Adam+Mistretta+Week+10

The letters written by Einstein and by Frisch and Peierls paint a surprising image of the attitudes of different scientists toward the making of the first atomic bombs, and therefore the beginning of the human race’s ability to annihilate itself. All the references I have ever seen or read about Einstein have always painted him as a pacifist, or at least someone who was terrified by the idea of enormous world wars. He is quoted in many books, monuments, and even video games as saying, “ I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones” and “ Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” Despite history remembering him with this attitude, he addresses the president with a somewhat encouraging (and certainly not discouraging) description of the potential for nuclear weapons. He tells Roosevelt about all the best places to secure uranium to make bombs, and even what the easiest of cheapest ways to get it are. He also explains, with a hint of enthusiasm, what the capabilities of such a weapon would be, destroying an entire port for instance. I understand that Einstein is addressing his president and as such he has to remain objective, but is it not advisable that he warn the president that nuclear weapons will contaminate the area they destroy for decades or centuries? Shouldn’t he also tell the president that they may also be embarking on an arms race which could bring the entire planet to the brink of destruction? Einstein may not be openly supporting massive war, but he is being complacent and simply telling the president what the tactical advantage nukes will be without any warnings about what an important line the construction of a nuclear weapon will cross. I suppose his motive for telling the president how to secure uranium may be more out of fear that the Germans will get it first, therefore his motive may actually be peaceful, but still, someone of Einstein’s intelligence should know that he is leaving out more than a few small details in his letter to the president. Yet the very next year, Frisch and Peierls, two scientists I had never even heard of before, write a far more important memo. They describe the entire process very clearly; explain how different yields come from different isotopes and all the other necessary science. And then they clearly add that, oh yeah, these weapons would also have horrific consequences in the form of radioactive fallout that would last for years. They both clearly warn that, “[T] he radiations would be fatal to living beings even a long time after the explosion.” I am not a no nukes advocate, but when the human race is about to cross the line, from bombs that destroy at most a large building, to bombs that can annihilate nations, the realities must be clearly stated to all who make the decision.