In Isaacson’s bio of Einstein, the way the story is told is that a grad student approached Einstein after he gave a talk and told him his theory led to the development of weapons of immense destructive power. Einstein didn’t understand this and thought the student a crank. It wasn’t until years later that it became clear this student was correct - and Einstein bitterly regretted it, as you say. He was appalled by it. He and Bertrand Russell drafted the Russell-Einstein manifesto, and from memory, Russell was literally arrested protesting against atomic weapons (which is one of the reasons Russell is forever on my Good Guys list.)

What can you do? Knowledge is forever a two-edged sword, the more we know, the more we can use it for either good or evil. There are many stories in Greek mythology about this very fact. The Myth of Prometheus who stole fire from the Gods springs to mind. I don’t think Einstein had a malicious bone in his body, the discovery of atomic weapons caused him enormous grief, but I think he would see it as an unintended consequence of his discoveries.

And actually I think the Oppenheimer quote made reference to Siva, which ought not to be left out.

Knowledge is forever a two-edged sword — Wayfarer

I agree. Reminds me of Cardinal Richelieu.

Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre. — Cardinal Richelieu

which translates as:

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. — Cardinal Richelieu

This is why consequentialism as a moral theory sucks. We may have some idea about immediate consequences but be shocked about what happens further down the causal chain.

To understand a thing is to know the manner by which it might be destroyed. A fundamental understanding of the basic building-blocks of the Universe is essential, then, to the total destruction of everything.

He and Bertrand Russell drafted the Russell-Einstein manifesto, and from memory, Russell was literally arrested protesting against atomic weapons (which is one of the reasons Russell is forever on my Good Guys list.) — Wayfarer

And yet Russell and von Neumann both advocated for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union.

If the whole world outside of Russia were to insist upon international control
of atomic energy to the point of going to war on this issue, it is highly
probable that the Soviet government would give way (...). If it did not, then if
the issue were forced in the next year or two, only one side would have
atomic bombs, and the war might be so short as not to involve utter ruin — Russell, 1947

I should like to see (…) as close a union as possible of these countries who
think it is worthwhile to avoid atomic war. I think that you could get so
powerful an alliance that you could turn to Russia and say: ‘It is open to you
to join this alliance if you will agree to the terms; if you will not join we shall
go to war with you’. I am inclined to think that Russia would acquiesce; if
not, provided this is done soon, the world might survive the resulting war
and emerge with a single government such as the world needs”. — Russell, 1947

Russells Advocacy

To understand a thing is to know the manner by which it might be destroyed. A fundamental understanding of the basic building-blocks of the Universe is essential, then, to the total destruction of everything.

How true. It seems creation and destruction are dancing together and the universe reflects their moves; tears and smiles, spring and winter.

And yet Russell and von Neumann both advocated for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. — JosephS

I didn’t know that, but then, at the time, Stalin appeared almost as threatening as Hitler had been. It was the Cold War, and there is a sense of desperation in Russell’s words; contemplation of a world in which those who had control of such power could control absolutely everything.

And I’m no Russell fanboy, I disagree with his philosophical outlook in almost all respects. But I still honour him as a teacher, and admire him for joining demonstrations.

And yet Russell and von Neumann both advocated for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union — JosephS

That's one of those times when someone is so intelligent that they sound stupid. The converse may be true on other occasions. Humanity, it seems, is at the mercy of the bungling idiot and the mad scientist.

I don’t think Einstein had a malicious bone in his body, the discovery of atomic weapons caused him enormous grief, but I think he would see it as an unintended consequence of his discoveries. — Wayfarer

This is funny for two reasons:
1) Einstein and Szilard wrote FDR, recommending nuclear weapons research.
2) As a consequence, the atomic bomb was engineered (not discovered).

This is funny for two reasons:
1) Einstein and Szilard wrote FDR, recommending nuclear weapons research.
2) As a consequence, the atomic bomb was engineered (not discovered). — Galuchat

Oh! :sad:

Einstein!!!!! :angry:

That's one of those times when someone is so intelligent that they sound stupid. The converse may be true on other occasions. Humanity, it seems, is at the mercy of the bungling idiot and the mad scientist. — TheMadFool

And I’m no Russell fanboy, I disagree with his philosophical outlook in almost all respects. But I still honour him as a teacher, and admire him for joining demonstrations. — Wayfarer

I came across Russell in this regard via von Neumann who I had been reading on with respect to the development of the von Neumann machine (Hungarians, including von Neumann and Erdos, are the closest things to aliens that I have encountered, brilliance -- clear in its display but inscrutable in its breadth and genesis -- I wonder if this doesn't have at least a little to do with their native tongue).

I knew of Russell as a philosopher and a pacifist, but nothing beyond that (my library on Russell is limited to 'Why I Am Not a Christian'). When I found von Neumann had advocated a first strike it was shocking, but not entirely surprising, if that makes sense. However, when I read Russell's name at the same time, it floored me. My comments aren't a criticism of Russell. They are reflective of a spike in curiosity as to how a pacifist can simultaneously hold that unleashing an unprovoked! nuclear holocaust can be justified. That's just goddamned interesting.

If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o’clock, I say why not one o’clock? — von Neumann

To von Neumann's question at the time I developed an appreciation for the good side of self-doubt and dithering. Non-action because you just don't trust that you are smart enough to have considered the action sufficiently. Perhaps having people at the button that are smart enough to know they aren't smart enough is a good thing.

There is an argument that the atom bomb, and the very idea of mutual annihilation, has led to what is known as The Long Peace, where there is a relative peace between major powers for the first time since the Roman Empire,

There is an argument that the atom bomb, and the very idea of mutual annihilation, has led to what is known as The Long Peace, where there is a relative peace between major powers for the first time since the Roman Empire, — NOS4A2

That's something I hadn't thought about and again consequentialism sucks. Thanks.

However, that's not real peace. Would pointing guns each other like in western movies, each waiting for the other guy to make the first move, count as peace?

As a teenager, my brain was in my penis (it still is I think), I also looked at a video of an atomic explosion and was in complete awe of the "beautiful" trademark mushroom cloud. — TheMadFool

From mushroom to mushroom then?

Considering the 'mutually assured destruction" scenario, I think the threat of nuclear weapons being deployed is not so great. A greater threat is that in the event of a major civilizational collapse all the nuclear plants around the world would need to be decommissioned if they could no longer be ongoingly attended, otherwise they would likely meltdown

mutually assured destruction — Janus

Yes, that's the Mexican Standoff I was talking about. What I think is that the means available to maintain peace suits the circumstances of the people/countries involved. The world maintains peace in a Mexican standoff between the superpowers. Europe maintains peace in a more mature manner.