Niels Bohr
It's sort of interesting with the brouhaha the US National Security State helped instigate in Eastern Europe, there's been little talk of atomic weapons. After all, it was the key ingredient in all Cold War fear mongering. Any action could quickly spark nuclear apocalypse, or so it was implied. We needed faith in all the wise men holding the nuclear keys to the kingdom. But I guess, Mr. Putin's resource business oligarchy isn't an existential threat to America's capital oligarchy, such as the Bolsheviks' proletariat dictatorship supposedly represented.
There are alternatives. The most important alternative was eloquently espoused by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. (Here's a great talk on Bohr by Oppenheimer.) Bohr was one of the initiators of quantum physics. This knowledge allowed the creation of the atomic bomb. Bohr discovered the structure of the atom, a nucleus surrounded by electrons, and most sublime, helped developed the understanding of quantum states.
When the bomb was created, Bohr understood the implications for civilization. He wanted to share knowledge on creating the bomb, particularly he wanted the British and Americans to share the knowledge with the Soviet Union. He presciently warned an uncontrolled arms race would be in no one's interest, “Any temporary advantage, however great, may be outweighed by a perpetual menace to human security.” Truman and Churchill rejected this idea, the world got an arms race to the benefit of no one, except maybe the profits of a few.
Bohr looked at the great openness and global cooperation between pre-World War II physicists as the beginnings of a new political model for dealing with new technologies. In a letter to the then new United Nations, he wrote,
“An arrangement which can offer safety against secret preparations for the mastery of the new means of destruction would demand extraordinary measures. In fact, not only would universal access to full information about scientific discoveries be necessary, but every major technical enterprise, industrial as well as military, would have to be open to international control.”
He added,
“The ideal of an open world, with common knowledge about social conditions and technical enterprises, including military preparations, in every country, might seem a far remote possibility in the prevailing world situation. Still, not only will such relationship between nations obviously be required for genuine co-operation on progress of civilization, but even a common declaration of adherence to such a course would create a most favourable background for concerted efforts to promote universal security. Moreover, it appeared to me that the countries which had pioneered in the new technical development might, due to their possibilities of offering valuable information, be in a special position to take the initiative by a direct proposal of full mutual openness.”
Of course this was not the road taken. Knowledge of the bomb was zealously coveted by the new American National Security State, in fact it was its foundation. This example was then followed by other hierarchies of violence around the world. Yet, Bohr's ideas remain achingly relevant, not just for technologies of violence, but for all science and technology.
It is a massive understatement to say it is dispiriting to once again be found enmeshed in the knucklehead fantasy scripts of the American National Security state, continuously splashed across a culpable and complicit media. However, up to this point, it seems to be the least publicly penetrating jingoistic fear mongering I've experienced, and maybe here is hope. Hope also might be found in Europe's eventual reaction, once they figure the costs to this latest idiocy will overwhelmingly be theirs to bear. That’s not to say, my fellow Americans, your costs will be insignificant.
Bohr concluded, “The efforts of all supporters of international co-operation, individuals as well as nations, will be needed to create in all countries an opinion to voice, with ever increasing clarity and strength, the demand for an open world.”