Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare

by Bertrand Russell

Written at the height of the Cold War in 1959, Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare was published in an effort 'to prevent the catastrophe which would result from a large scale H-bomb war'. Bertrand Russell’s staunch anti-war stance is made very clear in this highly controversial text, which outlines his sharp insights into the threat of nuclear conflict and what should be done to avoid it. Russell’s argument, that the only way to end the threat of nuclear war is to end war itself, is as relevant today as it was on first publication.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, War, History, Sociology

112 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1959

About the author

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Reviews

[John Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this when I was 12 years old and it played a significant role in my inspiration to study philosophy at university. Russell was conducting a one-man worldwide protest against proliferation of nuclear weapons at the time and was generally considered a kook. Here we are 12,000 nuclear bombs later, ready to destroy humankind. We should have listened to him.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 3 out of 5]

Russell wrote this tiny book in 1959 when there was a real threat of destruction by the Atomic bomb. He makes some common sense (and witty) remarks on the subject. Most interesting I found plans of the Americans to install weapons on the Moon (or even Mars) so that in the case the Soviets would attack the US destruction of the Union would still be guaranteed.

One of the common sense theses was that conventional local wars could easily develop into atomic world war. Which brings us to the Ukraine and the present. At first it was said they should be able to defend themselves and to force Russia to negotiate. By now politicians say the Ukraine should winthe war. (Presumably getting the Crimea back as well.) And sending heavier and heavier weapons, just hoping the war will not escalate into an Atomic war.

I am not saying, Russell could help us, were he alive now.

[John Badger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simple and incredibly agreeable. The routledge edition has a great introduction and history as well.

[Ollie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The world can be a scary place, and never scarier when madmen hold the destiny of the earth at the push of a button. So with the stakes so high, we reach a topic that really should be universal across all political spheres: the survival of mankind.

Although Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare was written in 1959 during the cold war, I suspect things are not that different today. In these writings Bertrand Russell doesn’t take a radical view at all on the subject of Nuclear Warfare, but an obvious one. The superpowers of the earth (which used to be the USA and the USSR) are playing a game of “chicken” with the population of the earth for reasons that, when looked at even at the surface, are quite unreasonable.

As Russell writes in this book, the main driving force of this nuclear armament is a race to collect weapons so that the other side will be deterred to attack first, and in doing so the major superpowers are condemning the rest of us to a life of fear nourished by the bare minimum. What could be motivating this? It seems to be our differences in lifestyle and a belief that a world is not worth having if the other side (and their way of life) wins.

Russell also puts into perspective the sheer destruction that would occur if nuclear attacks were to happen as there is plenty of discussion of the immediate damage, but little consideration for the after affects, the sickness and misery even years later that would further plague mankind and cost it more lives.


As a solution, there are several avenues that Russell proposes (such as the creation of a World government or a world committee assigned to deal with such disputes – one sounding less utopian than the other) but the most direct ones deal with diplomacy and the desire to reach an agreement based on negotiation. But a new outlook, especially of the population, is also needed before these negotiations begin. These involve an acceptance of both sides’ desire to not just survive, but to do so with their own chosen lifestyles. This cannot be achieved through world war. There are common grounds between the two disputing parties that the negotiating powers must realize and must make their citizens realize. In other words, better relations is the only way to get to nuclear disarmament and not the other way around.

It is clear that this crisis was created by humans, and there also lies its solution.

[Muhammad al-Khwarizmi · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are some insights here and there in this book, most remarkably the widely quoted way Russell casts brinkmanship into informal game theoretic terms, but for the most part it's woefully outdated. At one point, Russell talks about the idea of extending to the developing world the same sort of material comfort that is enjoyed in what you might now call "the global North", in contrast to spending billions on the arms race. Well, with or without countless nuclear weapons in this world—including quite a few that are ready to go in 15 minutes; yes, they're still around—it seems pretty clear that large parts of the Earth are now spent from all the people living on them.

This book was written when the Apollo 11 landing was still in the realm of science fiction. Since then, a lot has been learned in the sciences that simply wasn't known then, including the sciences of the mind. Back then, I can see how hope could have been allowed in good conscience to triumph over fatalism, but decades of experience and scientific study have ostensibly confirmed the notion that human beings are rather short-sighted and stupid for the most part. It follows naturally that Russell's high-minded approach to appealing to the common interests of the nations has fallen on deaf ears.

[Ilham Rusdiana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tujuan buku ini cukup bagus yaitu menunjukkan cara yang bisa dilakukan negara Barat, Timur, maupun non-blok untuk mencegah terjadinya perang nuklir. Sayangnya, penjelasan dari penyelesaian yang ditawarkan Russel kurang gamblang. Buku ini juga kurang komprehensif membahas ancaman perang nuklir dan negara-negara dibelakangnya.

[Kamakana · Rating 3 out of 5]

010411: interesting historical document shows the political, nuclear fears of 1959...

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

RUSSELL SAYS THAT THE PROSPECT OF ANNIHILATION DEMANDS “FRESH THOUGHT”

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) was an influential British philosopher, logician, mathematician, and political activist. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, in recognition of his many books.

He wrote in the Preface to this 1959 book, “The aim of this book is to show possible means of achieving peace in ways which should be equally acceptable to Communist Nations, to NATO Nations and to uncommitted Nations… What my opinions are concerning the merits of Eastern and Western political and economic systems, I have often stated, but opinions on these issues are not relevant in discussion of the dangers of nuclear warfare… I do not see any reason why the kind of arguments which are put forward by those who think as I do should appeal more to one side than the other… The appeal is to human beings, as such, and is made equally to all who hope for human survival.”

In the chapter on Disarmament, he says, “as the experience of the last thirteen years has shown, disarmament conferences cannot reach agreement until the relations of East and West become less strained then they have been… the long-run problem of saving mankind from nuclear extinction will only be postponed, not solved, by agreements to renounce nuclear weapons. Such agreements will not, of themselves, prevent war, and, if a serious war should break out, neither side would consider itself bond by former agreements, and each side would, in all likelihood, set to work to manufacture new H-bombs as quickly as possible.” (Pg. 46)

In chapter X, he observes, “There are many people in the West, and I suppose also in the East, who consider that the extermination of the human race would be preferable to the victory of the ideology that they dislike… On this ground it is argued that, if nothing short of a nuclear war can prevent the victory of the other side, a nuclear war should be waged even should it involve a risk of universal death. I cannot but regard such a point of view as one exhibiting ferocious fanaticism. By a curious inconsistency, those in the West who take this point of view maintain that they are defending democracy, although they must be aware that a plebiscite of the world would give an overwhelming majority against them.” (Pg. 73-74)

In an Appendix, he acknowledges, “I have never been a complete pacifist and have at no time maintained that all who wage war are to be condemned. I have held the view… that some wars have been justified and others not… I do not deny that the policy that I have advocated has changed from time to time. It has changed as circumstances have changed. To achieve a single purpose, sane men adapt their policies to the circumstances. Those who do not are insane. Though I do not admit inconsistency, I should not be wholly sincere if I did not admit that my mood and feelings have undergone a change somewhat deeper than that resulting from strategic considerations alone. The awful prospect of the extermination of the human race… is so sobering to any imagination which has seriously contemplated it as to demand very fundamental fresh thought on the whole subject…” (Pg. 90-91)

The more explicitly “political” stance taken by Russell during the last decades of his life will not appeal to all lovers of his earlier writings a philosophy; but they are well-stated and passionate, and will particularly appeal to those with pacifist sympathies.

[Carlos · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book came up on my list during the weeks this year when the possibility of a nuclear war with North Korea seemed too great for comfort and I became curious to see what Russell had thought about a nuclear conflict at the very beginning of the Cold War. What I found in reading this book was a wonderful process to think through all the emotions that blind us into self-righteousness. Russell deliberately dedicates his book to both camps of the Cold War and bases his arguments on the utter devastation that a nuclear conflict would cause. He then goes on to establish all the steps by which these two camps may come to as peaceful coexistence as could be hoped. He recognizes the role that vilification of the other plays in making logical arguments seem outrageous and suggests the benchmarks for dialogue that would allow for further compromises. Through this management of a crisis, Russell is also able to give a credible path to what could be considered utopian dreams and give the reader reason for some optimism.

[tententini · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this up randomly at a local bookshop because I like Russell, and I like common sense. As expected, it's a very well argued anti-war piece, critiquing martial glory, nationalism and false morality, among other things. I'll just leave this here:

"Not only the inhabitants of Communist nations-or of Capitalist nations - but the inhabitants of all the uncommitted nations are denied by them the most elementary freedom, which is freedom to choose survival. The view that No World is better than a Communist World, or that No world is better than a Capitalist World, is one that is difficult to refute by abstract arguments, but I think that those who hold it should question their right to impose their opinion upon those who do not hold it by the infliction of the death penalty upon all of them. This is an extreme form of religious persecution, going far beyond anything that has been advocated in previous human history."

[Sergio GRANDE · Rating 4 out of 5]

For me, Bertrand Russell was to philosophy as Anthony Bourdain was to regional food. He made it seem simple, fun and accessible.

In this book, written 63 years ago and revised a decade later, Russell makes the most philosophical point that, to end the threat of a nuclear war, disarmament is not enough; the aim should be to end war.

How is this for prescient?: “Unfortunately, some people are lunatics, and, not long ago, there were such lunatics in command of a powerful State. We cannot be sure this will not happen again and, if it does, it will produce a disaster compared with which the horrors achieved by Hitler were a flea-bite. The world at present is balanced in unstable equilibrium upon a sharp edge. To achieve stability, new methods are required, and it is these new methods that those who think as I do are attempting to urge upon the East and upon the West.”

[A YOGAM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vernunft und Atomkrieg (Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare)
In der Hochphase des Kalten Krieges (1959) veröffentlicht, ist dieses Buch ein eindringlicher Appell gegen die nukleare Eskalationslogik. Russell analysiert das Wettrüsten als rationalisierten Wahnsinn und entlarvt die diplomatischen Strategien der Supermächte als Spiel mit der Auslöschung der Menschheit. Es ist ein erschreckend zeitloses pazifistisches Manifest – und ein Beispiel dafür, dass Philosophie nur dann wirklich relevant ist, wenn sie sich den existenziellsten Bedrohungen ihrer Gegenwart stellt.

[Jim Cullison · Rating 4 out of 5]

While substantial portions of this otherwise excellent volume are severely dated, Russell’s scholarly brief against nuclear brinksmanship is as readable as when it was written, and in obvious respects, more relevant than ever before. Highly recommended.

[Francesc Bertran · Rating 3 out of 5]

Amb el rerefons de la guerra freda, el filòsof Bertrand Russell, reflexiona de la irracionalitat en què s'ha convertit l'escalada armamentística de les dos potències del moment, amb unes bombes nuclears que poden destruir la humanitat.

[Rooda Ebrahim · Rating 4 out of 5]

It doesn’t offer any mind-blowing revelations. Most of what is said can be derived from common sense. Which makes you wonder, what kind of morons inhabit and control this planet?

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

What greater evil can there be than the man who would sooner see the destruction of his species than the temporary dominance of a foreign ideology?

This is the question asked and answered by Bertrand Russell in this marvelous polemic.

[Valentina Castillo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love how it shows an historic perspective, great read to culturize more yourself. I think you need to know a little background of information in order to read it. To me it was really shocking how politicians in that time actually needed a BOOK to understand why atomic bombs will never work.