In negotiations between East and West, both sides, if they were sane, would not regard each other as the enemy, but would view the H-bomb as the common enemy of both. Both East and West have a common interest, which is to escape the common destruction threatened by modern weapons. Both sides are blinded to this common interest by mutual hatred. In negotiations there is no genuine wish on either side to reach agreement, but only to avoid any semblance of a diplomatic victory by the other side.
Behind this mutual enmity, there lies certain human passions, of which the chief are pride, common, suspicion, fear and love of power. Negotiators consider that they have reason to feel pride when they resist even reasonable concessions, and in this they are supported by the public opinion of their own country. Suspicion – which is by no means groundless while the present temper remains unchanged on both sides – makes each side view what the other side says as probably containing some trap enticing our innocent negotiators by the diabolic cunning of the other side. Fear – which, again, is by no means irrational under present circumstances – has the effect, which fear often has, of producing irrational reactions that increase the danger that is feared. This is a common phenomenon in private life, well known to psychiatrists. In a state of terror, most people do not think sanely but react in an instinctively animal manner. I once had a donkey which was kept in an outhouse. The outhouse caught fire and it required the utmost efforts of several strong men to drag the donkey to safety. Left to itself, it would have been immobilised by terror and would have been burnt to death. The situation of the great powers in the present day is closely similar. This applies especially to the question of disarmament. Each side is terrified of the nuclear weapons of the other side, and seek safety by increasing its own nuclear armaments. The other side naturally responds by a new increase on its side. In consequence, all the steps taken to diminish the nuclear peril, increase it.
Love of power is, perhaps an even stronger motive than fear in enticing nations to purse irrational policies. Although individual boastfulness is considered to be bad manners, national boastfulness is admired – at any rate, by the compatriots of those who practice it. Throughout history, great nations have been lead to disaster by unwillingness to admit that their powers had limits. World conquest has been a will-o-the-wisp by which one nation after another has been led to its downfall. Hitler’s Germany is the most recent example. Going backwards in time, we find many other examples of which Napoleon, Genghis Khan and Attila are the most noteworthy. Those who regard Genesis as authentic history may take Cain as the first example: he may well have thought that with Abel out of the way, he could rule over coming generations. When Khrushchev threatens to obliterate the West, and when Dulles said, “We might win the hot war,” I am reminded of past examples of a similar folly.
And it is an utter folly, even from the narrowest point of view of self-interest. To spread ruin, misery and death throughout one’s country as well as that of the enemy is the act of madmen.
From Has Man a Future? by Bertrand Russell.
Related posts:
One Comment
I love this book. Though it was written a few decades ago, its content remains uncannily current. I think that a lot of the ideas in this book could tell us a lot about what may happen if governments continue to think they have some control over nature and the world in general. When i read this book i thought maybe humans have been in this predicament before, but having blasted themselves to smithereens, the earth had to start again – multiple times. Maybe we need to hide russells book so the next earth full of people know not to engage in nuclear warfare, and remain as agriculturalists.