 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today that's July 16th marks the 75th anniversary of the first nuclear detonation. So this took place as part of the Manhattan Project in July 16th 1945 and the explosion was a prelude of course to the dropping of the atomic bombs in August on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There's been a lot of commentary about this explosion itself. Oppenheimer described it of course as having equivalent of the brightness of a thousand suns. But this was also the beginning of a very sustained and powerful movement against nuclear weapons. And we have with us Praveer Prakash to talk about it. Praveer, thank you so much for joining us. So could you first talk a bit about the context in which this took place as well as how the origin of the protest and anti-nuclear movements almost began from that time itself. The history of the Manhattan Project is interesting because it starts with, officially, Zillard using Einstein who was his mentor and with whom he had worked earlier to draft, send a letter to Roosevelt, President Roosevelt. And Zillard was worried about the possibility of, after Otto Hahn and others had published a paper about chain reaction was worried that the Germans would get the nuclear bomb. And that would change completely the world that he knew was a Hungarian scientist was a emigre into the United States. So he was very keen that therefore they should be contributing at least activities bomb making by which it could be balanced and therefore his approaching Einstein. Einstein was also active in the peace movement in Germany in the first world war. So he had a history of the peace movement and Zillard later devoted all his life to the peace movement. So it's really a tragedy of the first order that these two people who were both constitutionally peaceniks, they were the ones who also become the originators of the idea of the bomb. Not that they were the only ones but that's the most publicized one because Einstein had that authority and his writing to Roosevelt meant that if it reached Roosevelt, Roosevelt would take it seriously. So that is the origin of the, some people would say the Manhattan Project itself, because Roosevelt then initiates it, then Einstein writes a second letter, and that accelerates the development. And then we have finally the formation of the Manhattan Project. And what you said, the July, today's anniversary of that event that darkness of a thousand suns is what we called it. When we did a issue, we actually brought out a booklet on the nuclear bomb and saying why it should not be there. The part of our science and peace movement. So this is the background of that. But you know, when Germany surrenders, then Zillard, and Zillard by the time had already fallen out with the general who was commanding the Manhattan Project, General Grobe, he had realized that the bomb was not something that was going to be used against Germany and Germany was not actually in a position to make the bomb. That had become clear that Germany was not really making the bomb. Later on, we learned that Otto Hahn and others hadn't cooperated with Nazi Germany, and therefore they didn't want to really build the bomb. So with that, Zillard was thinking that now the Manhattan Project should not really have the objective of the bomb when he discovered, and this is what he talked about, that General Grobe said that this is again the Soviet Union. This is not a good German. So then he was very worried, how do we prevent the bomb to be dropped then in Japan if it becomes a functional bomb? And on July 16th, we have the demonstration. On the 17th, Zillard then writes a letter to Roosevelt, and he's able to reach Eleanor Roosevelt, Roosevelt's wife, who says that she will meet him. But unfortunately, Roosevelt dies. And then Truman becomes the President of the United States. Einstein did write to him, Zillard did meet, not Truman, but he met people that Truman wanted him to meet on this issue. By the time it was clear that the mind had been made up in the United States highest levels, that they would drop the bomb as not as demonstration, as Zillard's letter and Seinwer 74 scientists had written, that do a demonstration, give Japan a chance to surrender. And then if it doesn't happen, then think about using it. Don't use it first. But by the time it was clear that it was going to be used before any demonstration, before declaring that they had such a bomb, because the objective was not the surrender of Japan. The objective was really the post war scenario that would emerge, and it was really directed at preeminence of the United States in global scenario, because they would have the bomb, and others would not. And they actually calculated this from the last 10 to 15 years, and this would then allow them to set up the whole post war scenario in a way that would be advantageous completely to the western past, led essentially by the United States. And it's also interesting what you said this is also the start of the peace movement, because once the scientific community who had actually been involved in the Manhattan Project, realize that this was not for deterring Germany. But this now was an instrument of coercion, which was going to be used by others with the sole atomic bomb being in the possession of the United States. They then turn against the bomb completely. And then, of course, Einstein, who was deeply remorseful, as well as Zillian, both of them were deeply remorseful that they had initiated in some sense the bomb project, then team up with others on how it has to be at least contained, how we can get a position where nuclear weapons would not be used. What could you do for an atomic piece, these then become their objective and Zillian spent the rest of his life as a basically working for the peace movement becomes one of the activists of the drug wash movement, which is as you know the scientific communities answer to the bomb and raises the for the first time all of them put together raise the question, what is the social responsibility of the scientists, what is called as the Einstein Russell manifesto, which was signed by a number of leading scientists from both sides at that point. And this is something that then occupies Einstein, it occupies a whole lot of galaxy of scientific thinkers, as well as a lot. The, in that sense, the originator if you will, the original mover of the proposal to build the atom bomb, and therefore the Manhattan Project. So like you pointed out, the US did try to, of course, plan a scenario where they would have a lead for the next 10 to 15 years. And that did not work out because the Soviet Union almost immediately developed the bomb as well. But for the next 20 to 30 years, there was actually a very vibrant or even 40 years, there was actually a very vibrant movement on these issues. Like you said, scientists were in the forefront of it, peace movement science movements were very much leading this issue. But we do see that, especially post the 90s. This has not been so much an issue on in the minds of people for younger people, for instance, the question of a nuclear holocaust has not really been very much on top of their minds. So it is also because that this issue over time has kind of moved from the center of people's imagination regarding the future of the world. This is even as the US has a huge number of weapons it has walked out of previously. Well, you know why the global community is not worried about nuclear weapons anymore is essentially question I have failed to answer. It is as if if you have the doomsday set hanging over your head after sometime you become immune to it. So you think, okay, it hasn't happened for 50 years, 60 years, 70 years, something would happen. So somehow you do not realize how close you have been in the last 70 years for a nuclear exchange. Now, we know that nuclear bombs could have been dropped by accident. A nuclear exchange could have taken place by accident. For instance, it is now known that the US detected a flock of bees as a nuclear strike. And it is only because the person concerned who was supposed to monitor this said this can't be true that the trigger wasn't pressed. Similarly, you had situations where flights are allowed to almost about to take off and somebody stood in front of the aircraft and said, No, this cannot be true. So you have had human interventions to really stop pulling the trigger or pushing the trigger, whatever it might be. And this has prevented really an exchange of nuclear weapons when either side were not actually attacking. So it's purely what would be considered as glitches, which led to a possible exchange. And of course, you have the real possibility that somebody may, may, and if you have a cramp or if you have somebody else mad enough, may think they can win the nuclear war. So what's a big deal? Let's just destroy them and then we will rule over the world. Okay, half of it will be destroyed. No big deal. So even those kind of manic figures might take over the presidency of the country. And with now roughly about 10 countries who are nuclear weapons, the number of people who have control over the trigger. And, you know, the exchange that is required to bring in what would be called a global nuclear winter is not that significant 25, 30 bombs, that would be enough to set up a cataclysmic event in the into for all countries. So the fact that this is not bothering people is also because the United States, and this is really the United States problem, they have said they would like to retain monopoly of nuclear weapons, they are not going to give it up. And if one country doesn't give it up, all the others then say, we also want to have it, we are not going to give it up. And if you look at what North Korea has faced, and what for instance Serbia or Iraq has faced, or what Libya has faced, the fact that they were not invaded. But Serbia was. The dafiz Libya was because they gave up the nuclear option, and so was Saddam. So the lesson that people seem to have taken is that if you want really to deter US, then to have the nuclear weapon is better. Otherwise, whatever negotiations you have, you still can attack. And therefore, all the promises made by the United States have no value. And therefore the final deterrent, the nuclear deterrent, this is the message that you give tend to give to the world. And that's the reason also you provoke then arms race, not only with Soviet Union, now Russia, or with China. But you also provoke it because a lot of countries then feel that well, that is the only deterrence US understands, there is no other deterrence, it will accept. And whatever treaties you might reach with the United States, the next president can tear it up. And that's it, you are back to square one. But you've already conceded a lot of things. For instance, Iran conceded a lot of things on the nuclear program. They probably were not never interested in making a bomb, but they did have a nuclear stockpile of material, which could be very quickly converted into fissile material. They had processed it about 20% purity, after which the step to the 85, 90% purity for weapons grade is not that significant. So giving all of that up, they believe that that would secure for them peace back to a certain kind of normalcy in the world. But they're, you know, in as big a sanction regime as the war before the signed all of this gave up a number of their centrifuges and also their stockpile they had of uranium fissile, not fissile uranium, but pure purified uranium up to about 20% and that was a significant stockpile they had. So the issue therefore is what is the protection that's there against the United States. And that, unfortunately, as long as the US believes that it can be the global hegemon, and it believes that therefore it needs nuclear weapons as a protection against quote unquote rogue states. So we don't think we are going to see a reversal. And because there doesn't seem to be any possibility at the moment for pressurizing the United States, no other country. We cannot be able to rule the world completely but no other complete country is in a strategic competition that the US, therefore the feeling that nuclear weapons perhaps are here to stay, unless we have a strategic parity of some kind. They do have in terms of destroying the world they do have strategy strategy parity, but they don't really have the strategic parity in terms of economics, politics, or all the other paraphernalia that goes in the strategic competition. So given that, unless there is a change in the United States itself against war, and US has I think had more than 80 invasions in the last 100 years. So unless that kind of policies change, it's going to be very difficult to build a peace movement. The world's peace movement at that time came because of the threat of mutual annihilation, and it was felt both sides could enter into war, both sides could reciprocate, and therefore the need to bring peace. And a large part of the European peace movement was, okay, you have if you want explode bombs against each other, but not in Europe. And that was one of the reasons that you had a strong peace movement in Europe, and now it's just not there. Thank you so much Praveer for talking to us. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching.