Did John von Neumann really advocate a nuclear first strike on the USSR? He is oft quoted as follows:
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 1 o’clock?
The source for this quote is his obituary in Life magazine[1], which does not cite a source.
A review of Ananyo Bhattacharya’s biography “The Man From the Future” says:
[Bhattacharya] repeatedly claims that von Neumann advocated a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, but nothing in von Neumann’s actual writings, public or private, support this often-made assertion, which I believe is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of his views.[2]
Bhattacharya responded:
As von Neumann’s second wife, Klara Dan, notes in her journal, “In the immediate postwar years, Johnny quite openly advocated preventive war before the Russians became too strong.” Marina, von Neumann’s daughter, mentions in her memoirs “his extremely hard-line ideas on U.S. policy towards the Soviet Union, which included the possibility of preventive war on the latter.” Her father, she says, “made his feelings crystal clear in an interview with Life magazine: ‘If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say, why not today? If you say at five o’clock, I say why not one o’clock?’”[3]
(So apparently the Life obituary quote came from an interview? Or perhaps Marina von Neumann Whitman forgot that it was an obituary and not an interview.)
It’s frustrating that apparently John von Neumann “quite openly” advocated preventative war, but apparently we have nothing on the subject written by the man himself — no strategic analyses, no persuasive essays, no list of targets. What ultimatum shall be made to the enemy before declaring war? How many bombs will be needed? What kind of government shall replace the defeated USSR? Which country will be next? Perhaps the answer is in the 22 feet of paper in the John and Klára Dán von Neumann archive in the Library of Congress.[4]
Or perhaps von Neumann didn’t call for preventive war after all, because it’s insane.
To play devil’s advocate, I don’t see why preventive war would be “insane”. If you’re the first nuclear power, and you can prevent your potential rivals from acquiring their own nukes, then that makes you an unassailable hegemon. With the benefit of hindsight, a clever arguer (not meant as a compliment) could even claim that this strategy isn’t evil but actually morally required because, if it indeed prevents others from obtaining nukes, then this prevents an entire source of future x-risk from MAD and the Cold War. Not to mention unpreventable human rights abuses by future nuclear powers like North Korea.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for this alternate history; most importantly from a strategic perspective, it’s not at all clear that the US could’ve kept the technology for itself no matter how aggressive it acted. Also it would’ve been evil, and I can’t imagine there would’ve been enough political will by the US public post-1945 to pursue such a war directly after World War II, so it would’ve eventually failed for that reason anyway.
Something that may be relevant is that the quote (at least when I read it the first time) did not seem to be advocating a nuclear first strike per se, but instead making the argument that if a first strike is going to happen it should happen as soon as possible.
Depending on the wider context that could imply a pro first stike position (if we are going to do this it should be soon, so lets get on and do it) or an anti first strike position (if you are so sure in your first strike sabre rattling, why havent you done it already? Could it be that if we move the discusion from ‘first strike at some point’ to ‘right now’ you suddenly see the issue in a different way and realise how dumb you sound?).
I note that the wording in the more direct sources (rather than paraphrases) is “preventive war” and “bomb them”, which doesn’t actually strictly imply preventive nuclear bombings. It’s plausible that “bomb them” and “war with the USSR” could only mean “nuclear war” in-context… But it’d also be really funny if this is another “Eliezer advocates nuking foreign datacenters” situation.
It is not actually insanse. Sir Winston Churchill also advocated a preventive nuclear war against USSR in the late 1940s. The rapid rise of World Communism, whether in Europe (including record high vote shares in West Europe), in China, Korea, Indochina, other parts of the world, convinced them that the biggest ethical goal was ‘Destruction of USSR’.
Stalin remained a thoroughly criminal despot in this period—the Leningrad Purge, Doctor’s Plot, Night of the Murdered Poets, the establishment of Communist Dictatorships across Eastern Europe, with their own ruthless purges and repressions.
USA had the atomic bomb. It seemed the Only Solution to protect liberty.
From what I’ve read he believed the U.S. should nuke them before they developed a nuclear bomb. He was extremely worried about nuclear catastrophe once multiple powers had nukes. He also advocated for bombing Kyoto instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reasoning that the disastrous result would prevent countries from using nuclear weapons or even developing them.
Did John von Neumann really advocate a nuclear first strike on the USSR? He is oft quoted as follows:
The source for this quote is his obituary in Life magazine [1] , which does not cite a source.
A review of Ananyo Bhattacharya’s biography “The Man From the Future” says:
Bhattacharya responded:
(So apparently the Life obituary quote came from an interview? Or perhaps Marina von Neumann Whitman forgot that it was an obituary and not an interview.)
It’s frustrating that apparently John von Neumann “quite openly” advocated preventative war, but apparently we have nothing on the subject written by the man himself — no strategic analyses, no persuasive essays, no list of targets. What ultimatum shall be made to the enemy before declaring war? How many bombs will be needed? What kind of government shall replace the defeated USSR? Which country will be next? Perhaps the answer is in the 22 feet of paper in the John and Klára Dán von Neumann archive in the Library of Congress. [4]
Or perhaps von Neumann didn’t call for preventive war after all, because it’s insane.
Blair, Clay (February 25, 1957). “Passing of a great mind: John von Neumann, a brilliant, jovial Mathematician, was a prodigious servant of science and his country,” Life: p 96, https://books.google.com/books?id=rEEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89. See also the nicely-formatted copy at Qualia Computing.
Stephen Budiansky, ‘The Man From the Future’ Review: The Genius of John von Neumann. Wall Street Journal, Feb. 25, 2022. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-man-from-the-future-review-the-genius-of-john-von-neumann-11645810799. archived
Ananyo Bhattacharya, “Genius, War and Risk in John von Neumann”. Letter to the Wall Street Journal. March 4, 2022. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/john-von-neumann-math-genius-war-soviet-union-risk-11646350849. archived
John Von Neumann and Klára Dán Von Neumann papers, 1912-2000
To play devil’s advocate, I don’t see why preventive war would be “insane”. If you’re the first nuclear power, and you can prevent your potential rivals from acquiring their own nukes, then that makes you an unassailable hegemon. With the benefit of hindsight, a clever arguer (not meant as a compliment) could even claim that this strategy isn’t evil but actually morally required because, if it indeed prevents others from obtaining nukes, then this prevents an entire source of future x-risk from MAD and the Cold War. Not to mention unpreventable human rights abuses by future nuclear powers like North Korea.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for this alternate history; most importantly from a strategic perspective, it’s not at all clear that the US could’ve kept the technology for itself no matter how aggressive it acted. Also it would’ve been evil, and I can’t imagine there would’ve been enough political will by the US public post-1945 to pursue such a war directly after World War II, so it would’ve eventually failed for that reason anyway.
I appreciate the argument. I won’t get into it here, except to say that I wish we had John von Neumann participating in this conversation.
my understanding is that most thought preventing all nuclear proliferation would be impossible, and pretty early on.
Something that may be relevant is that the quote (at least when I read it the first time) did not seem to be advocating a nuclear first strike per se, but instead making the argument that if a first strike is going to happen it should happen as soon as possible.
Depending on the wider context that could imply a pro first stike position (if we are going to do this it should be soon, so lets get on and do it) or an anti first strike position (if you are so sure in your first strike sabre rattling, why havent you done it already? Could it be that if we move the discusion from ‘first strike at some point’ to ‘right now’ you suddenly see the issue in a different way and realise how dumb you sound?).
I note that the wording in the more direct sources (rather than paraphrases) is “preventive war” and “bomb them”, which doesn’t actually strictly imply preventive nuclear bombings. It’s plausible that “bomb them” and “war with the USSR” could only mean “nuclear war” in-context… But it’d also be really funny if this is another “Eliezer advocates nuking foreign datacenters” situation.
It is not actually insanse. Sir Winston Churchill also advocated a preventive nuclear war against USSR in the late 1940s. The rapid rise of World Communism, whether in Europe (including record high vote shares in West Europe), in China, Korea, Indochina, other parts of the world, convinced them that the biggest ethical goal was ‘Destruction of USSR’.
Stalin remained a thoroughly criminal despot in this period—the Leningrad Purge, Doctor’s Plot, Night of the Murdered Poets, the establishment of Communist Dictatorships across Eastern Europe, with their own ruthless purges and repressions.
USA had the atomic bomb. It seemed the Only Solution to protect liberty.
Dropping a nuke right on Stalin’s head would kill fewer Russians than not dropping it.
From what I’ve read he believed the U.S. should nuke them before they developed a nuclear bomb. He was extremely worried about nuclear catastrophe once multiple powers had nukes. He also advocated for bombing Kyoto instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reasoning that the disastrous result would prevent countries from using nuclear weapons or even developing them.
The latter two of those things don’t necessarily imply the first thing, though.