Aspects of science are beyond common sense.

I think there are issues which are quite simple and quite deep, and which involve us as a group of scientists—involve us more, perhaps than any other group in the world, I think that it can only help to look a little at what our situation is—at what has happened to us—and that this must give us some honesty, some insight, which will be a source of strength in what may be the not-too-easy days ahead, I would like to take it as deep and serious as I know how, and then perhaps come to more immediate questions in the course of the discussion later, I want anyone who feels like it to ask me a question and if I can't answer it, as will often be the case, I will just have to say so.

What has happened to us—it is really rather major, it is so major that I think in some ways one returns to the greatest developments of the twentieth century, to the discovery of relativity, and to the whole development of atomic theory and its interpretation in terms of complementarity, for analogy, These things, as you know, forced us to re-consider the relations between science and common sense, They forced on us the recognition that the fact that we were in the habit of talking a certain language and using certain concepts did not necessarily imply that there was anything in the real world to correspond to these, They forced us to be prepared for the inadequacy of the ways in which human beings attempted to deal with reality, for that reality, In some ways I think these virtues, which scientists quite reluctantly were forced to learn by the nature of the world they were studying, may be useful even today in preparing us for somewhat more radical views of what the issues are than would be natural or easy for people who had not been through this experience.

Problems with speed of scientific development

I think that it hardly needs to be said why the impact is so strong, There are three reasons: one is the extraordinary speed with which things which were right on the frontier of science were translated into terms where they affected many living people, and potentially all people, Another is the fact, quite accidental in many ways, and connected with the speed, that scientists themselves played such a large part, not merely in providing the foundation for atomic weapons, but in actually making them, In this we are certainly closer to it than any other group, The third is that the thing we made—partly because of the technical nature of the problem, partly because we worked hard, partly because we had good breaks—really arrived in the world with such a shattering reality and suddenness that there was no opportunity for the edges to be worn off.

Motivation

In considering what the situation of science is, it may be helpful to think a little of what people said and felt of their motives in coming into this job, One always has to worry that what people say of their motives is not adequate, Many people said different things, and most of them, I think, had some validity, There was in the first place the great concern that our enemy might develop these weapons before we did, and the feeling—at least, in the early days, the very strong feeling—that without atomic weapons it might be very difficult, it might be an impossible, it might be an incredibly long thing to win the war, These things wore off a little as it became clear that the war would be won in any case, Some people, I think, were motivated by curiosity, and rightly so; and some by a sense of adventure, and rightly so, Others had more political arguments and said, “Well, we know that atomic weapons are in principle possible, and it is not right that the threat of their unrealized possibility should hang over the world, It is right that the world should know what can be done in their field and deal with it.” And the people added to that that it was a time when all over the world men would be particularly ripe and open for dealing with this problem because of the immediacy of the evils of war, because of the universal cry from everyone that one could not go through this thing again, even a war without atomic bombs, And there was finally, and I think rightly, the feeling that there was probably no place in the world where the development of atomic weapons would have a better chance of leading to a reasonable solution, and a smaller chance of leading to disaster, than within the United States, I believe all these things that people said are true, and I think I said them all myself at one time or another.

Project Manhattan was unavoidable

But when you come right down to it the reason that we did this job is because it was an organic necessity, If you are a scientist you cannot stop such a thing, If you are a scientist you believe that it is good to find out how the world works; that it is good to find out what the realities are; that it is good to turn over to mankind at large the greatest possible power to control the world and to deal with it according to its lights and its values.  There has been a lot of talk about the evil of secrecy, of concealment, of control, of security, Some of that talk has been on a rather low plane, limited really to saying that it is difficult or inconvenient to work in a world where you are not free to do what you want, I think that the talk has been justified, and that the almost unanimous resistance of scientists to the imposition of control and secrecy is a justified position, but I think that the reason for it may lie a little deeper,

Science and secrecy

I think that it comes from the fact that secrecy strikes at the very root of what science is, and what it is for, It is not possible to be a scientist unless you believe that it is good to learn, It is not good to be a scientist, and it is not possible, unless you think that it is of the highest value to share your knowledge, to share it with anyone who is interested, It is not possible to be a scientist unless you believe that the knowledge of the world, and the power which this gives, is a thing which is of intrinsic value to humanity, and that you are using it to help in the spread of knowledge, and are willing to take the consequences, And, therefore, I think that this resistance which we feel and see all around us to anything which is an attempt to treat science of the future as though it were rather a dangerous thing, a thing that must be watched and managed, is resisted not because of its inconvenience—I think we are in a position where we must be willing to take any inconvenience—but resisted because it is based on a philosophy incompatible with that by which we live, and have learned to live in the past.

Danger of atomic weapons

There are many people who try to wiggle out of this, They say the real importance of atomic energy does not lie in the weapons that have been made; the real importance lies in all the great benefits which atomic energy, which the various radiations, will bring to mankind, There may be some truth in this, I am sure that there is truth in it, because there has never in the past been a new field opened up where the real fruits of it have not been invisible at the beginning, I have a very high confidence that the fruits—the so-called peacetime applications—of atomic energy will have in them all that we think, and more, There are others who try to escape the immediacy of this situation by saying that, after all, war has always been very terrible; after all, weapons have always gotten worse and worse; that this is just another weapon and it doesn't create a great change; that they are not so bad; bombings have been bad in this war and this is not a change in that—it just adds a little to the effectiveness of bombing; that some sort of protection will be found, I think that these efforts to diffuse and weaken the nature of the crisis make it only more dangerous, I think it is for us to accept it as a very grave crisis, to realize that these atomic weapons which we have started to make are very terrible, that they involve a change, that they are not just a slight modification: to accept this, and to accept with it the necessity for those transformations in the world which will make it possible to integrate these developments into human life.

Scientists may find it easier

As scientists I think we have perhaps a little greater ability to accept change, and accept radical change, because of our experiences in the pursuit of science, And that may help us—that, and the fact that we have lived with it—to be of some use in understanding these problems.

War has changed

It is clear to me that wars have changed, It is clear to me that if these first bombs —the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki—that if these can destroy ten square miles, then that is really quite something, It is clear to me that they are going to be very cheap if anyone wants to make them; it is clear to me that this is a situation where a quantitative change, and a change in which the advantage of aggression compared to defense—of attack compared to defense—is shifted, where this quantitative change has all the character of a change in quality, of a change in the nature of the world, I know that whereas wars have become intolerable, and the question would have been raised and would have been pursued after this war, more ardently than after the last, of whether there was not some method by which they could be averted, But I think the advent of the atomic bomb and the facts which will get around that they are not too hard to make—that they will be universal if people wish to make them universal, that they will not constitute a real drain on the economy of any strong nation, and that their power of destruction will grow and is already incomparably greater than that of any other weapon—I think these things create a new situation, so new that there is some danger, even some danger in believing, that what we have is a new argument for arrangements, for hopes, that existed before this development took place.

We must change

By that I mean that much as I like to hear advocates of a world federation, or advocates of a United Nations organization, who have been talking of these things for years—much as I like to hear them say that here is a new argument, I think that they are in part missing the point, because the point is not that atomic weapons constitute a new argument, There have always been good arguments, The point is that atomic weapons constitute also a field, a new field, and a new opportunity for realizing preconditions, I think when people talk of the fact that this is not only a great peril, but a great hope, this is what they should mean, I do not think they should mean the unknown, though sure, value of industrial and scientific virtues of atomic energy, but rather the simple fact that in this field, because it is a threat, because it is a peril, and because it has certain special characteristics, to which I will return, there exists a possibility of realizing, of beginning to realize, those changes which are needed if there is to be any peace.

Everybody is affected

Those are very far-reaching changes, They are changes in the relations between nations, not only in spirit, not only in law, but also in conception and feeling, I don't know which of these is prior; they must all work together, and only the gradual interaction of one on the other can make a reality, I don't agree with those who say the first step is to have a structure of international law, I don't agree with those who say the only thing is to have friendly feelings, All of these things will be involved, I think it is true to say that atomic weapons are a peril which affect everyone in the world, and in that sense a completely common problem, as common a problem as it was for the Allies to defeat the Nazis, I think that in order to handle this common problem there must be a complete sense of community responsibility, I do not think that one may expect that people will contribute to the solution of the problem until they are aware of their ability to take part in the solution, I think that it is a field in which the implementation of such a common responsibility has certain decisive advantages.

Science must contribute

It is a new field, in which the position of vested interests in various parts of the world is very much less serious than in others, It is serious in this country, and that is one of our problems, It is a new field, in which the role of science has been so great that it is to my mind hardly thinkable that the international traditions of science, and the fraternity of scientists, should not play a constructive part, It is a new field, in which just the novelty and the special characteristics of the technical operations should enable one to establish a community of interest which might almost be regarded as a pilot plant for a new type of international collaboration, I speak of it as a pilot plant because it is quite clear that the control of atomic weapons cannot be in itself the unique end of such operation, The only unique end can be a world that is united, and a world in which war will not occur, But those things don't happen overnight, and in this field it would seem that one could get started, and get started without meeting those insuperable obstacles which history has so often placed in the way of any effort of cooperation.

A new international spirit is required

Now, this is not an easy thing, and the point I want to make, the one point I want to hammer home, is what an enormous change in spirit is involved, There are things which we hold very dear, and I think rightly hold very dear; I would say that the word democracy perhaps stood for some of them as well as any other word, There are many parts of the world in which there is no democracy, There are other things which we hold dear, and which we rightly should, And when I speak of a new spirit in international affairs I mean that even to these deepest of things which we cherish, and for which Americans have been willing to die—and certainly most of us would be willing to die—even in these deepest things, we realize that there is something more profound than that; namely, the common bond with other men everywhere, It is only if you do that that this makes sense; because if you approach the problem and say, “We know what is right and we would like to use the atomic bomb to persuade you to agree with us,” then you are in a very weak position and you will not succeed, because under those conditions you will not succeed in delegating responsibility for the survival of men, It is a purely unilateral statement; you will find yourselves attempting by force of arms to prevent a disaster.