Lewis Strauss Quotes

Despite all efforts to the contrary, there is still confusion in the minds of many people as to the differing and even contradictory meanings of the words "nuclear energy". I am sure that all of you have encountered, in your civil defense work, a rather widespread misunderstanding of the significance of such words as "fallout" and "radioactivity." There is a disposition among some persons to think of what might happen in event of a nuclear attack upon us in terms of what does happen when we test nuclear weapons under strictly controlled conditions affording maximum safety. There also is lack of understanding as to the true meaning of such phrases as "permissible dose levels" as applied to peacetime activities in the field of atomic energy. There is a tendency to regard these peacetime safety standards as being the limits for survival in event of actual attack. Sensational and oftentimes irresponsible articles have no doubt contributed to this confusion.

As a peace-loving people, and as members of the world community of peoples, we recognize clearly that science has raced ahead of man's readiness to deal with all the complexities of what science has created. With the advent of nuclear weapons, war has ceased to offer a solution for disputes among nations. War has become, not only out-of-date, but senseless.

Proficiency in the technology of nuclear weapons, and indeed of science and engineering generally, is not so much of an American monopoly as popular misconception once would have had it.

The President had unequivocally said that we would never use atomic weapons except against an aggressor. None of us like the idea of using them -- not least those of us who are engaged in their production -- but these reservations, which are the result of our moral principles, can be used, and are being used, by our enemies to trap and confound us. We must see the problem in its full perspective. We are not making weapons for conquest or aggression, or to impose our system on other peoples. Our sole purpose in having them is that we may not fall easy prey to others who have no such reservations, -- and who lack them because they lack the moral springs from which they might arise. Our reservations and principles do us proud but we cannot allow them to disarm us. For if ever they did, those principles would disappear from the face of the earth.

Exposure to radioactivity, as a vague, unproven danger to generations yet unborn, must be weighed against the more immediate and infinitely greater dangers of defeat and perhaps of obliteration at the hands of an enemy who possesses nuclear weapons of mass destruction and who might have no compunction about using such weapons if he thought we were too weak to defend ourselves and retaliate in kind.

Nuclear energy -- within the brief span of eleven years, commencing as a secret and remote subject -- has become one of intimate concern to every individual. It has an ever-widening influence on our daily living, our well-being -- perhaps even on our destiny. With each passing day, the energy that is bound up in the invisible nucleus of the atom comes to be a more potent force in our environment. The discovery of nuclear energy, like every invention of man's ingenuity, has brought to us both promises and problems.

The survival of our people -- and the work of you who are charged with protecting the lives of our people -- demands such prudence.

Thus, the words "nuclear energy" have many interpretations. As they bring to mind the terrifying spectre of a war of exploding A-bombs and H-bombs, they are horrible words. Yet those same words, used to describe the many uses of the atom for man's peaceful progress -- in medicine, agriculture, biology, industry and the production of electric power -- bear no relation of association to the uncontrolled fury of the atom as it might be employed in war. And finally, the words "nuclear energy" as they relate to the controlled testing of nuclear weapons so that we may be assured of the means of defending ourselves, ought not to be confused with the unrestrained use of large numbers of such weapons in actual warfare.

Science-writing is a very old-profession. Science probably separated from witchcraft when science-writing began. Just so long as information was passed along by word of mouth only, it was always susceptible to control by a few for their own benefit and to mystify the many. When it began to be written about, science came up out of the atmosphere of the cauldron and the alembic.

No matter how voluminous and complete our semi-annual reports may be, we know that the general public does not see them and could not be expected to do so. If they were written for popular consumption, they would be unusable as formal documents. On the other hand, our interim releases to the effect that we have awarded such and such research contracts, released such and such patents, or let a contract for a plant at so and so, -- are, at best, of very local and topical concern. About the best way that the unspecialized public gets any insight into our work is through what you publish and the use made of it by the media of radio and television.

Our civil defense efforts, as I mentioned a moment ago, have been faced with many difficult problems. These problems will continue and no doubt increase. As other nations develop and produce nuclear weapons of still greater efficiency and more destructive capabilities, our current planning for civil defense continuously requires revision lest it become outmoded. If we assume that an enemy can deliver an appreciable fraction of the weapons which we believe he can produce, the delivered cost of any one of those weapons may be almost insignificant compared with its potential damage. Also, an enemy is probably in a position to increase his destructive power of attack faster than we can hope to provide new and better civil defense measures to combat that increase. Civil defense, however efficiently organized it may be, simply cannot expect to keep ahead of the enemy's growing stockpile of more destructive, more diversified and presumably more effective nuclear weapons.

The Commission’s [AEC] program is directed toward encouraging development of the uses of atomic energy in the framework of the American free enterprise system.

It has been a privilege to have served our country for so many years. I have done the best I knew how to do – to protect and defend the national security even when that was not the recognized, nor easy, nor popular course of action at the time. I leave with the confidence that history will be just.

Even "security", that word so fretful to science and to the free exchange of ideas, is no modern innovation. Witness Bacon's elaborate encrypting of his work, Newton's allegedly purposeful distortion of a formula, Da Vinci who kept his long undeciphered notebooks in mirror-writing, and other examples that might be cited where the aim was apparently to prevent harm from ensuing as a result of the unexpert use of knowledge or wrong intent. The Sorcerer's Apprentice, that favorite fable of the laboratory assistant who learns the spell to make the mop carry water but who does not know how to stop the operation once it has begun, suggests the cataclysmic consequence where the sorcerer had not been sufficiently "security-minded" with, his formula. That might be a very, old piece of science-writing.

I am sure we are agreed that the ultimate survival of America is dependent on intellectual vigor and on spiritual deeprooting -- not on specific devices which are always for the moment. It has politics. The future of the scientists' America, and yours and mine, lies fundamentally with education -- that which is taught to the young in our schools -- that which is taught throughout life in the media of general communication by the contemporary writers. Fundamental are respect and zeal for scholarship, a lively regard for moral values, and a love of truth. And of these the last is, of course, the greatest. The atom has no ethics of its own any more than.