MARGINAL COMMENT
By HAROLD NICOLSON
FIFTEEN years ago I wrote a novel in which I sought to prove that the atomic bomb would introduce an era of universal peace. The book was written at a time when many people cherished the theory that peace could be preserved by pacifism, and that in some manner one could avoid war by proclaiming how much one disliked it. My contention was that the only thing which will prevent a dissatisfied or aggressor country from making war is the certainty of losing it. Thus if a single Power possessed a weapon of over- whelming destructive efficacy which was not possessed by any other Power, and against which there was no defence, then the Power holding that monopoly would be able to impose its will upon the world. If, I argued, that single Power were also a satisfied or pacific Power, then this monopoly would be used, not to dominate other peoples, but to impose upon them the habit of peace (pacis imponere morem). My argument at the time seemed to me to be completely logical: I now see that it contained two fallacies. In the first place wars are not caused by greed alone ; they are also caused by fear and even by the accumulation of intolerable uncer- tainty. The atomic bomb might curb the ambitions of a greedy aggressor ; but it would certainly not still the emotions of hatred and suspicion which are generated by fear. In the second place, it would not be enough for a pacific Power merely to possess this monopoly of destruction ; it would also be necessary that all other countries should be convinced that the atomic bomb would be actually employed against all recalcitrants. An aggressive Power, seeking to achieve world domination, might well use the bomb against all who resisted that domination ; but a pacific Power, owing to its very pacifism, would have scruples about launching a preventive war or even about using a weapon of such disastrous efficacy. The feelings of guilt aroused in the American conscience by the Hiroshima episode constitute, and are known to constitute. a powerful deterrent against any repetition of that episode. And the fear generated by this horrible invention is deeper and more wide-spread than that caused by any previous menace. Thus the atomic bomb, instead of introducing, as I had _hoped, an era of universal peace, has introduced an era of universal anxiety. Cumu- lative anxiety is one of the major causes of war.
* * I attended last week a meeting of the Royal Empire Society at which Lord Russell dealt w:th this very problem of the effect of the atomic bomb upon international peace. The proceedings were opened with a few short and discouraging words by the chairman, Sir John Anderson. He told us that it was absurd to suppose that there was any secret at all about the production of the atomic bomb. To manufacture these engines of destruction was, of course, a long and costly business ; but it would be foolish and ignorant to imagine that the secret was known only to a few British, American and Canadian scientists. Nor did he hold out any hope that atomic energy could rapidly be harnessed to civilian needs. In his calm medical manner he dispelled the clouds of fantasy in which we have sought to shroud the horrible realities of this invention. There were, he said, many new discoveries to be made regarding the development of atomic energy ; but we should not comfort ourselves with the illusion that within a year or so this mighty force will provide the peoples of the world with light and heat and power. I was saddened by these authoritative remarks. I had been striving to muffle my hatred of the atomic bomb in wads of optimism regarding atomic energy ; I had pictured a world sparkling with myriad lights, cleared of the social grime of coal and ail, and deriving warmth, transport and happiness from a power station the size of a small pea. In five minutes Sir John Anderson destroyed these illusions.
* * * * These introductory remarks served as a fitting overture to the funeral dirge which Lord Russell then proceeded to intone. His Incisive voice, with its precise Russellian consonants, cut through the protective covering with which we had sought to muffle our fears.
At the very start he disposed of my own little theory by stating that the atomic bomb, so far from rendering war impossible, would render it almost inevitable. In a few trenchant and devastating sentences he sketched for us the effects of human inventiveness upon human survival. Bacteriological warfare when it came would extin- guish all animal and vegetable life upon the planet ; even the moss would shrivel from the rocks ; and we should roll on through space as a large and lifeless lump of stone. Yet even if bacteriological war- fare were not introduced, the atomic bomb would by itself exter- minate the human race. After two or three nations had thrown a certain number of these bombs at each other, radio-active clouds would be formed which would drift across the surface of the earth bringing death to millions. A few Patagonians might survive ; some Eskimos might avoid the infection ; but civilisation as we know it would quite quickly perish from the earth. Lord Russell then pro- ceeded to consider what steps the human race could take to avert its own extinction. He rightly dismissed as " futile " all resolutions passed by conferences or assemblies outlawing the use of the atomic bomb. He spoke with approbation of the Lilienthal report and con- sidered that an international system of control and inspection as therein advocated might in effect prevent the manufacture of these weapons in time of peace. But how could it also be prevented in time of war ? Only, Lord Russell insisted, by the creation of a world government possessing a monopoly of the major weapons of war.
* * * * Lord Russell admitted that there were many serious people who regarded the idea of world government as an Utopian illusion. "Why, therefore," he asked, "should I discuss it ? " "Because," he answered, " I should rather like the human race to survive." I enjoy discussions about world government even as I enjoy watching great banks of clouds massing themselves against the sunset. But here was a noted philosopher, a trained logician, about to tackle this unreality. I listened entranced. Lord Russell began by saying that world government could only be achieved by three means, namely, consent, compulsion or a federation of the right-minded nations. Consent was impossible, since it would be blocked by the veto of the Great Powers. Compulsion was undesirable, since it would mean a third world war. The only solution therefore was a union between all good nations, whose united action should be "vigorous, imaginative and quick." Up to that point he had compelled my emotional and intellectual consent. But he then suggested that the good nations, having achieved their federation and thereby over- whelming physical and economic power, should go to the bad nations and say to them, "Either you join our world government or we shall compel you to do so by force." In other words, he suggested that in the last resort compulsion would be the only means. This sug- gestion shocked some of the good liberals present. Lord Russell knew that he had shocked them. He appealed to them to consider " the problem, not in terms of old issues or traditions, but with a full realisation of the danger and a larger frame of mind. And in the closing passages of his funeral oration he spoke of the glorious resur- rection, the infinite vistas of wealth and happiness, which world government would offer to mankind.
* * * * Pensively we all streamed out into the December afternoon. The implications of Lord Russell's discourse were uncomfortable implica- tions. Should the good nations really use their atomic bomb to coerce the bad nations into accepting a world order ? That certainly, was a vigorous idea. It was one which I had myself advocated, ori implied, in my happy little novel of fifteen years ago. But then comes the awful question as to who is good and who is bad. There exists no tribunal which can decide this problem to the jatisfaction of all concerned ; it boils down to a simple " we " and a simple "they." Or does it ? In this uncertain world of ours we must cling to the absolutes ; and they exist. Cruelty and untruthfulness are always wrong, everywhere, absolutely. We can hold by that.
Previous page
