ONE WAY STREET

New Zealand Listener, Volume 22, Issue 552, 20 January 1950, Page 13

ONE WAY STREET

THE ATOMIC AGE, The Haley Stewart lectures; Allen & Unwin. English price, 7/6. "HE atom bomb merely underlines’ | what we have known for some time, | that ®man’s real enemy is war, and that the control of the uses of scientific dissovery has passed beyond urgency. This means the control of certain characteristics of man. To those who have read One World or None (1946), Atomic Challenge (1947) and Atomic Energy (1947), this book will bring familiar themes and familiar names-Blackett, Oliphant and Bertrand Russell. Careful comparison

over the years reveals an increasing gravity in outlook. In some ways these lectures fall well below Atomic Energy, but they have one immense advantage; they are a year later. And what opinions emerge? Oliphant has not changed. He still believes that all knowledge can be useful and that the scientist cannot escape responsibility for the uses to which his work is put. Blackett discusses the military significance of the atom bomb. By copious quotation he seeks to establish its limitations as an instrument of policy and he discounts a quick, easy victory. Now that both the prospective antagonists have the bomb, his theory may be put to the touch. He favours strict neutral(continued on next page)

BOOKS (continued from previous page) ity for Britain. Harrod rejects neutrality in favour of support of the U.S.A. He correctly points out that it is no longer possible to fight to the last man because of the collapse of the basic organisation of a modern state. He does not pursue this theme, however. What happens when, over the whole world, organisation collapses? He offers dispersion as our only defence, but modern industry cannot be satisfactorily dispersed. Curtis, who follows, agrees with the others that any form of control based on inspection is futile. He feels that the only defence:is to be first with: the attack. After this, Brogan considers the position of the United States. He notes that her power is not based on the bomb but on the strength of her economy. Her dominance is not because of our weakness, but because of her wealth. And she created that herself. Russell discusses values in an atomic age. He comments, wryly, that we grow used to what we at first correctly regarded as abominations. He sees that our problem is to preserve as much as possible of what we value. No more ad- ventures, no more purple rhetoric and no more evasions either. Some loss of liberty is inevitable. That is the price of security. But what besides? Clearly the "sovereign state’ is an anachronism. Russell thinks a "world state" to be our only hope, and the U.S.A. is his chosen instrument, even at the risk of a preventive war. I wonder how that country will relish the’ role for which she has been cast. And does her leadershir equal its opportunities? In any case the time for the creation of such a state has passed.. It had appeared remotely possible even last year while the atom bomb was a monopoly. It is vastly otherwise now.

The lectures shed light in turn upo: various aspects of our problem — the problem of how to live in a world which contains, at once, two sets of atom bombs and no criterion for the. social responsibility of science. Quite simply, how is man to remain alive? We must recognise that his ability to change his nature may not match his willingness to do so. Peace is more than non-war. It implies a willingness to face the future. _ At present the bomb is made from a ‘Tare isotope of uranium, and only two countries have the industrial strength for its manufacture. A much more effective "bomb could be made by turning four atoms of hydrogen into one of helium. The raw material required" is water. What hapless city will first learn that the research into this has been successful? ;

J. D.

McDonald