On Growth Two

[p. 10]

2. Moisey A. Markov

Professor Moisey A. Markov was born in Russia in 1908. He was graduated in 1930 in physics from the Moscow State University. Since 1934 he has worked on problems concerning the theory of elementary particles and cosmology at the Institute of Physics of the USSR Academy of Sciences. At present he is secretary of the Nuclear Physics Section of the USSR Academy of Sciences. This interview was conducted by the author in the office of the president of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Professor M.V. Keldysh.

Is not nuclear disarmament perhaps one of the most urgent questions which faces humanity?

First of all, I should like to remind you in a few words of the history of the past wars. The First World War began with the usual rifles and artillery and finished with tanks, gas, and airplanes. The Second World War started with automatic weapons and tanks and it finished with atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unfortuantely, science works both in favor of peace and of war. And no one can predict how a Third World War will end if it ever breaks out, when all the intellectual, moral, and economic forces of all the continents will be utilized in inventing weapons of destruction. Unfortunately, the most important characteristic of scientific research, both in the service of war and of peace, is the unpredictability of the result of such research. This characteristic of scientific research was once strongly underlined by the French scientist Juliot Curie. In scientific research reality always turned out to be more fantastic than the most unbridled fantasy. I remind you of Milton's Paradise Lost. The author gives a description of the struggle between the forces of God and the forces of Satan. He wishes to create a satanic picture, to evoke a satanic cleverness, but in his inventions for military purposes he could only think of heavy artillery and not of the atom bomb or other sophisticated means of annihilation. These were impossible for him to imagine and to predict, but reality - I repeat - appears to be considerably more fantastic than the most unbridled fantasy. As you know, the use of gas was forbidden during World War Two, but instead of

[p. 11]

gas we saw new and far more destructive weapons. It is, of course, highly desirable and effective to forbid the use of nuclear arms but I must observe that even conventional arms are becoming more and more destructive. The only way out is complete disarmament and the prohibition of the use of all kinds of arms and of war as a means of solving the problems of our planet.

How could nuclear disarmament be taken out of the perpetual circle of conferences that fail and collapse and how could the ultimate aim of success be accelerated?

It appears to me that the solution of the problem of general disarmament which, as I have said before, is greatly desirable, will not be achieved all that quickly in spite of its desirability. But nonetheless each small step in this direction is extremely desirable and necessary. A great problem is the mutual distrust that exists between East and West. I must say that the great distrust which prevails among the people of this country towards the West, or more correctly, towards the policy of the West, is rooted deep in history. Right from the beginning of the organization of our state, it became the object of numerous interventions. I will not give a summary of the nature of these interventions or of the states which took part in it. I only wish to remind you that the last intervention was that by Hitler's Germany. I will not recall the sacrifices which this intervention meant for us. I will only say and repeat once more that the distrust, the caution which is shown by this country in its discussions with the West, are deeply rooted in the entire history of the existence of our state. And the step that has been taken recently in the direction of a change in this situation that was closely connected with the so-called Cold War, into the direction of reducing tensions in this relationship, was a positive step. It was not an easy one to take, not even for our country.

In the future, every step toward an improvement of relations among countries, toward building up confidence and trust will, of course, be desirable, but it will somehow of course have to be founded on some kind of material basis. For even developments in the world surrounding us are hard to predict. You know that before Hitler came to power, the Soviet Union had quite good relations with Germany, which was then democratically governed. It looked as though nothing would be able to cloud the future of these relations. But also here, it turned out that history could not be predicted. The emergence of a Nazi state and its intervention in the Soviet Union was impossible to forecast. It is extremely difficult to foretell developments in the history of states surrounding the Soviet Union. However, we should

[p. 12]

have hope for the future. Our planet has no other way out than to achieve general and total disarmament. In order to achieve this, the coexistence of the various social systems is necessary.

Premier Chou En-lai recently told a French parliamentary delegation: ‘The greater the number of countries who possess the atom bomb, the smaller the danger of war: the H-bomb means peace....’ Do you adopt this assumption?

This recipe of maintaining peace on the basis of mutual deterrence for all countries is fraught with an even greater possibility of unleashing a nuclear war. It is difficult to balance a policy of deterrence with the help of mutual deterrence. Even the most experienced equilibrists in the circus make from time to time fatal mistakes.... And the greater the number of such actors taking part in the performance the greater becomes the possibility of mistakes being made.

The above situation presupposes that the people who are responsible for playing the claviature of nuclear music firmly maintain their commonsense and that the frightful symphony, the Requiem for our planet will be never unleashed in a fit of madness. The Nonproliferation Treaty in particular constitutes a first step toward this desirable goal - but the next steps must also result in general and complete disarmament.

Mrs. Alva Myrdal, the former Swedish Minister of Science, has pointed out in my interview with her that there is a good chance of a small amount of fissionable material getting into the hands of wrong elements who might so be able to blackmail mankind.

I know that this problem is being discussed abroad. As far as I remember, this was echoed at the last Pugwash Conference in Finland in the reports of the study groups concerned. But I must say that there are no problems in this direction here in the Soviet Union. The possibility of this danger is completely excluded within the Soviet Union. I think that, if it is excluded in the USSR, the possibility that we would cause such problems can also be excluded. But perhaps in some countries abroad corresponding measures will have to be taken.

Are we being confronted with a world energy crisis? Will the Soviet Union accelerate a switch to atomic energy in industry?

I believe that the solution of the energy crisis of our planet in the near future coincides with the solution of the problems that are related to the crisis

[p. 13]

in the Middle East. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it is not being threatened with an energy crisis. We have sufficient resources of oil and coal. We have a few problems in regard to the efficient use of our resources situated in Siberia and, consequently, perhaps for further development of atomic energy in the western part of our country. It seems to me that world reserves of oil and coal are adequate, given a political solution of the problems which are mainly related with the crisis in the Middle East, so as to meet demands during the next ten and possibly even twenty years. But in the course of this period the energy problems may be solved on an entirely different basis - maybe the problems connected with the obtaining of thermonuclear energy can be likewise solved. Therefore, I maintain that for the next ten years the energy problem is political and politicoeconomic. At the same time, of course, this problem will stimulate and contribute to research aimed at finding a precise scientific and economic solution for our future activities.

Generally speaking, after the discovery of the famous law of Einstein we may say that we are surrounded by an inexhaustible amount of energy, although I must admit that for the time being we have neither the possibilities nor any scientific hope of being able to utilize it within the foreseeable future. I may perhaps recall that in the year 1933, Rutherford said that those who think that it will be possible for us to use atomic energy are talking nonsense. This was said by the great Rutherford. In the same way we might perhaps say likewise that those who are now thinking of utilizing the energy which is present within matter are talking nonsense, but I would be afraid to repeat the same error that was made by Rutherford in his time.

We have, for instance, the urgent problem of nuclear waste in the immediate future.

This problem was discussed in fairly great detail in a special study group at the last Pugwash Conference in Finland, which took place in August, 1973. Various points of view were put forward, but at the moment there is no scientifically founded opinion on the basis of which one can say that the development of reactor techniques and the corresponding nuclear energy are threatening to pollute our planet with radioactivity on any large scale. Rather the opposite is true. That is to say, even better solutions will be found in the future for dealing with the problem of waste and the problem of other radioactive pollution by reactors. I would remind you that radioactive pollution also occurs as a result of conventional generating stations operating on coal. For coal contains radioactive matter which remains active for a

[p. 14]

long time, and the figures indicate that radioactive pollution by power stations working on coal is even considerably greater than by radioactive pollution caused by power stations using atomic fuel. If the problem is seen in this way, atomic fuel may be even cleaner than coal.

It seems to me it is of the greatest importance that all scientists, from East and West, regardless of their political convictions, learn to cooperate in finding solutions for all these atomic problems.

I think you are right and that closer cooperation between Soviet and American scientists will assist in a further rapprochement and lessening of the mutual distrust which still exists between our two countries. I believe that we are now moving in this direction. A few years ago it was completely impossible for our Soviet scientists to visit American centers - the centers for cosmic research - while it was impossible for American scientists, for instance, to visit our City of Stars, our center for cosmic research. But, as you know, an American group has now been cooperating for a fairly long time with our cosmonauts in our cosmic city. This rapprochement has taken place. In the same way, there is at present a revival in many areas of scientific activity in which closer cooperation between Russian and American scientists is taking place. A group of our scientists is successfully working at the largest American accelerator, in Batavia, while American scientists have worked in our reinforcer in Serpukhov. I believe that we are actually moving in this direction and I think that this movement will continue at an ever-increasing speed.

So you are hopeful for the future as far as the ‘survival chances’ of man are concerned, as B.F. Skinner puts it?

I am optimistic as regards the future of mankind. I think it will turn out that mankind has sufficient commonsense to move in the direction of more prosperity and not in the direction of annihilation. I believe that recent tendencies strengthen this conviction.

Particularly, the improvement in relations between East and West, which has been noticeable since 1972, indicates that we can hope for a better future. This improvement also played a meaningful and positive part during the Middle East conflict in 1973. I believe that it is impossible to underestimate this, and much of what we have said today concerning the cooperation between East and West - a concrete cooperation - in the field of science and technology contributes to my conviction that the future of

[p. 15]

mankind is brighter than it appeared to be some time ago. And prospects for prosperity throughout the world are in my opinion likely to be given a real chance, particularly in relation to the coexistence of systems based on various social structures.