Einstein, the pacifist behind the bomb

Have you ever wondered what led one of humanity’s greatest geniuses, and a pacifist, to bring about the creation of one of the most destructive artifacts ever produced?

Leer en español

Pablo A. Ruz Salmones – SEO, X eleva Group

On August 2, 1939, Einstein signed a letter (which was not written by him, but by the Hungarian physicist Leó Szilárd) addressed to the then president of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning him of the possibility of creating nuclear chain reactions reactions, that such reactions could be used in incredibly destructive bombs, and that the Germans had stopped all export of uranium from mines in Czecholovakia. Therefore, he suggested to Roosevelt that the United States take the necessary measures to generate investigations around these reactions and store uranium as soon as possible.

The reality is that Einstein did not have a direct relationship with the so-called “Manhattan Project”, which began in 1942, and which culminated in the creation of atomic bombs. Even so, Einstein regretted having written that letter to Roosevelt after the United States released the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which, by the way, there are several authors who mention that these bombs were not responsible for the surrender of Japan, but the declaration of war by the Red Army). In fact, in an interview conducted by Newsweek magazine, he wrote: “had he known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, he would not have done anything” [referring to signing the 1939 letter].

In any case, Einstein’s indirect involvement with the creation of the bomb, as well as his subsequent regret, make us question some of the most important ethical dilemmas in the development of technology and science.

What responsibility do scientists and technologists have around the use and discovery of technologies that can later be used for weapons? What’s more, is it something that can be prevented or regulated?

In fact, X eleva has been invited to participate in war projects, for example, although they could have been “juicy” contracts, the company refused to participate, precisely because we did not know in which war artifacts the technology to be developed would be used.

But that decision that X raises made is not always that easy. In our case, the only thing we had to lose was the contract, but during World War II, the whole world was to be lost. Although putting yourself in Einstein’s shoes is almost impossible, as is trying to put yourself in those of Fermi or any of the other scientists who participated, directly or indirectly, in the creation of the atomic bomb and the Manhattan Project, the feeling of ” crush or be crushed” generally prevails in times of war.

After the Second World War and even in times of “peace” (cold war), that feeling became the day-to-day of people, and many of the scientists who participated in the Manhattan Project became advocates of peace, such as the case of Robert Oppenheimer.

For example, Margaret Thatcher, in her book “The Downing Street Years”, defended her position on nuclear deterrence, which is loosely based on the following principles:

• You cannot “uninvent” what has already been invented. In other words, we cannot go backwards. The bomb already exists.
• The atomic bomb is responsible for deterring major wars. In other words, there are no “major” wars for fear of total annihilation.
• Thus, to prevent someone “unwanted” from replicating the atomic bomb and to ensure that there will be no major wars, it is worth maintaining nuclear arsenals.

This thought has been validated by some, and exposed as false by others because, for example, the creation of the atomic bomb, although it has prevented direct wars between the great powers, has created the so-called “proxy” wars; that is, where two great powers do fight, but in a different nation (Vietam, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine… the list is endless).

Furthermore, there is an undeniable reality: regardless of whether it is Putin, Kim Jong-Un, or someone like Trump, today there is a risk that we ourselves will cause our total extinction with the push of a button.

Thatcher was right when she said that it was impossible to “uninvent” the atomic bomb, but maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to regulate it, and make it disappear. A case that could serve as a basis is human cloning; technically possible, but prohibited and regulated to the depths of legal systems.

But the disconnection between the scientific elite and the political elite, as well as the vast amount of money that exists in the arms industry, makes this unlikely. For all of us who create technology and science, perhaps it is worth remembering that, even years after a simple letter, one of the greatest geniuses of humanity regretted having contributed – much or little, that’s for each one to judge – in a shameful piece of human history.

What is undoubtedly true is what Robert Oppenheimer said after July 16, 1945, when he detonated the first atomic bomb in history in the tests carried out in New Mexico: “we waited until the explosion had passed, we walked outside the shelter and then the atmosphere was solemn. We knew the world would never be the same again. Some laughed, others cried. Most were silent.”

If you care about the world and that your business is empathetic with humanity, at X eleva we offer ethical technological consulting for your project, so that the impact it has is, in addition to being financially positive, socially responsible.

Do you want to know how much your Ethical Consulting project costs?