Science Goes to WarScience Goes to War

István Hargittai István Hargittai Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Hungarian Academy of Sciences

World Science Forum, Budapest, November 10, 2005World Science Forum, Budapest, November 10, 2005

Dedicationto the five “Martians”

Theodore von Kármán (1881-1963) Leo Szilard (1898-1964) Eugene P. Wigner (1902-1995) John von Neumann (1903-1957) Edward Teller (1908-2003)

Leo Szilard, 1963

Is it the tragedy of the scientist that he is able to bring about great advances of our knowledge, which mankind may then proceed to use for purposes of destruction?

This is not the tragedy of the scientist; It is the tragedy of mankind.

Five Stages of Szilard’s Concerns

• Initiation of the Manhattan Project (1939) to counterweigh possible German A-bomb

• Suggestion to use the A-bomb in WWII (1944)

• Attempts to stop deployment of A-bomb (1945)

• Caution to counterweigh Soviet H-bomb (1949)

• Activities to reduce tension between the Superpowers and to curb the arms race (1950s-1960s)

True

Einstein gave up his pacifism, when the Nazi danger loomed over the world, and Szilard initiated Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt in fear of the German bomb. Then, world-renowned physicists toiled for the success of the Manhattan Project.

False

Heisenberg falsified history when he claimed moral superiority for his failed attempt to build an atomic bomb for Hitler’s Germany for which he had volunteered.

Nazi “Science”

Involvement of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in Auschwitz and other crimes

Henry Moore, Nuclear Energy

Eugene P. Wigner and István Hargittai in Austin, Texas, 1969

from chemical engineer

• to ivory-tower theoretical physicist

• to activist in initiating the Manhattan Project

• to the world’s first nuclear engineer

• to promoter of civil defense

Eugene P. Wigner,“the conscience of the Manhattan Project”

[Szilárd]

The Tragedy of Hiroshima

Philip AndersonNobel Laureate said in 1999

I’m not one of those who feel guilt about dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. … I was conscious of Nanking, and the Japanese behavior in China and Korea was a horrible thing, unbelievably savage. ... And I’m not sympathetic to the Germans about Dresden.

“He that soweth the wind shall reap the whirlwind.”

H-Bomb DebateU.S.A., 1949

Oppenheimer et al.:

“… In determining not to proceed to develop the super bomb, we see a unique opportunity of providing by example some limitations on the totality of war …”

Fermi and Rabi:

“… invite the nations of the world to join us in a solemn pledge not to proceed in the development or construction of weapons of this category …”

“The Soviet physicists justified their participation in the nuclear project by the necessity of counterweighing the American monopoly. …”

Vitaly Ginzburg

Nobel Laureate said in 2004

“It is the luck of humankind that Stalin and Hitler did not possess atomic bombs first.”

Leo Szilard on the Development of the American H-Bomb

According to Szilard, the U.S. might have missed out on the H-bomb, had it not been that there was still one man left [Edward Teller] who thought about the problems of the bomb.

Edward Teller: Savior or Villain?

“Father” of the [American] hydrogen bomb

Initiator of Livermore

Adversary of Robert Oppenheimer

“Dr. Strangelove”

Advocate of Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”)

MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction then could be considered an assurance for peace between the superpowers for decades.

… atomic energy … may intimidate the human race into bringing order into its international affairs, which, without the pressure of fear, it would not do.

(Einstein, November 1945)

Theodore von Kármán

“…you cannot preach international cooperation and disarmament from a position of weakness. My Old Testament faith tells me that to get one’s point across it is best to have a big stick. You don’t have to use it, but you’re freer to talk without interference.”

SDI (Star Wars)

Reagan was enamored with SDI, but few would disagree that it greatly contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union.

The Responsibility of the Scientist

Oppenheimer to Teller in 1945: leave it to the politicians

Khrushchev to Sakharov in 1961: leave it to the politicians

Weapons of Biotechnology

It will be a different weapon

It can change what it means to be human

It will make it possible to manipulate all of the life processes, including cognition, development, reproduction, inheritance, etc., …

Weapons of biotechnology have not yet been developed Matthew Meselson

Openness and Self-restraint

• Openness in scientific research may be a remedy

• If legitimate places do not develop weapons of biotechnology, that in itself decreases the probability illegitimate development

But: Banning research is not an answer, especially when research under controlled environment may then be moved to places where control is not available

NO

to the proliferation of nuclear weapons(North Korea, Iran)

to chemical and biological weapons

to weapons of biotechnology

YES

to broad-based science educationto an informed public

Science Goes to PeaceScience Goes to Peace