Scientists and Society
{[AjɒΏ @Bohr on the Nuclear Problem
{[AŰUtH[hѺAԫqfѭѮƄݭʭl𬭲ARjGlѰM[JЭ_I[BAھAޭ}nb^vžjRΏʭBڌԣAƹq1993AiA1996B
1933N@qgŪ[ʭݭAulڒ@vƤ⏭ҭBθЭ_lwEnB {[AѺɭSwÐ㕶ɭ魎B{[AZ⒭ŽzB
1943NA{[AکgCMɰXSB `hEBbNCMɰXAɰJijɒJЭbЪBƢEƒíѵΌǭvҭA\סּjRѣín\ԩB
44N7ڪAѪ[YFѰgo϶έ
AKƯɂھǭmȭέ魎ݭspʭΏAٽھǪAꭦeQέιέ}Ƹ˭ҭݭǭʭ۪B
CʭŮ˭I\ǭ孢@ǭʭ۪B魻AAٽ魩ۭÐv\íaIꭅɜAÐ歃ꭆmҭ魢wi筀ҭ魢@ŕԩѭʭҭ魍A䖶K^魱ʭvB
AθЭRۭMOȭۭvBȭAvžɨL]YѮIJЭ魎έQ筁ǪAsgѼܭ뭵Smۭdɸ}ҭAȭKvOɂڏi{˭ꭁʭۭlϭʭB
ҭۭ_孢AN筀lޭwꭃW]^ϭǭSƢEIwAȭLԿxŽ魑۪BۭfnʭAeέwlI魻AԚڨ\IGխڏiĭҭϭʭ۪Biƹ1993A238-9ÿpj
45N3ڪAѪ[YFѰgo϶έ
ZpIş@ŸAƦYKvwڐǭAɑ𬭮gp魍魢ڐԶAɀʭҭҭϭ᭐AɂΌeͭm˭ԿIʭ۪BdvʭB
ɅWέ{CwZpŽ𭃭AԿIɂÀҭ魍魢BȭIS@\ƐŮƠÛŕݭǪAAVwIZpIWlAɂڏiKƯƨݭɩƭǭۭǭʭ۪B
ƐÛŕɩƭɔ̭ǪAY@\A𬭃W쭻s魒魢ۭ\S[uݭ筸ۭϭAԫqYѮIJЭ\Զfǭʭ۪B
ƢEIuףּlޭǭwi筀ҭVѵRvѪҭٙAíeꭅɜKٽۭAΌK^魱ʭvBȭۭꭅɜANRAٽέۭÐv\ʭB
ȭAﭻ筸VʭAԩ魢xiϭޭ魢@ŕϭ魑ۭAڥíɅ˭ݭAj`筀ԩݭsÐvƦιΏíLvԣʭ۪B
ۭ魾LW]ۭAS筀Kv鶔𖭃کRۭAڒXέ_IAIƦöѵԠݭWQھЭΌǭԿݭ孁ʭ۪BȭԠݭЭAhPαs\ʭB
Iwꭃ筀ΌǭGЭҭAlKĭɅƉΌƚ٠ݭ筀JЭɅ^AƒOŸNʭҭέwʭЭeǭـȭ魎ʭ۪B٠ѵAǭ{TdlϭۭϭAɂmۭϭAЭ孁ʭ۪B
魻AFDIԲ_Ώ_ǭۭCjVAeBݭAȭۭ@ŕۭʭ۪BAҭJЭiޭݭ魍AЭAȭʭҭѣIwѕȭiiKBٽAcۭΌέڗ㟭魢ƤۭiD魎ʭ۪B
Alﭻڏ㟭ǭjŗƢEmAΌwIZpIiíaIԁɔbzЭ孮魍Aʭ_Kխ魱ʭAҭӭ魢Biƹ1993A243-5ÿpj
iA50NAuAԚJvڞ^j
{[Ae
ٰXEAŰXwiٰXEAŰXwA ALASA1945N8ڪjAЭIbynC}[iżLÿp*QjB
ԫqɂέٓ筀{▶oB{ꭱέF⏭AgѪ[}ΌԫqꭃɅҶέcŕ▶o ALAS v\ϭԚ\TϭvB
\ڭҶέ▶oҭACW\㭃ԫqɂ@Àcŕ▶oҭBuԫqÛŕvƠÀiRl4Al5jBubVARigAIbynC}[AtFѰ~AٰXARvg㭍ꭱxB
뭵AVŪ[hwԋĭҭ}N}z㭃RÀ▶oҭi5lÛjB 1946N7ڭ}N}z@ΌCҭAcŕŧB
ȭԋAAԫqɂÀuA`\EɰɰG\[ÀvٓIbynC}[Ss魒i1946NjBAڍIoѪ[NAɰJڌ\魏AÀɔ{_ѭuoѪ[NÀvΌCҭҭ۪B\AҭAoѪ[N1948N\ޭЪBAIpٓwjjxARƓoܪA1998QB
*
I think it is for us to accept it as a very grave crisis, to realize that these atomic weapons which we have started to make are very terrible, that they involve a change, that they are not just a slight modification: to accept this, and to accept with it the necessity for those transformations in the world which will make it possible to integrate these developments into human life. (Oppenheimer's speech to ALAS, Nov. 2, 1945. A.K.Smith and C.Weiner, eds., Robert Oppenheimer, Stanford Univ. Press, 1980, 318)
The point is that atomic weapons constitute also a field, a new field, and a new opportunity for realizing preconditions. I think when people talk of the fact that this is not only a great peril, but a great hope, this is what they should mean. I do not think they should mean the unknown, though sure, value of industrial and scientific virtues of atomic energy, but rather the simple fact that in this field, because it is a threat, because it is a peril, and because it has certain special characteristics, to which I will return, there exists a possibility of realizing, of beginning to realize, those changes which are needed if there is to be any peace.
Those are very far-reaching changes. They are changes in the relations between nations, not only in spirit, not only in law, but also in conception and feeling. (319)
It is a new field, in which the role of science has been so great that it is to my mind hardly thinkable that the international traditions of science, and the fraternity of scientists, should not play a constructive part. It is a new field, in which just the novelty and the special characteristics of the technical operations should enable one to establish a community of interest which might almost be regarded as a pilot plant for a new type of international collaboration. I speak of it as a pilot plant because it is quite clear that the control of atomic weapons cannot be in itself the unique end of such operation. The only unique end can be a world that is united, and a world in which war will not occur. (319)
If atomic energy is to be treated as an international problem, as I think it must be, if it is to be treated on the basis of an international responsibility and an international common concern, the problems of secrecy are also international problems. ... I mean that the fundamental problem of how to treat this peril ought not to be treated unilaterally by the United States, or by the United States in conjunction with Great Britain. (321)
One of the questions which you will want to hear more about, and which i can only partly hope to succeed in answering, is to what extent such views---essentially the view that the life of science is threatened, the life of the world is threatened, and that only [by] a profound revision of what it is that constitutes a thing worth fighting for and a thing worth living for can this crisis be met---to what extent these views are held by other men. They are certainly not held universally by scientists; but I think they are in agreement with all of the expressed opinions of this group, ... I would speak especially of Bohr, who was here so much during the difficult days, who had many discussions with us, and who helped us reach the conclusion that [it was] not only a desirable solution, but that it was the unique solution, that there were no other alternatives. (322)
Last modified September 28, 1999. (c) Soshichi Uchii
@