The Voice of the Dolphins and Other Stories

by Dr. Leo Szilard

  As the result of the economies thus achieved, Russia was able to invest 25 per cent of her national income in capital goods serving her consumer-goods industry, and her standard of living was increasing at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. Her per capita consumption of meats and fats rapidly approached that of America; as a result, deaths from coronary attacks rose very markedly and were approaching the American figures.

  Propagandawise the Russians stressed the moral issue involved and made the most of. it. All over the world Communists and Russian sympathizers proclaimed that wars, which initially merely meant the killing of soldiers, but in the end came to mean the wholesale killing of civilians-men, women and children-as well as soldiers, were now a thing of the past, thanks to Russia’s decision to forgo, abrogate and abolish war. They said, over and over again, that Russia was the only truly Christian nation, since she alone, among the Great Powers, was upholding the Sixth Commandment.*

  _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

  * The possibility that it might be to Russia’s advantage to adopt this type of strategy was discussed by Szilard in an extensive article which appeared in the February issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1960. It is not known whether Szilard’s article elicited any response other than a notice in Newsweek, in America, and in Krokodil, in Russia. Newsweek condensed this article beyond recognition and managed to convey the impression that Szilard proposed that Russia and America ought to demolish each others cities in exchange-to no sensible purpose. Taking its information from Newsweek, Krokodil suggested in its issue of April 20, 1960, that Newsweek carry an ad for Szilard offering to exchange his Room 812 in the Medical Division of Memorial Hospital in New York for a bed in Ward 6 in the Psychiatric Division of the same hospital. Some of his American colleagues do remember that Szilard made a prediction concerning the strategy which the Russians would adopt if there were no general disarmament, but they remember only that he predicted something rather crazy, without recalling what it was that he predicted. After his death, Szilard appears to have received some recognition, however, from his Russian colleagues, who named a small crater after him-on the back side of the moon.

  _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

  Following the Iraq crisis there were two rival schools of thought in America.

  One of these held that America ought to follow Russia's example: cut down on her arms expenditure by reducing the Army, the Navy and the Air Force and adopt the Russian strategy of relying on long-range rockets.

  The other school argued that Operating with the threat of demolishing cities would favor Russia rather than America, because the American government was more responsible to the will of the people and the people did not like to see their cities demolished. They urged, therefore, that an all-out effort be made to develop an antimissile missile, capable of destroying incoming Russian rockets in flight, and stressed that a defense system based on such missiles would nullify the Russian strategy of demolishing cities.

  The President’s Science Advisory Committee took a dim view of the feasibility of an effective antimissile defense system, but in the end the views of the Department of Defense prevailed; thus, an appropriation of $20 billion per year .for the development of such a defense system was included in the budget and unanimously passed by Congress.

  Most of those who urged the development of the antimissile missile also urged that America cease to rely on atomic bombs used. against troops in combat and be fully prepared to fight limited wars with conventional weapons. They argued, convincingly, that a war in which atomic weapons were used against troops in combat would not be likely to remain limited and might end up in all-out atomic destruction. Since the enemy must know this also-so they further argued-it would not resort to the use of atomic bombs against troops in combat as long as America limited herself to fighting with conventional weapons.

  Taking its cues from this school of thought, the American government adopted the position that it would be immoral to use atomic energy for purposes of destruction and urged that all use of atomic bombs in warfare be outlawed. The government proposed that, until such time as atomic bombs can be eliminated from the armaments of the nations under satisfactory safeguards, each nation pledge unilaterally not to use atomic bombs either against troops in combat or for the purposes of destruction. If such pledges were given, then America would use only in retaliation the atomic bombs it retained, and only if America or one of her allies were attacked with atomic bombs.

  The position of the American government was generally supported by the press. Noted columnists pointed out that even though outlawing the atomic bomb would. not-necessarily prevent the use of such bombs in time of war, it would preclude nations from resorting to the threat of using atomic bombs in order to attain their objectives. , The American proposal that the use of atomic bombs be

  outlawed represented the main theme of most of the programs of The Voice of America, which received an appropriation of $1 billion a year, and the American proposal for outlawing the bomb received world-wide support. But even though during the postwar period the outlawing of the bomb had been persistently urged by Russia, the Russians showed no interest in this approach. They stood fast in the face of adverse world public Opinion, and no indication was forth-coming that Russia would go along with outlawing the use of atomic energy for purposes of destruction.

  Pending the completion of the development of the antimissile missile, America followed a triple policy of maintaining long-range rockets to be used in retaliation in case America were attacked by means of such rockets, a small but mobile military force equipped to use small atomic bombs

  against troops in combat, and also a large combat-ready military force capable of fighting local wars by means of conventional weapons. Since maintaining such a triple system was costly, America had an arms budget of around $70 billion. This cut down the amount invested in capital goods serving the consumer goods industry to about 3 per cent of the national income, and. it slowed the rise in the standard of living to about one per cent per annum. Such a stagnation in the standard of living was not a very serious detriment, however, since the standard of living was high enough as it stood; moreover, a high defense expenditure was regarded as an insurance against the possibility of a recession.

  The depression which hit America in 1974 began with unemployment in the construction industry, which subsequently spread to other industries. In the hope of inducing the Federal government to finance large-scale construction, the construction industry established a lobby in Washington in the second year of the depression. But, in spite of large-scale Federal construction, there was no marked economic improvement by 1977, at the time when America was confronted with upheavals in Iran.

  The Government responded to these upheavals by promptly

  proclaiming that if Russia should send troops into Iran,

  America would not fight her in Iran, but, instead, two Russian cities of about one million each would be demolished, after being given four weeks of warning. People knew, of course, that should Russia actually invade Iran, not only Russia but also America would lose two cities, but it was generally felt that, because of the large-scale unemployment prevailing in the construction industry, America would be in a position to rebuild, in short order, the cities which she might lose.

  In these circumstances, the government’s proclamation had strong support in Congress, and it would be uncalled for to attribute this solely to the influence of the lobby of the construction industry. Congressmen might very well have realized that, with the development of the antimissile missile still lagging, the government had no other recourse but to adopt the so-called “Russian strategy.”

  Russia did not send troops into Iran. Whether she refrained from doing so because she would have lost two of her cities or whether she never had any serious intention of becoming involved in the mess in
Iran may be regarded today as debatable. At that time, however, the press in America stressed that the Russians had an emotional attitude toward property and abhorred the destruction of property, particularly public property. They also stressed that the loss of a city would mean more to Russia than just the loss of property, that it would disrupt the social fabric and cause dislocations which the precariously balanced Russian social system could not easily stand.

  The Iranian incident was followed by a period of quiet, and many people began to believe that the strategic stalemate had reached a stage where it was virtually stable. The map appeared to be frozen, at least in the sense that such changes as came about came about through genuine internal revolutions and no nation sent its troops across the frontier of another nation in an attempt to increase the territory under its control.

  Around 1980, however, there appeared a new kind of instability, which developed into a serious threat to the world by 1985. In order to understand the problems that confronted the world in that critical year, it is necessary to consider how the world situation had changed in the interval from 1960 to 1985.

  THE AMERICAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION

  The years that followed the Second World War brought unprecedented changes in the Far East. What was really novel and unique about China was not so much that China had a Communist government, but that for the first time since the days of the emperors China had a government. By 1960, it was clear that the Chinese would be able to raise production greatly, but it was not as yet clear whether at the time when this would become necessary they would be able to slow the rate of their population increase. Had they failed in this, no amount of economic progress, within the limits of the obtainable, could have appreciably raised their standard of living. It is anyone’s guess whether China would have succeeded in solving her population problem had it not been for the replacement of much of her rice diet by a diet of Amruss.

  It seems that by 1960 most Americans realized the foolishness of opposing the seating of China in the UN and of pursuing a policy of “No Speak” toward China. Szilard’s diary, recently reprinted by Simon and Schuster, contains an entry made in 1960 to the effect that he did not know personally anyone who still thought that America ought to persist in Opposing the seating of China in the United Nations. In flagrant contrast to this, virtually all of those who ran for elective office in that year went on record against the seating of China.

  This is not so surprising as it might seem, if one recalls to what extent the American two-party system favors minority rule. A few per cent of the voters who feel strongly enough on an issue to be willing to throw their vote, on that single issue, from the Democratic to the Republican candidate or vice versa, may well be in a position to determine which of the two candidates shall win. This explains why, under the American political system, a minority may force its will on the nation as a whole. Thus America’s long-sustained opposition to the seating of China in the UN was forced upon her by an emotional minority of the voters, representing less than 5 per cent of the votes. America never actually changed her vote on the issue of the seating of China in the United Nations, but she was outvoted by a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. She refused to recognize China until 1966. That the dolphins had anything to do with America’s recognition of China in 1966 was not known at the time, for people did not realize that the dolphins exerted a decisive influence on this issue through the American Research Foundation.

  This foundation derived its income from the Vienna Institute, and its income exceeded that of the Ford Foundation twenty-fold. The trustees of the foundation, apparently hand-picked by the dolphins, served on a part-time basis, without salary. Membership on the Advisory Board of the foundation was, however, a full-time job carrying a salary of $200,000 a year for life. When, in the course of the years, the Advisory Board was built up to full strength its membership consisted of twenty distinguished politicians, Democrats and Republicans in about equal numbers.

  The first politician to join the advisory board was Peter Douglas, who became Secretary of State when the new Administration took office following the 1964 elections. Douglas, who was irrevocably Opposed to the recognition of China, resigned his position as Secretary of State in June 1965 to accept a life membership on the advisory board. His successor in office was Roger Knowland,* a Californian, who was also strongly Opposed to the recognizing of China. He, in turn,resigned his office in February 1966 to join the Advisory Board. His successor as Secretary of State, Milton Land, former Senator from Massachusetts, did not share the Views of his predecessors, and the U. S. finally recognized China.

  _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

  * No relation of the late Senator William Knowland.

  _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

  According to the charter of the American Research Foundation, the Advisory Board wielded great power, for its recommendations were supposed to be binding on the board of trustees. However, the charter also specified that these recommendations must be passed by a unanimous vote, and it seems that no resolution ever passed the Advisory Board by unanimous vote. While this must have been rather frustrating to its members, there is no record of anyone’s ever having resigned from the general advisory board.

  It is quite evident-in retrospect-that membership on the Advisory Board had never been offered by the foundation to any Cabinet officer or any member of the Senate who pursued, or supported, a constructive foreign policy. It should be borne in mind, however, that only in the light of subsequent , events could it become evident whether a foreign policy was constructive or not.

  In the circumstances, the world might well have remained unaware of the role which the dolphins played in American politics, except for the revelations contained in Alex Gamov’s Conversations with Pi Omega Ro, (10th edition, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1998), which covers the two years immediately preceding the establishment of the foundation.

  There was a time when people thought that the discussions reported in the Conversations were transcripts of the conversations which staff members of the Vienna Institute had with Pi Omega Ro. In View of the inconsistencies discovered, this View is probably no longer tenable, and today it is regarded as more likely that Gamov reconstructed these conversations imperfectly from memory.

  As the reader may recall, Gamov, a member of the staff of the Vienna Institute, had married the sister of one of his American colleagues and did not return in 1990 to Russia, but joined the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. Upon his retirement ten years later, he began to write the Conversations.

  In his book he relates that the dolphins, who grasped mathematics, chemistry, physics and biology with ease, found it difficult to comprehend America’s social and political system. The American staff members whose task it was to explain America to Pi Omega R0 were at times so exasperated by the questions asked by this dolphin that they asked Gamov, who spoke flawless English, to come to their rescue.

  Thus, on one occasion, Pi Omega Ro asked whether it would be correct to assume that Americans were free to say what they think, because they did not think what they were not free to say. On another occasion, he asked whether it would be correct to say that in America honest politicians were men who were unable to fool others without first fooling themselves.

  When Pi Omega Ro became interested in foundations he wanted to know everything about them, including the legal technicalities of their tax exemption. Upon being informed that a tax-exempt foundation may not spend its funds to influence legislation but may spend them on education, he asked whether this implied that in America education did not influence legislation.

  Pi Omega Ro was puzzled why money which would other-wise be taxed away and go to the Treasury should be permitted to go to foundations when obviously foundations never did anything worth while except what the Government was doing anyway and, in many cases, was doin
g better. He regarded the bylaws of the foundations, which provided that grants for research projects be allocated by a simple majority vote of the trustees, as an ingeniously contrived device to make certain that no imaginative project was ever approved. “Let us assume, for the sake of argument,” he argued, “that one third of the trustees are men endowed with imagination and two thirds of them are not so endowed. Does not the majority vote then automatically bar any imaginative project? And even if we accept, as the basic tenet of true democracy, that one moron is as good as one genius, is it necessary to go one step farther and hold that two morons are better than one genius?”

  These conversations must be regarded as authentic, in Spite of the doubts which were raised by some of Gamov’s colleagues who knew him at La Jolla. Their observation that Pi Omega Ro’s sense of humor showed a remarkable resemblance to Gamov’s own sense of humor is of no relevance, since his long association with Pi Omega Ro may well have colored Gamov’s own sense of humor. The Conversations is the only authentic document that reveals that from its inception the foundation meant to influence the course of political events in America and that the dolphins knew that no politician would be able to resist the offer of a membership on the Advisory Board.

  THE FAR EAST AND EUROPE, 1960 TO 1985

  The American attitude toward China started to change even before the U. S. recognized China.

  As the world moved closer and closer to the long-range rocket stage of the stalemate, nations like France, Italy, Western Germany and Japan realized more and more clearly that they could not count on American protection if they got involved in a war with Russia, because America could hardly be expected to risk the loss of her own cities for the sake of protecting theirs. This consideration led to an increasingly strong demand on the part of these nations to have hydrogen bombs under their own control. America might have resisted these demands had it not been for the fact that by then America had begun to look upon her allies more and more as potential liabilities rather than potential assets. Therefore, in order to free herself from any moral commitment to defend her allies, America felt inclined to provide them with bombs which they could use in their own defense.