DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Burlington Atomic Energy Week, 1947

Transcribe
Translate

Burlington Atomic Energy Week, 1947

Man vs Atom - Year 1 Page 5

The only way to bring down a 3500 mile per hour rocket at a safe distance is to chase it with your own 4000-mph rocket. You can't win at this game often enough to establish ironclad protection. 
The only specific defense against the atomic rocket known in Year 2 of the Atomic Age is to disperse all cities and put key industries underground. This would be very costly in time, money and national morale. 

MORE AND BETTER BOMBS?
Some will ask whether the U.S. as the most powerful industrial nation, could not build more and better bombs and carriers than any other nation. Probably yes, but there is still no real security. If the "weak" opponent has enough atomic weapons to destroy us once, what advantage is there in being able to destroy him twice?
Shooting first could protect us now, but not after the world is atomically armed. If we were to destroy the enemy's cities, we would probably miss his well concealed and protected bomb magazines and rocket launchers. A few minutes later he could return the atomic fire. In brutal simplicity, that is the picture of future atomic war. Everybody loses. 
At this point one gasps at another straw: "if everybody is to lose who would be so foolish as to start an atomic war? And didn't the Germans refrain from using gas for a similar reason?" Possibly yes It may work that way. But in a world atomically armed to the teeth some nervous finger may pull the fatal trigger. 

ONLY ONE WAY OUT 
Throughout history each new offensive weapon has called out its appropriate defense. But now the offense leaps centuries ahead in a single bound and the defense lies almost helpless everywhere, unless some technical protection, unknown as Year 2 begins, can be devised. 
The situation is extremely dangerous. There is no clear way out except through some sort of international action first to stop the atomic arms race and, before it is too later, to hobble war itself. 
Can it be done? Perhaps not, but there is no alternative except atomic chaos. 

... so he faces the Atomic Dilemma.....

THE NUMBERED statements that follow in somewhat logical pattern are too fateful to be accepted on anybody's say so. Every reader should test them in the light of his own information and understanding. 
The points below sum up the conclusions of the previous article - and these in turn reflect a great mass of thought and discussion among leading scientists, engineers and statesmen close to the problem. To an amazing degree they concur on both facts and conclusions. For authoritative statements of their line of thought in detail not possible here, the reader should see the recent book, One World or None. 

THE DILEMMA 
Nations must either face the probability of an atomic World War III, which would surely be the most deadly in history...
Or, the experts propose, yield both atomic weapons and war potential to international authority backed by superior force. 

What the Experts Say 
1. In five to ten years any major industrial nation can make enough atom bombs to destroy all the major cities of any other country overnight. 
2, This assumes no "secret" information or other help from us. 
3. The necessary uranium ores will be at hand. 
4. The cost will not be too high. 
5. The bombs produced can then be carried thousands of miles by bombers or by atomically powered guided missiles moving faster than sound. 
6. There will probably be no effective military defense against such weapons. 
7. Dispersing cities, and putting key industries deep underground, will give some protection if accomplished in time, but at incredible cost in money and human discomfort.
8. In a world atomically armed, nations can probably protect their bomb stocks and rocket launchers from enemy assault. 
9. If so, nation A can destroy the cities of any other nation B, after which B's rockets will destroy the cities of A. Shooting first will not win an atomic war. 
10. This knowledge may not restrain the trigger finger of a suspicious power. 
11. Having more and better atomic weapons than the other fellow won't help much if he has enough to destroy us. No use to kill a man twice or rebomb urban ruins.
12.Every nation is vulnerable in the Atomic Age, including the U.S.A.
13. National security will be impossible without (first) international control of atomic arms and (not too long thereafter) international control of all war potential both backed by superior physical power. 
14. If action to this end is long delayed, it may become impossible to halt the atomic arms race already started. 
15. At best, the necessary degree of international control, with some real delegation of national sovereignty, will be revolution in human affairs. It may prove to be humanly unobtainable at this time. If so, men and women everywhere must face the probablity of an atomic third world war by far the most destructive in all history 

In atomic age no nation can be safe through its own unaided might. 

[drawing of earth]

Saving...

The only way to bring down a 3500 mile per hour rocket at a safe distance is to chase it with your own 4000-mph rocket. You can't win at this game often enough to establish ironclad protection. The only specific defense against the atomic rocket known in Year 2 of the Atomic Age is to disperse all cities and put key industries underground. This would be very costly in time, money and national morale. MORE AND BETTER BOMBS? Some will ask whether the U.S. as the most powerful industrial nation, could not build more and better bombs and carriers than any other nation. Probably yes, but there is still no real security. If the "weak" opponent has enough atomic weapons to destroy us once, what advantage is there in being able to destroy him twice? Shooting first could protect us now, but not after the world is atomically armed. If we were to destroy the enemy's cities, we would probably miss his well concealed and protected bomb magazines and rocket launchers. A few minutes later he could return the atomic fire. In brutal simplicity, that is the picture of future atomic war. Everybody loses. At this point one gasps at another straw: "if everybody is to lose who would be so foolish as to start an atomic war? And didn't the Germans refrain from using gas for a similar reason?" Possibly yes It may work that way. But in a world atomically armed to the teeth some nervous finger may pull the fatal trigger. ONLY ONE WAY OUT Throughout history each new offensive weapon has called out its appropriate defense. But now the offense leaps centuries ahead in a single bound and the defense lies almost helpless everywhere, unless some technical protection, unknown as Year 2 begins, can be devised. The situation is extremely dangerous. There is no clear way out except through some sort of international action first to stop the atomic arms race and, before it is too later, to hobble war itself. Can it be done? Perhaps not, but there is no alternative except atomic chaos. ... so he faces the Atomic Dilemma..... THE NUMBERED statements that follow in somewhat logical pattern are too fateful to be accepted on anybody's say so. Every reader should test them in the light of his own information and understanding. The points below sum up the conclusions of the previous article - and these in turn reflect a great mass of thought and discussion among leading scientists, engineers and statesmen close to the problem. To an amazing degree they concur on both facts and conclusions. For authoritative statements of their line of thought in detail not possible here, the reader should see the recent book, One World or None. THE DILEMMA Nations must either face the probability of an atomic World War III, which would surely be the most deadly in history... Or, the experts propose, yield both atomic weapons and war potential to international authority backed by superior force. What the Experts Say 1. In five to ten years any major industrial nation can make enough atom bombs to destroy all the major cities of any other country overnight. 2, This assumes no "secret" information or other help from us. 3. The necessary uranium ores will be at hand. 4. The cost will not be too high. 5. The bombs produced can then be carried thousands of miles by bombers or by atomically powered guided missiles moving faster than sound. 6. There will probably be no effective military defense against such weapons. 7. Dispersing cities, and putting key industries deep underground, will give some protection if accomplished in time, but at incredible cost in money and human discomfort. 8. In a world atomically armed, nations can probably protect their bomb stocks and rocket launchers from enemy assault. 9. If so, nation A can destroy the cities of any other nation B, after which B's rockets will destroy the cities of A. Shooting first will not win an atomic war. 10. This knowledge may not restrain the trigger finger of a suspicious power. 11. Having more and better atomic weapons than the other fellow won't help much if he has enough to destroy us. No use to kill a man twice or rebomb urban ruins. 12.Every nation is vulnerable in the Atomic Age, including the U.S.A. 13. National security will be impossible without (first) international control of atomic arms and (not too long thereafter) international control of all war potential both backed by superior physical power. 14. If action to this end is long delayed, it may become impossible to halt the atomic arms race already started. 15. At best, the necessary degree of international control, with some real delegation of national sovereignty, will be revolution in human affairs. It may prove to be humanly unobtainable at this time. If so, men and women everywhere must face the probablity of an atomic third world war by far the most destructive in all history In atomic age no nation can be safe through its own unaided might. [drawing of earth]