Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech

Oslo, December 10, 1995

given by 

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1995

Joseph Rotblat

Remember Your Humanity

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."

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 Pought 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
program 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 program 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:
&"Post-Cold War environment requires nuclear deterrence,&"
and this is echoed 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 lands of war. These are armaments 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 Krushchev: 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.

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 mechanism 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 fueling the arms race. They did
great damage to the image of science.

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 of 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, I 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 had 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 Moruroa; no new chemical
and biological poisons. The arms race would be over.

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 Ping 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 result 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 Ping 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 nuclear-weapon-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.

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: shalt 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 
Russell- Einstein 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 Russell-Einstein 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.

I'm 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 sentence 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.
.

Pugwash Acceptance speech by J. Holdren