There are other less spectacular ways of producing disaster. The soil could be poisoned so as to be no longer fertile, or disease could be spread among crops instead of among human beings. It is impossible to foresee any limits to the harm which scientific ingenuity can enable men to inflict upon each other. As yet there is no sign that men shrink from the last extremity in the way of mutual extermination. On both sides of the Iron Curtain, hydrogen bombs are being manufactured as fast as possible, and on both sides it is hoped that they will prove decisive. As yet the powerful men who determine the policies of nations see no alternative to this race towards mutual suicide.
Source: Bertrand Russell: Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954, part II: The Conflict of Passions, chapter 6: Scientific Technique and the Future, n5
More info.： https://russell-j.com/cool/47T-2_0605.htm
* a brief comment:
Nowadays, most people believe that "there is no victory in a nuclear war." Does that mean Russell's statements are outdated and no longer worth reading?
Before criticizing any statement, the first step should always be to understand it. To do so, it is essential to consider the historical context?when it was made and under what circumstances. After taking these factors into account and fully understanding the background, it would be beneficial to develop the habit of reexamining the statement from a modern perspective. What do you think?
In particular, Russell’s writings are often concise and thought-provoking, making them excellent material for learning English. (The following dialogue with ChatGPT may also be helpful.)
- Dialogue with ChatGPT -:
Me: Could this statement be made simply because it was the 1950s? Today, the nuclear arsenals of the U.S., China, and Russia are large enough to wipe out humanity multiple times. Back then, the situation had not yet reached that level, so did the leaders of the East and West believe that the side with more powerful hydrogen bombs could win a thermonuclear war (nuclear war)?
ChatGPT’s response: Yes, that’s correct. When Russell wrote this passage in the 1950s, strategic thinking about nuclear weapons and deterrence was significantly different from today. Given the circumstances of that time, the idea that "one could win a thermonuclear war" was still plausible. Russell was likely criticizing this military mindset of his era.
- Nuclear Strategy and Perceptions in the 1950s:
The Hydrogen Bomb Arms Race (Early 1950s)
In the 1950s, nuclear weapons were primarily designed to be delivered by strategic bombers, as ballistic missile technology had not yet fully developed.
This meant that, even if a nuclear war broke out, policymakers might have believed there was still a chance to "achieve victory before the enemy could completely annihilate their cities."
The Establishment of "Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)"
By the 1960s, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had accumulated enough nuclear weapons to ensure mutual destruction, leading to the establishment of the "Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)" doctrine, which held that "no matter who attacks first, both sides will be destroyed in the retaliatory strike."
However, in the 1950s, this concept had not yet fully developed, and policymakers may have still believed that "the side with more powerful hydrogen bombs could achieve a decisive victory."
* Amazon Gift Card
