(2 of 3)
I would like to compare Kapitsa with another of our most brilliant nuclear physicists, Academician [Andrei] Sakharov.* He, too, had misgivings about military research. I used to meet frequently with Sakharov, and I considered him an extremely talented man.
Literally a day or two before the resumption of our [hydrogen] bomb testing program, I got a telephone call from Sakharov. He addressed me in my capacity as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and said he had a petition to present. The petition called on our government to cancel the scheduled explosion and not to engage in any further testing, at least not of the hydrogen bomb. "As a scientist and as the designer of the hydrogen bomb, I know what harm these explosions can bring down on the head of mankind."
"Comrade Sakharov," I said, "you must understand my position. My responsibilities do not allow me to cancel the tests. Our party and government have already made abundantly clear that we would like nothing better than to suspend nuclear testing forever. Our leadership has already unilaterally discontinued nuclear testing and called on the United States and other countries to follow our example for the good of all mankind. The Americans wouldn't listen to our proposals. As a scientist, surely you know that they've gone right on conducting their tests. If we don't test our own bombs, how will we know whether they work or not?"
He wasn't satisfied. He still insisted that we not resume our own testing.
I wanted to be absolutely frank with him: "Comrade Sakharov, believe me, I deeply sympathize with your point of view. But as the man responsible for the security of our country, I have no right to do what you're asking. For me to cancel the tests would be a crime against our state. Can't you understand that?"
My arguments didn't change his mind, and his didn't change mine; but that was to be expected. The scientist in him saw his patriotic duty and performed it well, while the pacifist in him made him hesitate. I have nothing against pacifists—or at least I won't have anything against them if and when we create conditions which make war impossible. But as long as we live in a world in which we have to keep both eyes open lest the imperialists gobble us up, then pacifism is a dangerous sentiment.
This conflict between Sakharov and me left a lasting imprint on us both. I took it as evidence that he didn't fully understand what was in the best interests of the state, and therefore from that moment on I was somewhat on my guard with him. I hope that the time will come when Comrade Sakharov will see the correctness of my position—if not now, then some time in the future.
Despite such disagreements with some scientists, I believe that by the very nature of their activity the technological intelligentsia do not interfere in the more complicated spheres of social life, namely in ideology. A more difficult and slippery problem is posed by the creative intelligentsia. Our creative intelligentsia suffer more than any other category of people in our society. Materially, they're better off than other categories, but spiritually, members of the creative intelligentsia are troubled.