his cooperation and management of the whole project, and also to Esther Do¨rring and Anja Tscho¨rtner, who dealt with the manuscript and handled the editorial part of the project. I am indebted to my colleagues Ursula Schefler and Beatrice Rauner for supporting and helping me with this project. The publication would not be possible without their support and friendly advice. I would particularly like to thank Nicola Gyric and Kristin Kropidlowski, whose collaboration in advancing the project was an enormous help throughout. Berlin, October 1, 2006

Reiner Braun

355

Related Titles Renn, J. (ed.)

Renn, J. (ed.)

Albert Einstein – Chief Engineer of the Universe

Albert Einstein – Chief Engineer of the Universe

Einstein’s Life and Work in Context and Documents of a Life’s Pathway

One Hundred Authors for Einstein

2005. Hardcover ISBN: 978-3-527-40571-8

2005. Hardcover ISBN: 978-3-527-40574-9

Renn, J. (ed.) Brian, D.

The Unexpected Einstein

Einstein’s Annalen Papers The Complete Collection 1901–1922

The Real Man Behind the Icon 2005. Hardcover ISBN: 978-0-471-71840-6

2005. Hardcover ISBN: 978-3-527-40564-0

Fox, K. C., Keck, A. Braun, R., Krieger, D. (eds.)

Einstein – Peace Now! Visions and Ideas 2005. Hardcover ISBN: 978-3-527-40604-3

Einstein A to Z 2004. Softcover ISBN: 978-0-471-46674-1

Brian, D.

Einstein A Life 1996. Softcover ISBN: 978-0-471-19362-3