[This validates our late great visionary President John F. Kennedy in his speech on June 10, 1963 at the commencement address to American University. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto validates that warning in the prophetic words of John F. Kennedy. This why I was an overwhelming supporter of the Landmark Nuclear Deal with Iran, a GIANTIC adversary of the evil misguided way of life system thinking of prejudicial thinking of hatred, divisiveness, bigotry, white superiority and non white inferiority control where that type of thinking could set off a nuclear exchange that would be a holocaust for the world. If we can live life like the nuclear bomb kills life, we would have a wonderful society, because the nuclear bomb kills indiscriminately, without any type of prejudice. Completely color blind! Don King, Call & Post Publisher]
The Russell- Einstein Manifesto
Fifty Years On
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 realised 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.
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 Harbor, 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.
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 realise, 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.’
Professor Max Born (Professor of Theoretical Physics in Berlin, Frankfurt, and Göttingen, and of Natural Philosophy, Edinburgh; Nobel Prize in Physics)
Professor Percy W. Bridgman (Professor of Physics, Harvard University; Nobel Prize in Physics)
Professor Albert Einstein
Professor Leopold Infeld (Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of
Professor J.F. Joliot-Curie (Professor of Physics at the Collège de France;
Nobel Prize in Chemistry)
Professor Herman J. Muller (Professor of Zoology, University of Indiana;
Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine)
Professor Linus Pauling (Professor of Chemistry, California Institute of
Technology; Nobel Prize in Chemistry)
Professor Cecil F. Powell (Professor of Physics, University of Bristol; Nobel
Prize in Physics)
Professor Joseph Rotblat (Professor of Physics, University of London;
Medical College of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital)
￼￼￼￼￼￼The Russell-Einstein Manifesto 27 Professor Hideki Yukawa (Professor of Theoretical Physics, Kyoto
University; Nobel Prize in Physics)
1. Professor Joliot-Curie wishes to add the words: ‘as a means of settling differences between States’.
2. Professor Joliot-Curie wishes to add that these limitations are to be agreed by all and in the interests of all.
3. Professor Muller makes the reservation that this be taken to mean ‘a concomitant balanced reduction of all armaments’