Need nuclear warheads neutron moderators

From the fear of nuclear war to professional peace research and teaching: Peace engagement by natural scientists in Hamburg

Transcript

1 From fear of nuclear war to professional peace research and teaching: Scientists' commitment to peace in Hamburg Hartwig Spitzer Courage to rethink Imagine that it is peace and everyone is participating. Imagine it's war and nobody goes there. That was one of the sayings of the peace movement of the 1980s. It was a saying that broke the logic of normal thinking. When there is war, people are of course right in the middle of it. People have prepared it, people want to make political capital out of it or simply make a profit from the war. People are built up as enemies in order to mobilize their own ranks. People become victims of war. Courage to rethink was necessary at the end of the 1970s. The mood in the German population, especially among the younger generation, was anything but rosy. The years of full employment in the 1960s and early 1970s were well in the past. Two oil price hikes had led to economic collapses 1. The fatal end of the hostage-taking during the Munich Olympics in 1972 and the attacks by the Baader Meinhof Group had led to fear of terrorism fueled by politics and the media and harsh state reactions. The spirit of optimism of the student movement of 1968 had evaporated. Fear of the future spread. No Future was one of the slogans among young people. There were parallels to today. The NATO decision of December 12, 1979 to station new medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe then triggered an awakening and rethinking. He made larger sections of the population aware of what had been going on for a long time: the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. The military on both sides prepared for a major war with nuclear, chemical and conventional weapons and practiced it in large-scale maneuvers, even if it was politically and militarily undesirable. The leading politicians and military planners of the USA and the Soviet Union as well as their allies adhered to the old Roman motto Si vis pacem para bellum if you want peace, prepare for war. 1 The price of crude oil tripled in 1973 after the Israeli Arab Yom Kippur War.

2 1. Encouragement to Peace Scientists have evaded this logic within the framework of the peace movement. The aim of this article is to show how scientists in Hamburg have been committed against armament and for arms control, disarmament and understanding between East and West since 1983. Who were the actors, what moved them, to what extent were they successful? What's left of it? Can something be learned from this for today's much more complex world situation? The history of the natural scientist peace movement in Hamburg is not a heroic epic. It was always only minorities who got involved and positioned themselves: back then in the 1980s around a hundred people, today significantly fewer. But it has been possible to anchor scientific peace research and teaching in the university and at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy (IFSH). There is encouragement from students who think outside the box and want to get involved. There is a constant demand for Hamburg's political and media expertise. That's a drop in the ocean. But without this drop Hamburg and the republic would be poorer. In the beginning there was fright In the winter of 1981 a group of scholarship holders from the Evangelical Student Union visited my home. Holger Hoffmann, a physics student, had insisted on discussing a text by Edward P. Thomson, Exterminism as the Last Stage of Civilization (1980) 2. The article first pointed to the growing overkill capacity of nuclear weapons. In 1979 the USA and USSR had nuclear warheads on long-range, so-called strategic delivery systems 3. The article stated: Today's military technology erases every element of politics. One system directed at extinction is opposed to the other, and the decisive process will follow the logic of advantage within the parameters of extinction. I was shocked and found myself caught in a fallacy. Up until the 1970s, I myself, like many others, had been convinced of the sustainability of mutual deterrence. The two highly armed nuclear powers, the USA and the USSR, had sufficient second strike capacity to inflict devastating damage on the other side if they attacked. In English one spoke of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The discussion about the Thomson article made me rethink. 2 Thomson, Edward P.: Exterminism as the last stage of civilization ", in: Die Befreiung (1980), translated from New Left Review, No. 21. Copy in the author's archive. Compare also New Left Review (Ed.), Exterminism and Cold War, Verio Editions London, In this specifically the contribution by Edward Thomson: "Notes on Exterminism, the Last Stage of Civilization". 3 Including so-called tactical nuclear weapons (with short range), the USA and the Soviet Union had a total of around nuclear warheads in 1985. Each warhead is a potential Hiroshima. The American physicist Frank von Hippel summed this up at the Moscow International Forum For Nuclear Free World, For Survival of Mankind, February 14-16, 1987, as follows: The USA and the USSR each have ten to a hundred times the ability to destroy of modern civilization [source: author's transcript]. 2

3 Spitzer: Scientists' commitment to peace is fatal and morally untenable. What is threatened must also be practiced and kept in constant readiness for action. The risk of the consequences of an incorrect reaction is too great. The supposed equilibrium of horror is not a stable, but an unstable equilibrium. Only those who overcome the logic of deterrence can create a sustainable peace. My doubts started in another place: my own role as a researcher. For twenty years I had been enthusiastic about my field of work, elementary particle physics, and never missed an important conference. I had identified with the subject. The topic was intellectually exciting, the methods were innovative, the working conditions were very good, and the international contacts were stimulating. The end seemed to justify the means. The purpose, according to the general reading, was the value-free search for scientific truth, for an expansion of the physical horizon of knowledge. Until it became clear to me that the matter was not completely neutral, but was accompanied by competition and struggles for self-preservation. On every research project, on every major device construction, there is the pressure to prepare a successful follow-up project and to implement it in terms of science policy out of self-preservation interests. Reports from large American weapons laboratories and German arms companies showed similar dynamics. Researchers and engineers who fully identified with their topic also worked there. The methods were innovative and the working conditions were good. There was an end that justified the means: national security. But: On every weapons development project there was the pressure to design a successful follow-up project, to make it attractive to the military and to implement it politically. Weapons laboratories and armaments companies drive arms races between competing powers and the technological race between offensive weapons and defense systems out of self-preservation and profit interests. At that time I understood something: a categorical imperative for a double professional strategy: You should master your subject, your craft, your profession and identify with it, but only so much that you still have strength and openness for interdisciplinary critical engagement in the interest of the common good remains. The breeding ground in Hamburg societies have a certain similarity to ecosystems. Each location has its own growth-promoting and growth-inhibiting factors. In Hamburg there were quite contradicting conditions. As the largest industrial city in Germany, Hamburg was a huge armaments factory during the Second World War. Many of the physicists who remained at the university worked for arms research and development (Renneberg 1991). The most prominent among them was the physico chemist Paul Harteck (). He carried out an experiment with uranium as early as 1940. He wanted to measure the multiplication of neutrons through nuclear fission in a stratification of uranium oxide and dry ice (CO 2), which served as a neutron moderator (inter alia Schaaf 1999). Later he developed a centrifuge for the enrichment of the uranium isotope U 235, which is used for fission in nuclear reactors and 3

4 1. Encouragement to Peace Atomic bombs is needed. However, he and his team did not get beyond a few prototypes (inter alia Schirach 2012:; Schaaf). After the war, the first physics students had to knock off rubble stones in order to rebuild destroyed institute buildings before they could go to lectures. The brown past and the involvement of their own professors in arms research have been suppressed. That changed in the late 1950s. The largest demonstration to date against the military use of nuclear energy took place on the town hall market in 1958 under the motto Fight against atomic death with participants (FZH 2009). The physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker () was appointed to a chair for philosophy at the University of Hamburg in 1957 and gave his legendary lectures on Plato, Kant and the philosophical problems of the natural sciences in the overcrowded auditorium. From 1939 to 1942 he worked intensively on the physics of atomic bombs. Back then, as a young scientist, as he later judged self-critically, he was obsessed with the delusional idea of ​​penetrating so far into the physics of the bomb that he could ultimately have had political influence on Hitler with this knowledge (Schirach 2012: 247). In the meantime he had rethought. He was the driving force and main author of the Göttingen 18 declaration of this group of prominent nuclear physicists and chemists warned against the plans of Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer () to arm the Bundeswehr with nuclear weapons and refused to participate in any German nuclear weapons program (including Braun 2009). Von Weizsäcker founded the Association of German Scientists (VdW), which has been campaigning since 1959 for scientists to assume their responsibility in society. In 1964 he founded the VdW research center in Hamburg, which among other things carried out a large-scale study on the consequences of a nuclear war. When Weizsäcker left to a newly created Max Planck Institute in Starnberg in 1970, most of his employees followed him. The scientific expertise for arms control was thus withdrawn from Hamburg. But the ground was prepared 4. Many of the listeners to Weizsäcker's lectures belonged to the next generation of decision-makers. 4 In 1971 the Senate of the Hanseatic City established the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) at the instigation of the Hamburg politicians Helmut Schmidt and Hans Apel and the former Army General, Wolf Graf von Baudissin. 4th

5 Spitzer: Natural Scientists' Commitment to Peace After the student unrest of 1968, the University of Hamburg was given a new structure with more democratic participation and a new young president, the theologian Dr. Peter Fischer Appelt. Fischer Appelt specifically campaigned for an understanding with the communist-ruled countries of Eastern Europe and concluded numerous partnerships with Eastern European universities (Fischer Appelt 2012). So there was a breeding ground at the university for the peace issue and understanding across the bloc boundaries. But it was only the retrofitting decision and impulses from other universities that prompted peace-loving scientists in Hamburg to join forces and articulate them together. The Forum Scientists for Peace and Disarmament e.v., founded in 1981, had a role model function. in Münster and the Physics and Armaments seminar in the Physics Department of the University of Marburg (1983), whose circulars and scripts were distributed nationwide 5. The greatest effect, however, came from the nationwide Congress Responsibility for Peace in July 1983 in Mainz. A group of professors, including the Munich physicist Hans Peter Dürr, the Cologne geneticist Peter Starlinger and the Göttingen geologist Jürgen Schneider, organized the congress with the strong support of two young scientists, Reiner Braun and Ekkehart Sieker. The group was constituted with other scientists than Mainzer 23 in conscious reference to the Göttingen 18 by Corinna Hauswedell (1997) and described the self-image, the demands and the opposing reactions in politics, the media and other parts of the peace movement in a differentiated manner. The congress quickly met with a nationwide response. Two political events in 1983 had a decisive influence on the dynamics and topics of the natural scientist peace movement in the following years: on the one hand, the stationing of American Pershing II missiles equipped with nuclear warheads in Western Europe. On the other hand, the Star Wars speech by US President Ronald Reagan on March 23, Reagan announced the intention of the US government to introduce defense systems against attacking nuclear missiles as part of a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The script for the Marburg seminar was printed in four editions. Approximately copies of it were bought nationwide (Altmann / Liebert / Neuneck 2004: 274). 5

6 1. Develop encouragement for peace and thus make it harmless and superfluous (obsolete and impotent) (including Labusch / Maus / Send 1984) 6. First initiatives at the university and at DESY As before in Münster and Marburg, an important one followed Impetus to deal with the armaments problem of members of the younger generation. A student peace initiative was set up in the physics department of the University of Hamburg. At the initiative of these students, the Physics Faculty Council decided unanimously on July 9, 1983: The Faculty Council appeals to the members of the Physics Faculty to critically address the issue of nuclear armament and to take a position on the problem in a suitable form also students who initiated the establishment of a physics and armaments seminar. We think physics has a lot to do with arms policy. In our department, people are trained who will later do research directly or indirectly on armaments. Today that is more than 50 percent of us worldwide. And what are the rest of us doing? They hunt neutrinos and quarks, phonons and photons for seemingly value-free, innocent and unworldly. This is exactly where my criticism begins. We would have to contribute to finding solutions to the armaments problem, precisely because we are or want to become scientists (Stefan Nann, student initiator of the Physics and Armaments seminar 8). The Physics and Armaments seminar At the end of 1983 a Hamburg physics student, Stefan Nann, and two fellow students came to my office with a concern. They wanted to hold a physics and armaments seminar based on the Marburg model in the 1984 summer semester and win me over as a co-organizer. It was their declared aim to announce the seminar as a regular course in the course catalog and not to hold it as a purely student working group. The three even had a finished seminar program and the names of interested parties 6 See also on Candide`s Notebooks, available at: []. It is worth reading up Reagan's speech, also from today's perspective. On the one hand, Reagan questioned the primacy of the deterrent doctrine: In the course of this discussion I became more and more convinced that the human mind must be able to rise above dealing with other nations and people by threatening their very existence. On the other hand, he held the (erroneous) idea that a missile defense program would pave the way for the elimination of nuclear weapons. 7 Source: Letter from Professors G. Andersson Lindström, P. Kotthaus and G. Zimmerer to the professors, lecturers and assistants in the Department of Physics at the University of Hamburg, author's archive. 8 Quoted from: Bienlein / Lindström / Spitzer / Members of the Peace Initiative in the Department of Physics (eds.). 6th

7 Spitzer: Peace commitment brought by natural scientists for the lectures. I hesitated. Since starting my studies I had been told by colleagues and teachers: Science is value-free, the responsibility for the application of science lies solely with politics. Anyone who mixes physics and politics is considered dubious. 9. I wanted to avoid being blocked and isolated by conservative colleagues in the department council and institute with these arguments. I agreed to the two students on the condition that I could win two more professors as co-organizers. That succeeded: I found two committed colleagues in my colleagues Johann Bienlein (DESY) and Gunnar Lindström (Department of Physics) who held the Physics and Armaments seminar with me well into the 1990s.It was possible to place the seminars as a compulsory elective in the course offerings of the department in the proseminars category. This category was introduced in a previous reform of the curriculum with comparatively low content, but clear didactic requirements. Ad hoc group on questions of the arms race and arms control In addition to the student campaign, some of the fathers in Hamburg also took the initiative on their own initiative. In the autumn of 1983, eleven professors from the physics department of the University of Hamburg and DESY met for the first time in an ad hoc group on questions of the arms race and arms control 10. The group had set itself the goal of bringing scientific expertise into the public debate on the nuclear arms race and intervene in the SDI program 11. There were differences of opinion about the political approach. Some members wanted a separation from the student topic and pleaded for inhibition of politicization. Others were more open to cooperation with the student peace initiative and the more politically arguing Mainz 23. The following steps were agreed: - Mutual information about current developments, in particular from contacts with specialist colleagues in the USA and the USSR as well as from the nationwide natural scientist peace initiative, - content Preparatory work for a dossier of ZEIT on the SDI program of the USA, 9 This attitude was (also) a defensive reaction to the attempts in the Third Reich and the communist-ruled states to ideologically transform and influence science. 10 Professors Bienlein (DESY), Duhm, Kotthaus, Lindström, Scobel, Sonntag, Spitzer, Wick and Zimmerer as well as a representative of the grandfather generation, Prof. em. Willibald Jentschke, the founding director of the German electron synchrotron (DESY). During the Second World War, Jentschke carried out nuclear physics investigations with uranium, among other things, but was not involved in the uranium project of the German Army Weapons Office (Schaaf / Spitzer 1997). Later the head of the theory department at DESY, Prof. Hans Joos, also joined the ad hoc group. 11 Prof. Zimmerer writes in retrospect: Personally, I was firmly convinced that retrofitting was unnecessary and dangerous, and that is why I joined the initiative. I want to be able to look my children in the eyes, that's my motivation. Today politicians are sounding that historical developments have confirmed NATO's double decision. What is forgotten here is that the alleged success of the double decision is due to a man, namely Gorbachev, who did exactly what we asked for on our part: Jump beyond one's own shadow (source: private communication to the author, April 19 2013). 7th

8 1. Encouragement for peace - Discussions about the dangers of the arms race with members of the Hamburg Bundestag 12, - Preparation of the physics and armaments seminar in the physics department, - Planning of relevant lectures in the Physics Colloquium and at DESY as well as a large event Natural scientists warn against the militarization of Space in the Auditorium Maximum of the University (July 5, 1984), - Exchange with an officer of the US Navy on arms dynamics in the US: The US peace movement has not gotten anywhere in getting contact with decision making circles in the US. Protests are not enough 13, - Collection of signatures under an appeal by international scientists to prevent weapon systems in space (autumn 1984). It said: Space must remain free of all weapons. Its development should only serve the peace and well-being of all humanity. The appeal was signed by 39 physicists from the department and at DESY 14. That was an impressive result. However, the ad hoc group had already passed its zenith at the end of 1984. The majority of those involved got out. From September 1984 the rest of them got involved in monthly Hamburg-wide meetings of natural scientists committed to peace. The years 1983/1984 were the formative phase for the peace commitment of Hamburg physicists 15. The various status groups (student peace initiative, ad hoc group of professors) initially deliberately organized themselves separately. Long-term effects emerged only from the integrated approach in the Physics and Armaments seminar and in the Hamburg scientists' initiative. Founding of the association and peace week 1985 In the meantime numerous job-related peace initiatives had been formed throughout Germany: doctors, IT specialists, lawyers, artists, educators, psychologists. On July 8, 1985, the time had come to set up an organization of its own in Hamburg as well. 12 There were three discussions with the MPs Jürgen Echternach (CDU), Dirk Fischer (CDU) and Franke (FDP). They were friendly, but not very sustainable. The group failed to follow up. 13 Presentation by K. Shipps (USA) in the ad hoc group am, source: transcript by the author. 14 Among the signatories were 16 of the 40 or so professors in the physics department. At that time there was still no female professor in the physics department and hardly any permanent physicists at DESY. 15 There were similar, albeit smaller, initiatives in the fields of chemistry, computer science, mathematics and medicine as well as at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences and the Hamburg University of Technology. 8th

9 Spitzer: Peace commitment by natural scientists and for the step to the public. 70 people met in a large seminar room for the founding meeting of the Hamburg natural scientist initiative Responsibility for Peace 16. 22 professors from three Hamburg universities and 19 other scientists called for the founding meeting. The founding of the association was entered in the register of associations on August 8, 1985. The statutes say: The purpose of the association is to contribute to the promotion of peace, understanding among peoples and disarmament through scientific work, in particular through educational work in the fields of natural sciences, engineering, mathematics and computer science. The members met once a month in plenary. It got straight to the point. A nationwide peace week from November 11 to 16, 1985 was just around the corner. The main topic was the militarization of space. Impetus from the Mainz 23 On July 7th and 8th 1984 in Göttingen, the nationwide active Mainz 23 held a congress Responsibility for Peace Scientists warn of the militarization of space with local partners. The most prominent speaker was the American astronaut Russel Schweickart, who had participated in a NASA mission to the moon. Another congress to warn natural scientists against chemical and biological weapons followed on November 17 and 18. They approached colleagues in 60 university locations and research institutions in order to win them over to the implementation of a nationwide peace week from November 11th to 16th, 1985. That was taken up in Hamburg. The peace week was opened by the presidents of three Hamburg universities (university, technical college, university for economics and politics). It comprised nine events with a total of participants. The highlight was a public con- 16 The following were elected to the board: The chemistry student Iver Lauermann (University of Hamburg), Dr. Christa Nöbl (Valvo), Prof. Dietrich Rabenstein (Hamburg University of Applied Sciences), Dipl. Phys. Siegfried Schwarz (Technical University Hamburg Harburg) and Prof. Hartwig Spitzer (University Hamburg). The membership fee was set at DM 10 per month (students and unemployed DM 3). At the end of 1985 the association had 78 members. In 1995 the association was renamed the Natural Scientists Initiative Responsibility for Peace and Nature. 9

10 1. Encouragement for peace gress on November 9th and 10th, 1985 with a wide range of topics (see Figure 1) 17. What did the week bring? The climax of the peace movement, the hot autumn of 1983, had passed. Mikhail Gorbachev had come to power in the Soviet Union and was talking about perestroika (change) and glasnost (openness). But the armaments programs in East and West continued. The result of the peace week was a new reflection. You can hear that from the press release at the end of the week. It said: [] Many scientists sense that the use of research results in the arms race is out of order. [] Arms research is one of the engines of the arms race. The Federal Republic is involved in this in a terrifying way. The direct state expenditures for arms research (Section 14) rose from 1982 to 1986 by over 50% from 1.6 to 2.6 billion marks. In conclusion, the declaration emphasized the insight that external and internal peace belong together. Peace is not just the absence of wars, it is a creative and life task. What we need are ways out of polarization (support group week of the Hamburg Universities for Peace and Disarmament, 1985). 17 Four main lectures are given in: Armament of Space, Causes, Dangers, Consequences (Lindström 1986). 10

11 Spitzer: Natural Scientists' Commitment to Peace Figure 1: The poster for the Militarization of Outer Space congress The congress took place on November 9 and 10, 1985 18 (source: author's archive). 18 Peace Week sponsors: Prof. H. Baisch, Dr. U. Beisiegel, Dr. M. Breindl, Prof. W. Detel, Prof. H. tom Dieck, Prof. E. Grimmel, Prof. F. Hölzer, Dr. H. Jeske, Prof. W. Kahlke, Dr. H. Kalthoff, Prof. W. Kerby, Dr. 11

12 1. Encouragement to Peace The Ways Out of the Arms Race Congress 1986 The Mainzer 23 group began to solicit support for a project in autumn 1985: A large international Ways out of the arms race congress was to take place in Hamburg in autumn 1986 (see Figure 2 ). The spokesmen for the Mainz 23 asked colleagues from Hamburg for on-site support. The conditions in the Hanseatic city were favorable. Both University President Fischer Appelt and the Senator for Science Professor Dr. Klaus Michael Meyer Abich, a former employee of Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, was open to the matter. The natural scientists committed to peace in Hamburg had an organizational basis 19. The international environment had also changed for the better since Mikhail Gorbachev took over the leadership of the Soviet Union. The Union of Concerned Scientists, the largest nuclear-critical environmental organization in the United States, has confirmed its active participation. Participation and the program exceeded all previous standards: In total, participants and speakers came from 16 countries (from East and West). 25 working groups with a wide range of topics supplemented the plenary sessions. A highlight was a satellite connection with discussion partners in Hamburg and Washington, which was broadcast from Washington to 400 locations in the USA. A second highlight was the presentation of the Hamburg Proposals for Disarmament. It says: A ban on all nuclear weapons tests is necessary and can be adequately verified. W. Kirstein, Prof. G. Koch, Prof. G. Lindström, Prof. R. Memming, Prof. B. Neumann, Prof. CP Ortlieb, Prof. W. Ostertag, Prof. P. Petersen, Prof. H. Rittstieg , Prof. L. Schäfer, Dr. M. Schöberl, Prof. H. Spitzer, Prof. F. Steffensky, Prof. U. Steinvorth, Prof. C. Tiedemann, Prof. R. Valk, Prof. G. Weyers: all of the University of Hamburg; Norbert Aust, Dr. W. D. Hund, Prof. N. Paech, Prof. H. Schul: all Hamburg University of Economics and Politics; Prof. L. Huber, Prof. G. Bischoff Kümmel, Prof. P. Kunkel, Prof. I. Kurz, Prof. O. Naatz, Prof. D. Rabenstein, Prof. R. Sorg: all Hamburg University of Applied Sciences; Prof. H. Subke: Wedel University of Applied Sciences; Dipl. Phys. S. Schwarz: Technical University of Harburg; Prof. J. Bienlein: DESY. In cooperation with: Hamburger Naturwissenschaftler Initiative Responsibility for Peace, e.v. ; Association of Democratic Scientists (BdWi), Hamburg Section; GEW, Hamburg; AStA of the University of Hamburg. 19 However, this basis was not sufficient to manage the organization of an international congress on its own. The board of directors of the Naturwissenschaftler Initiative agreed to support it on the condition that an externally paid conference secretariat would be set up in Hamburg. The secretariat was finally financed by the Hamburg science authority through the IFSH. In addition, the Cologne office made a significant contribution to the organization of the nationwide initiative. The satellite broadcast was organized in Germany by Westdeutscher Rundfunk and in the USA by the Union of Concerned Scientists. 12th

13 Spitzer: Natural Scientists' Commitment to Peace Radical reductions in the number of nuclear weapons are possible and would increase our security. Space weapons must be banned. Non-nuclear forces need to be reduced and given a non-offensive structure. Chemical weapons must be banned completely and the biological weapons convention should be strengthened (Kerby / Rilling 2006). Conclusion: What has the congress achieved in Hamburg and internationally? First, the Hamburg Proposals formulated and substantiated a comprehensive arms control agenda. Their effect in the western capitals was small. It was different in Moscow. Two Soviet participants, members of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Eugheniy Velichov and Roald Sagdejev, had direct access to Secretary General Gorbachev as advisors. The fertile years began in which the Soviet leadership opened up to comprehensive arms limitation, both for nuclear and conventional armed forces. The treaty for the complete disarmament of Soviet and American medium-range missiles was signed on December 8, 1987. The US administration under President Reagan had also moved. Second, part of the congress and a preceding international expert seminar dealt with technical procedures for checking arms control in various weapon categories 20. Verification research was still subject to strict secrecy in the 1960s and 1970s. But now natural scientists of civil origin have entered the field and developed verification expertise in open research and for public debates. This was especially true for the detection of nuclear explosions. The topic of verification became the focus for research work in Hamburg. The media coverage was considerable: Die WELT, the FAZ and the Bayernkurier polemicized in advance and assumed control by Moscow or the German Communist Party. The Hamburger Abendblatt, the Frankfurter Rundschau, the ZEIT and the Westdeutsche Rundfunk reported balanced. 20 An international workshop on natural science aspects of the verification of arms limitation contracts took place, Hamburg, November 13th and 14th, 1986, with financial support from the Volkswagenwerk Foundation. The results are documented in two IFSH reports (Spitzer 1987). 13th

14 1. Encouragement to Peace Figure 2: The Ways out of the Arms Race poster in its English version The organizers only noticed after printing that the first letters resulted in the word WAR. 14th

15 Spitzer: Natural Scientists' Commitment to Peace CENSIS: A Research Group Is Established Two years later, the time had come to start their own research. There were two current topics: the dynamics of arms modernization and technical procedures for arms control. Scientific expertise was and is required for both subject areas. A sufficient number of Hamburg professors had met and familiarized themselves with the subject in seminars and conferences since 1984. In the autumn of 1988, a female professor and six professors from the departments of computer science, mathematics and physics joined forces to form the Center for Science and International Security CENSIS21. The university president confirmed the establishment of the working group as an informal research group. She later got a material budget, but no junior positions from university funds. Fortunately, the Volkswagenwerk Foundation announced a larger funding program for arms control research in 1988. Two applications from Hamburg were successful. PhD students and one scientist with a doctorate could be hired. Physicist Götz Neuneck from the IFSH soon joined the team 22. Three research projects were launched: Mathematical studies on disarmament and stability (Head: Prof. Kerby): For example, arms races between two parties should be modeled using game theory methods Transition to a stability-oriented armaments structure at a lower level. Verification of conventional disarmament in Europe with remote observation / image understanding of multispectral images (Head: Professors Dreschler Fischer, Bienlein and Spitzer): At that time, the USA and the Soviet Union used black and white photos from reconnaissance satellites with high resolution to monitor arms control. The Hamburg project was to investigate the usability of multispectral (colored) aerial images to support verification. The group carried out five aerial photography campaigns with the help of the German Aerospace Center (DLR). Physical and IT questions of image understanding then became the subject of numerous diploma and doctoral theses.Modernization and Stability: The Impact of New Conventional Weapon Technologies (Head: Prof. Lindström, later Dr. Neuneck and Prof. Spitzer): The project examined technological trends in conventional armaments that can lead to new arms races and military imbalances, for example the 21 there were the computer scientists Leonie Dreschler Fischer and Rüdiger Valk, the mathematicians Hans Daduna, William Kerby and Claus Peter Ortlieb and the physicists Bienlein, Lindström and Spitzer. 22 The then director of the IFSH, Egon Bahr, and his deputy, Dieter Lutz, recognized early on that scientific expertise was needed to understand and contain the arms race. They hired the physicist G. Neuneck. 15th

16 1. Encouragement to Peace Race between tanks and anti-tank and between missiles and anti-missile defense. Every increase in the efficiency of a weapon system drives the development of defense systems and countermeasures. What limitations are possible? The actors selected the topics to complement the work areas of two previously established sister groups: A group in Bochum (later Dortmund) processed the verification of conventional disarmament with proximity sensors. The interdisciplinary working group for natural sciences, disarmament and security (IANUS) in Darmstadt investigated and continues to focus on the military use of nuclear energy and the civil-military dual use problem. Another group in Kiel worked to switch from armaments companies to civilian production (Kronfeld et al. 1993; Neuneck 2003; Altmann / Liebert / Neuneck 2004). The group in Hamburg grew rapidly. In addition to the professors, there were five diploma students, six doctoral students and four doctoral researchers. They worked at three locations: in the mathematics department on the Bundesstrasse, in the IT department in Stellingen and at the IFSH (at that time still on Falkenstein in Blankenese). What was the difference between the work and the work of normal research groups? It was the combination of a threefold requirement: Firstly, students should work closely to the subject in order to qualify for their degree or doctorate in their own subject (subject focus). Second, students should get to know methods and findings from at least two subject areas: for example, mathematics and political science, physics and computer science or physics and technology (interdisciplinary networking). And thirdly, the work should be related to current arms control problems (political relevance). Some members of the group have made themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to competently participate in arms control policy debates and to be able to meet the experts in the Bundestag and in ministries on an equal footing. At CENSIS these were in particular Neuneck and the author 23. The younger members mostly worked on questions of mathematical modeling or the development of physically computer-based methods for understanding images. Nonetheless, they benefited from the interdisciplinary, policy-related approach. Because the motivation and understanding 23 Dr. Neuneck (today Professor Neuneck) became an expert on a large number of arms technologies and their security and arms control significance. The author has been conducting research accompanying the Open Skies Treaty since 1990. This allows cooperative observation flights from Vancouver to Vladivostok in the service of transparency and military confidence-building. 16

17 Spitzer: Natural scientists' commitment to peace for subject-centered work grows when it is embedded in a larger interdisciplinary context. A total of seventeen diploma and eleven doctoral theses were completed within the framework of CENSIS between 1990 and 2004. Almost all graduates have found jobs in small and medium-sized innovative companies as well as in schools and research institutes. Almost all of them have or had to change their field of work. There are hardly any positions for scientific arms control research. Conclusion: What has the work of CENSIS achieved for the University of Hamburg and nationwide? The results are sobering if one applies the usual standards of research evaluation such as the Citation Index 24. The same applies to public relations. The great public debates on the dangers of armament had taken place in the 1980s. The threat situation had eased. The founding of CENSIS was the beginning of a quieter formative phase. Students could learn to think outside the box from within their subject. The subject area was made visible and kept in the university as a research area. It became visible to the university management and to professors from the three departments. This paid off in 2002 when a window of opportunity opened up: the opportunity to raise funds for the establishment of a professorship for natural sciences and peace research. Anyone who wants to be recognized and promoted with their specific profile and goals must be clearly articulated. Members of CENSIS have therefore also got involved nationwide, especially together with the sister groups in Bochum, Darmstadt and Kiel, the scientifically oriented peace researchers from the four locations as well as other interested parties founded the Research Association for Natural Science, Nuclear Armament and International Security (FONAS ev) 25 the internal networking through biannual meetings and the external impact considerably strengthened. FONAS organizes technical discussions on arms control issues in Bonn and Berlin at casual intervals. The technical discussions are aimed at members of parliament, speakers in ministries and the Bundestag, as well as specialist journalists (Neuneck 2003). Physicists from the 24th The publications of the physical work on remote sensing and the Open Skies contract are listed on the CENSIS () website under Publications. 25 See on the Internet at 17

18 1. Encouragement for peace In 1998, FONAS groups founded the Physics and Disarmament Working Group (today the Working Group for Physics and Disarmament, AGA) within German Physics 26. The AKA and AGA lecture events at the annual spring conference reach hundreds of students. New topics after the turnaround of 1989/1990 The political turnaround of 1989/1990 initially brought great relief. The bloc confrontation between East and West largely dissolved. The Third World War failed to materialize. The conventional armed forces on both sides have been reduced so much that today major offensives in Europe are hardly possible politically and militarily. New topics came to the fore: environmental problems and the need for sustainable development. High hopes were linked to the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992). The second Gulf War (early 1991) and the Yugoslav Wars (from 1991) hit this rather optimistic mood like lightning. The Gulf War triggered even larger protests from parts of the peace movement. The Yugoslav wars, on the other hand, produced perplexed, paralyzed horror. War had become possible again in the middle of Europe and with German participation. How did the natural scientists committed to peace react in Hamburg? The range of topics has been expanded. The natural scientist initiative added responsibility for peace and nature in its name. Environmental issues were also taken up in events during the annual Peace Week in November. The previous introductory seminar in physics and armaments in the physics department began in 1992 with changing new topics such as sustainable environmental design, technology dynamics, technology design, nuclear energy, climate protection and renewable energies. The Mathematics and International Security seminar turned to questions of democracy and cooperation. The nationwide natural scientist peace initiative expanded its topic in responsibility for peace and sustainability. The 1980s had been years of movement linked to the protests of the great peace movement. The 1990s were years of professionalization. The 26 See on the Internet at 18

19 Spitzer: Natural Scientists' Commitment to Peace The Hamburg Natural Scientists Initiative changed from monthly to occasional meetings as early as 1990. It became more difficult to attract new and especially younger members. An active core remained, which was able to combine its commitment with its own teaching and research activities 27. Some other members took part in the peace movement's annual Easter marches or they organized lecture events at the university as part of peace weeks, each November. The last of the peace weeks took place in the late 1990s. Today, in 2013, the Hamburg Natural Scientists Initiative is about to be dissolved, while the nationwide initiative with around 300 members continues to work and the VdW has even gained members. The establishment of the Center for Science and Peace Research (ZNF). New subject areas need to be anchored in an institution in order to be effective in the long term. The establishment of CENSIS was a first step towards establishing scientific peace research at the University of Hamburg. But at CENSIS it was temporary projects. They came to an end when two of the main actors, Professor Kerby and the author, retired in 2001 and 2003 respectively 28. The research association FONAS had already called for endowed professorships for natural science and peace research in a research memorandum in 1998. This was taken up by the Bundestag member Edelgard Bulmahn (SPD), who took over the management of the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT) from autumn 1998 as part of the red-green coalition. She was then in charge of the establishment of the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF). Professor Dieter Lutz, the then director of the IFSH, became the first chairman of the DSF Board of Trustees. He successfully campaigned for the foundation to announce funding of 1.25 million euros (spread over five years) for the establishment of a Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker endowed professorship for natural science and peace research in August 2002. 27 The introductory seminar on physics and society, which emerged from the physics and armaments seminar, has been held every semester since then, even today (see on the CENSIS website under Teaching:). It's a great success. 28 Neuneck continues its work within the interdisciplinary research group Disarmament, Arms Control and Risk Technologies (IFAR) of the IFSH (see and). 29 The foundation capital of 50 million DM was provided from the budget of the BMFT (see). 19th

20 1. Encouragement to Peace One of the conditions for funding was the commitment to permanently finance the professorship from university funds after five years. Dr. Jürgen Lüthje was President of the University of Hamburg at the time. Like Chancellor Werner Halfmeier, he was open to peace research. On September 19, 2002, Lüthje invited deans and active members from several departments and the IFSH to his large round table in the main building of the university. In the end, all those present confirmed the intention to support an application for the foundation funds under two conditions: On the one hand, the follow-up financing of the foundation funds should be completely taken over by the university after five years. On the other hand, with the professorship as the core, a center for science and peace research (ZNF) should be set up, which is supported by a total of ten departments of the university and the IFSH 30. Götz Neuneck and the author submitted the application with substantial support from the participating institutions and prepared by the research department of the university. The University of Hamburg was awarded the contract in March 2004 after a comprehensive assessment by a commission, some of which was international. On March 1st, 2006 the time had come. The physicist Dr. Martin Kalinowski began his service as an endowed professor. The ZNF came to life 31. Kalinowski set up an internationally competitive research program to prove the clandestine production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. A smaller, pre-existing research group for biological weapons control was integrated into the ZNF. At the same time, Kalinowski developed an attractive range of courses that is mainly used by students of the natural sciences. The ZNF also organizes events for students from all faculties, in particular the Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker Peace Lecture (annually) and role-playing games for negotiating international contracts (every semester). The range of courses offered by the ZNF for students from all faculties has been significantly expanded since 2009: Scientists from five faculties have joined forces to form the Peace Education Initiative. The speaker is Professor Alexander Redlich (Department of Psychology). The circle conducts a ring annually. 30 These conditions had a price. They made the consensus possible at the time. Lüthje knew very well that he would have met with great resistance if only one or two departments had to take over the release of the foundation's funds. The second condition also created enormous expectations of the ten departments (today all six faculties) of the professorship and the center. The ZNF is the only institution supported by all faculties of the university. 31 See on the Internet at 20