From: Student Pugwash USA <uspugwash@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.org.pugwash
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:00 PST
Subject: *Pugwash Manifesto
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1758700043:000:7207
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!uspugwash    Dec 14 12:00:00 1992


THE PUGWASH 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.

No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated.  
But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be 
faced.  If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were 
exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few 
centuries, recover from the blow.  But we now know, 
especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can 
gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area 
than had been supposed.

It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be 
manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that 
which destroyed Hiroshima.  Such a bomb, if exploded near 
the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into 
the upper air.  They sink gradually and reach the surface of 
the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain.  It was this 
dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch 
of fish.

No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles 
might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in 
saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to 
the human race.  It is feared that if many H-bombs are used 
there will be universal death,sudden only for a minority, but 
for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science 
and by authorities in military strategy.  None of them will 
say that the worst results are certain.  What they do say is 
that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that 
they will not be realized.  We have not yet found that the 
views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon 
their politics or prejudices.  They depend only, so far as 
our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the 
particular expert's knowledge.  We have found that the men 
who know most are the most gloomy.

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark 
and dreadful and inescapable:  Shall we put an end to the 
human race; or shall mankind renounce war?  People will not 
face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish 
war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of 
national sovereignty.  But what perhaps impedes 
understanding of the situation more than anything else is 
that the term "mankind" feels vague and abstract.  People 
scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to 
themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and 
not only to a dimly apprehended humanity.  They can scarcely 
bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those 
whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing 
agonizingly.  And so they hope that perhaps war may be 
allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

This hope is illusory.  Whatever agreements not to use H-
bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no 
longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides 
would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war 
broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the 
other did not, the side that manufactured them would 
inevitably be victorious.

Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of 
a general reduction of armaments would not afford an 
ultimate solution, it would serve certain important 
purposes.  First:  any agreement between East and West is to 
the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension.  Second:  
the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side 
believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would 
lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl 
Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of 
nervous apprehension.  We should, therefore, welcome such an 
agreement though only as a first step.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, 
we have to remember that, if the issues between East and 
West are to be decided in any manner that can give any 
possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-
Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether 
White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by 
war.  We should wish this to be understood, both in the East 
and in the West.

There lies before us, if we choose,  continual progress in 
happiness, knowledge, and wisdom.  Shall we, instead, choose 
death, because we cannot forget our quarrels?  We appeal, as 
human beings, to human beings:  Remember your humanity, and 
forget the rest.  If you can do so, the way lies open to a 
new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk 
of universal death.


Resolution

We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of 
the world and the general public, to subscribe to the 
following resolution:

"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear 
weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons 
threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the 
Governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge 
publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world 
war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means 
for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."

Max Born
Perry W. Bridgman
Albert Einstein
Leopold Infeld
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Herman J. Muller
Linus Pauling
Cecil F. Powell
Joseph Rotblat
Bertrand Russell
Hideki Yukawa