Science, Religion, and the Bomb

Abstract

Presented at the First International Congress on Religion and Science,
Tehran, Iran, May 2006.

Full text

POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS
Science and Religion in
the Twenty-First Century
William Grassie
A Metanexus Imprint

Copyright © 2010 by William Grassie.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2010901676
ISBN: Hardcover 978-1-4500-3849-2
Softcover 978-1-4500-3848-5
Ebook 978-1-4500-3850-8
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No
Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
Any and all free use sanctioned by this license must include the following attribution:
“Reproduced by permission of Metanexus Institute, www.metanexus.net.” All
online uses must hyperlink the aforementioned attribution to the following URL:
http://www.metanexus.net.
This book was printed in the United States of America.
Published by:
Metanexus Institute
28 Garrett Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 USA
www.metanexus.net
+1.484.592.0304
Printing and distribution by xlibris.com
74147

Contents
1. Epiphany on the New Jersey Turnpike ......................................................... 11
Religion by Other Means ...................................................................... 15
2. Ten Reasons for the Constructive Engagement of Science and Religion .... 17
3. Metanexus: The Very Idea ........................................................................... 23
4. Beyond Intelligent Design, Scientifi c Debates, and Cultural Wars ............. 32
5. Which Universe Do You Live In? ................................................................ 36
6. Toward a Constructive Theology of Evolution ............................................ 39
7. Universalism and Particularism: Judaism in an Age of Science .................. 60
8. Resources and Problems in Whitehead’s Process Metaphysics ...................72
Peace by Other Means .......................................................................... 85
9. Sleepless in Tehran ....................................................................................... 87
10. Universal Reason: Science, Religion, and the Foundations of
Civil Societies ............................................................................................ 100
11. Science, Religion, and the Bomb ............................................................... 108
12. Engaged Contemplation for a Troubled World .......................................... 117
13. Leeches on the Road to Enlightenment ..................................................... 133
14. Nationalism, Terrorism, and Religion: A Biohistorical Approach ............. 142
15. Entangled Narratives: Competing Visions of the Good Lie ...................... 158
Evolution by Other Means ................................................................. 185
16. Biocultural Evolution in the Twenty-fi rst Century ..................................... 187
17. Useless Arithmetic and Inconvenient Truths ............................................. 207
18. Rereading Economics: New Economic Metaphors for Evolution ............. 218
19. Post-Darwinism: The New Synthesis .........................................................231
20. Eating Well Together: Donna Haraway’s Companion Species Manifesto .... 245
21. In the Heavens As It Is on Earth: Astrobiology and the Human Prospect .... 259

22. A Thought Experiment: Envisioning a Civilization Recovery Plan .......... 271
23. Millennialism at the Singularity: The Limits of Ray Kurzweil’s
Exponential Logic ...................................................................................... 280
Postscript .............................................................................................. 301
24. All My Relations: The Challenge Ahead ................................................... 303
Index ................................................................................................................. 315

108
11. Science, Religion, and the Bomb
Presented at the First International Congress on Religion and Science,
Tehran, Iran, May 2006. This essay was originally published on Metanexus,
2006.05.03. http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/9879/
Default.aspx
In the name of God, the compassionate and merciful.
I want to thank the organizers and sponsors of this First Iranian International
Congress on Religion and Science. Many years and a lot of hard work brought us
to this event. Much study and thought has gone into preparing the many wonderful
lectures. Thank you also for your gracious hospitality in hosting us. I hope there
will be many more such opportunities in the future to listen and learn from each
other.
Concurrent with the planning of this Congress has been a growing conflict
between Iran and the West about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, not to mention the U.S.
invasion of Iraq on the pretext of f inding weapons of mass destruction. And so I
want to address some of these sensitive political and military issues with you today,
because science and religion are also involved in these debates about international
relations and military power. In the history of nuclear armaments, science and
religion intersect in multiple and profound ways.
I want to emphasize at the outset that I speak about these matters as a private
citizen. I certainly do not represent the U.S. government, nor for that matter any of
the other Americans participating in this Congress. Nor do these reflections today
represent the views of the Metanexus Institute or any of our sponsors.
Since the beginning of the nuclear age sixty years ago with the U.S. bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many scientists and religious leaders have united in
opposition to nuclear weapons. In the United States, there are hundreds of scientific,
environmental, and religious organizations that have actively opposed nuclear
weapons for many decades now. The list includes the Federation of American
Scientists www.fas.org, the Union of Concerned Scientists www.ucsusa.org,

109
11. SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE BOMB
Physicians for Social Responsibility www.psr.org, Pugwash www.pugwash.org,
the National Resources Defense Council www.nrdc.org, The Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists www.thebulletin.org, Peace Action www.peace-action.org—it would
be a long list. Every major religious organization in the United States has made
public statements against nuclear weapons85, including the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops.86 As a young man in 1982, I participated in and helped to
organize the largest demonstration in the history of the United States with a million
people gathered in New York City to oppose the U.S. nuclear weapons. The core
support for these activities has come from scientists and religious leaders, and also
many retired military leaders87, united in their conviction that nuclear weapons are
inherently immoral and provide no real security, rather only insecurity. The same
concerns extend to chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Traditional just war theory sets two criteria for the lawful, moral use of military
force. First, there must be just cause, which minimally includes self-defense.
Second, the war must be conducted by just means. The second point includes rules
of engagement that limit war to combatants and exclude violence directed at civilian
populations. The second point also includes notions of proportionality.88 Nuclear
weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction and even many so-called
conventional weapons today, cannot distinguish civilians from combatants. Nuclear
weapons also have destructive consequences extending many decades after their
formal intended consequences (e.g., cancer resulting from radiation). And thus on
both accounts, nuclear weapons, by their very nature, violate the traditional just
war doctrine.
Unfortunately, the logic of war always undermines the just war doctrine,
because winning by whatever means necessary becomes the precondition for
survival in armed conflicts. The history of warfare in the twentieth century points
ever more to the harsh logic of war. Civilian casualties now regularly exceed those of
combatants in wars waged around the world.89 The logic of war also always dictates
that governments tend toward dictatorships, restricting freedoms and waging war
against dissent among their own citizens. Warfare is always dehumanizing, so the
logic of war quickly leads to the torture of prisoners and committing other atrocities.
In the future, nuclear weapons may be used again, perhaps between Pakistan and
India, perhaps in the Korean Peninsula, perhaps in the Middle East.
Nuclear weapons are a terrible fact of life. Wishful thinking and pious
proclamations are not going to “put the genie back in the bottle.” The most difficult
85. http://www.ncccusa.org
86. http://www.usccb.org
87. http://www.cdi.org. See also http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/armsjoin.htm
88. http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm and http://www.justwartheory.com.
89. http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/misc/misery.html

110
POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS
part of the manufacturing process is obtaining enriched uranium or plutonium. Once
these are in hand, the actual bomb is not particularly diff icult to build.90 The current
nuclear club includes the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China,
Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and probably North Korea.91
Many in the West believe that Iran is about to become part of this nuclear weapons
club. Strategic planners in Iran, looking at the world today, might feel well justified
in seeking their own nuclear weapons. Iran is surrounded by the U.S. military in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. Many of its neighbors already have nuclear
weapons, including India, Pakistan, Israel, and Russia, not to mention the United
States with forward deployment of weapons on our navy fleet in the Indian Ocean
and Persian Gulf.
Of course, the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself provides for the
possibility of acquiring enrichment and reprocessing technology for civilian
purposes. Unfortunately, those provisions are the fatal flaw in the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, a treaty written several decades ago by naïve enthusiasts of nuclear
power. The goal of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was to make civilian nuclear
power available to all humanity, while restricting the spread of nuclear weapons
capabilities. Once a country has enrichment or reprocessing technology, however,
it is not far from being able to build nuclear weapons.
The 1950s vision of civilian nuclear electricity, “power too cheap to meter”
we were told, is bankrupt today92. By way of example, there are currently 104
civilian nuclear power plants in the United States, generating more electricity
by nuclear power than any other nation. And yet this still accounts for only 20
percent of our total U.S. electric power. The civilian nuclear power industry in the
United States is dying. There have been no new licenses to build nuclear power
plants now for twenty-nine years. The last commercial reactor to come online took
thirty-four years to complete construction.93 Many of these plants are soon to be
decommissioned, and we don’t really know what that means or the actual cost of
doing so. The electricity is quite expensive. Moreover, the commercial nuclear
energy industry exists in the United States today because of massive government
subsidies and government protection.94 The free market would not have built these
expensive, toxic dumps.
The big worry is safety and waste disposal. While there has not been a
catastrophic nuclear accident in the United States, the industry has been plagued
90. Frank Barnaby, How to Build a Nuclear Bomb: And Other Weapons of Mass Destruction,
New York: National Books, 2004.
91. Israel, India, and Pakistan have not signed the NPT.
92. http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html
93. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html
94. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf

11. SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE BOMB
111
with numerous safety problems too long to list.95 The disposal of nuclear waste
continues to be the number one problem.96 Currently, the United States has about
forty thousand tons of spent fuel rods awaiting long-term disposal. These hot
highly radioactive rods are stored in pools of water at the reactor sites and need to
be continuously cooled. Just to be clear here, the half-life of plutonium, one of the
by-products of nuclear reactors, is twenty-four thousand years. Plutonium is one of
the most toxic substances ever created, so humans need to discover a way to isolate
plutonium from the human and natural environment for up to hundred thousand
years. Again, science and religion intersect. What are our obligations to the planet
and future generations? Science may give us the technology and inform us of the
benefits and dangers, but by itself it cannot tell us whether these long-term risks
are worth the short-term benefits.
Still petroleum and natural gas will not last forever. Global demand is
increasing, production is peaking, and supplies appear to be dwindling. And with
the threats of global climate change resulting from the burning of these fossil fuels,
many scientists and even environmentalists are suggesting that we take a new look
at nuclear power technology. The Chinese, for instance, are developing a new,
small-scale, “fool-proof ” graphite reactor design and planning to mass-produce
these.97 There are many efforts in the United States to restart the nuclear power
industry, but still no consensus, no new construction, and no long-term solution
to the waste disposal.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Iran received significant assistance from the United
States and Europe in developing civilian nuclear power. The Shah had plans to
construct twenty-three nuclear power stations. Iran spent many billions of dollars in
contracts with Western companies to build these plants. In 1976, U.S. President Ford
authorized helping Iran build fuel reprocessing facilities without any thought of the
proliferation issues; other U.S. plans existed to help Iran build a uranium enrichment
facility. All of these agreements ended with the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Western
governments broke contracts with Iran and kept billions of dollars.98
95. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/
96. http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/
97. “Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom” by Spencer Reiss, WIRED 12.09, September, 2004.
http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
98. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html, see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran’s_nuclear_program. The freezing of Iranian assets
in the West and the cancellation of these contracts to build nuclear power plants were
part of the response to the taking of hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. For a full
account of the Iranian Revolution and its consequences, see Kenneth M. Pollack, The
Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran and American, New York: Random House,
2004.

112
POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS
Obviously, one of the differences between then and now is the lack of trust.
The United States and Europeans believe that Iran’s real goal is to obtain nuclear
weapons and that Iran has set up a massive program, partly clandestinely, to obtain
highly enriched uranium necessary for nuclear weapons. Iran sees the United States
as hypocritical and harboring designs on overthrowing the Iranian government
(again) and dominating the region and its oil resources.
On August 9, 2005, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the
production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons. The fatwa was referenced
in an official statement at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) in Vienna, though the text of it has not been released. This position is
consistent with other statements from Iranian leaders. Khamenei has been quoted
in the press as saying “The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental
religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass
destruction. In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we
are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form.”99 I can
only applaud the declared intentions of your Supreme Leader and hope they are
sincere.
Of course, I speak here today as a citizen of the United States, the country that
has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world and the only country
to actually use them. I am ashamed of this. Reason and faith tell me that these
weapons are an abomination; they offend God and humanity. The United States also
has obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and should, I believe,
give a full accounting of its own nuclear weapons, their deployment around the
world, and a plan to decrease those weapons and withdraw them from deployment
outside of United States, for instance from the Persian Gulf today.100 If the United
States continues to see strategic utility in possessing, improving, and deploying
these weapons, then in the long run there will be no reason for other countries not
to also want to obtain them.
I am not here to chastise Iran or lecture its leaders. As a citizen of the United
States, I can hardly criticize Iran on this point, even if its intentions are to obtain
nuclear weapons. An Iranian bomb will hardly change the balance of power in the
world. An Iranian nuclear f irst strike on Israel, for instance, would result in a massive
retaliation by Israel; therefore any rational leader should be deterred from using
these weapons. The big danger today, in any case, is more that a terrorist group
99. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran’s_nuclear_program
100. Technically, the NPT requires reducing nuclear weapons to zero, but this is not a realistic
goal. Any country that has had nuclear weapons could easily hide some number of those
weapons or in a matter of days or weeks reconstruct those weapons from stored materials.
There will always be nuclear weapons on the planet somewhere or the prospects that
these weapons could be quickly reassembled in the event of a war.

11. SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE BOMB
113
will obtain a bomb.101 In the current climate, even a nuclear terrorist strike against
Israel, a bomb delivered clandestinely with no return address, might well result in a
massive “retaliation.” A nuclear terrorist attack on a U.S., European, or Russian city
would also generate some kind of response, though not likely as indiscriminately
as the probable Israeli “retaliation.” The problem, of course, is that one may not
know precisely who was responsible for the initial attack. We must strive to make
sure that this nightmare never comes to be. A little bit of sober strategic realism
might go a long way to reducing tensions.
For some fifty years, the United States, Europe, and the Soviet Union lived
with a similar logic of destruction, known as “Mutual Assured Destruction,”
or MAD for short.102 Strategic planners on both sides of the Cold War did the
gruesome calculations, involving exchanges of hundreds and even thousands
of nuclear weapons, many in the megaton range. No matter how you did the
calculations, first strike or counterforce strike, there was no way either side
could really escape the depressing conclusions. The death toll would need to
be calculated in the tens of millions minimally, and potentially much, much
higher. If the nuclear war were large enough, the hypothesized “nuclear winter
effect” would wreak havoc on the rest of the planet. These stark assessments of
the strategic situation helped pave the way for arms control and disarmament
agreements, détente, and eventually the transformation of the Soviet Union and
China, unfortunately less so the United States. It turns out the concept of mutual
assured destruction had a sobering—and perhaps even salutary—effect on the
superpowers during the Cold War.
If you are a strategic planner in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, or Egypt, or for
that matter simply a citizen in any of these countries, how should you plan for
the growing threat of a nuclear terrorist attack and the possible repercussions?
It is perhaps an increasingly realistic threat that a terrorist group may soon have
the power, indirectly by attacking Israel, to also cause the destruction of your
own armies, cities, wealth, and families.103 How does one respond to such a
horrific threat?
101. Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, New York:
Times Books, 2004.
102. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html
103. A possible scenario: The attack came by sea. An international investigation revealed
that the Israeli Navy had been monitoring several small yachts that sailed into Tel Aviv
on that fateful morning. The yacht in question was flying a Swedish flag, but evidently
it had been commandeered by a radical Islamic terrorist group bent on the destruction
of Israel. On board the sailboat was a small nuclear weapon with a yield estimated at
thirty kilotons, approximately two times the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
The denotation occurred at sea level, so the radius of complete destruction was not as

114
POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS
great as might have occurred with an airburst. Nevertheless, Tel Aviv and much of the
surrounding area would be destroyed in a flash of light, blast, fire, and radiation. The
ensuing firestorm raged for seven days before all combustible material was consumed. In
the international investigation that followed, it was never determined who was actually
responsible for the attack, or how they had acquired a fully functional nuclear weapon,
though several Islamic extremist groups took credit for the explosion.
Within a week, approximately two million were dead in the Tel Aviv attack—mostly Israeli
Jews, but also tens of thousand Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Diplomatic missions of
many nations were also destroyed, along with the Israeli military command center and
large portions of Israel’s industrial infrastructure. The explosion vaporized thousands
of tons of water from the Mediterranean mixed with earth and buildings materials in
the blast crater, which came down as radioactive soot across the coastal plain, into
the Galilee, Syria, and Lebanon. Lethal levels of radioactive fallout extended as far
as north as Herziliyya. For Israel, it was a mortal blow. A third of its population was
dead or dying in an instant, another third sicken by radioactive fallout with uncertain
long-term consequences.
The Israeli retaliation was immediate and massive. Already by the early 1970s, Israel
had obtained nuclear weapons capabilities. By 2006, it was estimated that Israel
had some five hundred nuclear weapons with a variety of delivery options, making it
perhaps the third most powerful nuclear force in the world ahead of China, France,
and Great Britain. Every major city in the Middle East was destroyed within the next
twelve hours—Algiers, Tripoli, Cairo, Alexandria, Khartoum, Damascus, Beirut,
Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Kuwait, Baghdad, Basra, Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz. Every
major oil field and port and military base was destroyed. The breach in the Aswan
Dam caused radioactive flooding of the entire Nile River Valley. Even as far away
as Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore, the whole of the Middle East was destroyed in
a day. Gaza, Nabulus, Ramallah, Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jericho were leveled in a
“conventional” massacre when the remnants of the Israeli army moved in with full
force and indiscriminate rage. Within twenty-four hours, an ad hoc army consisting of
the United States, the European Union, and Russia had moved to occupy Israel, but it
was too late. The unthinkable had occurred. The Middle East lay in ruins, consumed
by hellfire. All told, perhaps a hundred million died in just the first day. There were
no intact cities or nation-states left, except Turkey and Jordan who were spared in the
Israeli retaliation.
There was no time to mourn the greatest tragedy in human history. The repercussions
reverberated throughout the world with the collapse of economic and energy markets.
The radioactive soot from some three hundred nuclear explosions and the long burn

11. SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE BOMB
115
Of course, one possibility is that Middle Eastern countries could go through
the “bomb shelter phase,” as we did in the United States back in the 1950s and
1960s. School children could practice air raid drills like those I experienced in
elementary school. The anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric could be turned
up a notch or two. Middle Eastern countries could also arm themselves to provide
a credible retaliatory threat. Having a strong air force and army equipped with
nuclear weapons, however, would not provide any deterrence or security in the event
of a nuclear terrorist attack. Indeed, it would just make one more of a target for
retaliation. There might be some short-term political advantages in consolidating
domestic power with an “act tough” strategy. In politics, it is sadly always useful
to have an enemy, a scapegoat to divert attention from domestic problems and
to consolidate power. In the end though, it is just a fact of life that you and your
nation may no longer exist on the fateful day that a bomb goes off in Tel Aviv or
Washington, DC.
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is the logic of the technology itself, a
new state in the human condition; it is not something one can opt out of. Albert
Einstein warned us that “The splitting of the atom has changed everything, save
our modes of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.” MAD
has come to the Middle East.
The only other rational option to a MAD strategy for countries in the Middle
East, strange and improbable as it may seem at first glance, is to pursue détente with
Israel, with the United States, and with its neighbors. Détente requires diplomatic
relationships, setting up communication channels to manage crises, trade and
economic cooperation, and educational, cultural, and religious exchanges. Such
activities existed between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold
War beginning in the 1960s and increasing in the 1970s and 1980s.
This hoped-for détente is not likely, so let’s not hold our breath. Everything has
changed, except our ways of thinking, to repeat Einstein’s warning. Again, I confess
that the United States is very much a part of the problem. The U.S. government has
been foolish and shortsighted in the aftermath of the Cold War. A great opportunity
was lost to lead by example, rather than by threat and force.
of Middle Eastern oil fields created both a nuclear winter effect and a dramatic rise
in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels presumably contributing to the global warming
effect. Hot or cold, climate experts are still confounded trying to model the short and
long-term implications, but in the first year after the nuclear war, the world experienced
a precipitous collapse in agricultural production and massive famines throughout Asia.
China and India were hit especially hard as their manufacturing sector collapsed.
Survivors from the Middle East war flooded north into Turkey, the Former Soviet Union,
and Europe. The political fallout brought out the best and the worst in our humanity,
and it is not clear which will prevail. These are hard times.

116
POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS
Friends, I am sorry I have darkened your thoughts with these terrible visions.
Science has brought many wonderful blessings to humanity, but also great dangers.
Similarly, religion can be used to inflame hatred and intolerance or to motivate
compassion and peace.
The dilemma for humanity created by nuclear weapons and their proliferation
is a symbol of a growing problem for humanity in the twenty-first century vis-à-vis
many new scientific developments and new technologies. We live at an extraordinary
moment in the natural history of our planet and the cultural evolution of our
species—a moment with terrible dangers and great possibilities. Our scientific,
technological, and economic prowess has grown exponentially in the last century,
but there is no indication that humans are any wiser, more compassionate, or more
moral. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. put it succinctly, “we have guided missiles and
misguided men.”
“Religion,” writes the twentieth-century American theologian Reinhold
Niebuhr, “is more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political
realm. The tendency to equate our political with our Christian convictions causes
politics to degenerate into idolatry.” Niebuhr goes on to say that “Civilization
depends upon vigorous pursuit of the highest values by people who are intelligent
enough to know that their values are qualified by their interests and corrupted by
their prejudices.”104
Brothers and sisters, I would rather stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you
exploring and celebrating the many mysteries of the universe, than go head-to-head
with you in an escalating conflict. The world needs us to combine the best of
science with the best of religion. Let us resolve to use these unspeakable dangers
as an impetus to engage each other more, to promote more contacts between our
societies, to build bridges of understanding and friendship, to open channels for
communication, debate, and cooperation. May we all live to be better human
beings, better countries, more moral, more just, more free, more peaceful, and more
prosperous. A God of Love and Justice, as Christians and Jews so often proclaim,
or a God characterized by Compassion and Mercy, as Muslims so often proclaim,
cannot possibly wish for humans to have or to use these terrible weapons. This is
the responsibility of our generation. May it also be our gift to the world, for the
greater glory of God.
104. Reinhold Niebuhr, Christianity and Crisis, 1952.