Tesla inherited from his father a deep hatred of
war. Throughout his life, he sought a technological way to end
warfare. He thought that war could be converted into, "a mere
spectacle of machines."
In 1931 Tesla announced to reporters at a press
conference that he was on the verge of discovering an entirely new
source of energy. Asked to explain the nature of the power, he
replied, "The idea first came upon me as a tremendous shock... I can
only say at this time that it will come from an entirely new and
unsuspected source."
War clouds were again darkening Europe. On 11 July
1934 the headline on the front page of the New York Times
read, "TESLA, AT 78, BARES NEW 'DEATH BEAM.'" The article reported
that the new invention "will send concentrated beams of particles
through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring
down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 250
miles..." Tesla stated that the death beam would make war impossible
by offering every country an "invisible Chinese wall."
Tesla
at a press conference at the Hotel New Yorker July 10, 1935, his
seventy-ninth birthday.
The idea generated considerable interest and
controversy. Tesla went immediately to J. P. Morgan, Jr. in search
of financing to build a prototype of his invention. Morgan was
unconvinced. Tesla also attempted to deal directly with Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain. But when Chamberlain
resigned upon discovering that he had been out-maneuvered by Hitler
at Munich, interest in Tesla's anti-war weapon eventually collapsed.
By 1937 it was clear that war would soon break out
in Europe. Frustrated in his attempts to generate interest and
financing for his "peace beam," he sent an elaborate technical
paper, including diagrams, to a number of Allied nations including
the United States, Canada, England, France, the Soviet Union, and
Yugoslavia. Titled "New Art of Projecting Concentrated
Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natural Media," the paper provided the
first technical description of what is today called a charged
particle beam weapon.
What set Tesla's proposal apart from the usual run
of fantasy "death rays" was a unique vacuum chamber with one end
open to the atmosphere. Tesla devised a unique vacuum seal by
directing a high-velocity air stream at the tip of his gun to
maintain "high vacua." The necessary pumping action would be
accomplished with a large Tesla turbine.
Of all the countries to receive Tesla's proposal,
the greatest interest came from the Soviet Union. In 1937 Tesla
presented a plan to the Amtorg Trading Corporation, an alleged
Soviet arms front in New York City. Two years later, in 1939, one
stage of the plan was tested in the USSR and Tesla received a check
for $25,000.
Tesla hoped that his invention would be used for
purely defensive purposes, and thus would become an anti-war
machine. His system required a series of power plants located along
a country's coast that would scan the skies in search of enemy
aircraft. Since the beam was projected in a straight line, it was
only effective for about 200 miles — the distance of the curvature
of the earth.
Tesla also contemplated peacetime applications for
his particle beam, one being to transmit power without wires over
long distances. Another radical notion he proposed was to heat up
portions of the upper atmosphere to light the sky at night — a
man-made aurora borealis.
Whether Tesla's idea was ever taken seriously is
still a mater of conjecture. Most experts today consider his idea
infeasible. Though, his death beam bears an uncanny resemblance to
the charged-particle beam weapon developed by both the United States
and the Soviet Union during the cold war.
Nonetheless, Tesla's dream for a technological means
to end war seems as impossible now as it did when he proposed the
idea in the 1930s.
Tesla. "It seems," he says, "that I have always been
ahead of my time."
Editor's Note: Nikola Tesla, now in his
seventy-eighth year, has been called the father of radio,
television, power transmission, the induction motor, and the robot,
and the discoverer of the cosmic ray. Recently he has announced a
heretofore unknown source of energy present everywhere in unlimited
amounts, and he is now working upon a device which he believes will
make war impracticable.
Tesla and Edison have often been represented as
rivals. They were rivals, to a certain extent, in the battle between
the alternating and direct current in which Tesla championed the
former. He won; the great power plants at Niagara Falls and
elsewhere are founded on the Tesla system. Otherwise the two men
were merely opposites. Edison had a genius for practical inventions
immediately applicable. Tesla, whose inventions were far ahead of
the time, aroused antagonisms which delayed the fruition of his
ideas for years.
However, great physicists like Kelvin and Crookes
spoke of his inventions as marvelous. "Tesla," said Professor A. E.
Kennelly of Harvard University when the Edison medal was presented
to the inventor, "set wheels going round all over the world. . . .
What he showed was a revelation to science and art unto ail time."
"Were we," remarks B. A. Behrend, distinguished
author and engineer," to seize and to eliminate the results of Mr.
Tesla's work, the wheels of industry would cease to turn, our
electric cars and trains would stop, our towns would be dark, our
mills would be dead and idle."
Forecasting is perilous. No man can look very far
into the future. Progress and invention evolve in directions other
than those anticipated. Such has been my experience, although I may
flatter myself that many of the developments which I forecast have
been verified by events in the first third of the twentieth century.
It seems that I have always been ahead of my time. I
had to wait nineteen years before Niagara was harnessed by my
system, fifteen years before the basic inventions for wireless which
I gave to the world in 1893 were applied universally. I announced
the cosmic ray and my theory of radio activity in 1896. One of my
most important discoveries--terrestrial resonance--which is the
foundation of wireless power transmission and which I announced in
1899, is not understood even today. Nearly two years after I had
flashed an electric current around the globe, Edison, Steinmetz,
Marconi, and others declared that it would not be possible to
transmit even signals by wireless across the Atlantic. Having
anticipated so many important developments, it is not without
assurance that I attempt to predict what life is likely to be in the
twenty-first century.
Life is and will ever remain an equation incapable
of solution, but it contains certain known factors. We may
definitely say that it is a movement even if we do not fully
understand its nature. Movement implies a body which is being moved
and a force which propels it against resistance. Man, in the large,
is a mass urged on by a force. Hence the general laws governing
movement in the realm of mechanics are applicable to humanity.
There are three ways by which the energy which
determines human progress can be increased: First, we may increase
the mass. This, in the case of humanity, would mean the improvement
of living conditions, health, eugenics, etc. Second, we may reduce
the frictional forces which impede progress, such as ignorance,
insanity, and religious fanaticism. Third, we may multiply the
energy of the human mass by enchaining the forces of the universe,
like those of the sun, the ocean, the winds and tides.
The first method increases food and well-being. The
second tends to bring peace. The third enhances our ability to work
and to achieve. There can be no progress that is not constantly
directed toward increasing well-being, peace, and achievement. Here
the mechanistic conception of life is one with the teachings of
Buddha and the Sermon on the Mount.
While I am not a believer in the orthodox sense, I
commend religion, first, because every individual should have some
ideal--religious, artistic, scientific, or humanitarian--to give
significance to his life. Second, because all the great religions
contain wise prescriptions relating to the conduct of life, which
hold good now as they did when they were promulgated.
There is no conflict between the ideal of religion
and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological
dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is
simply a great machine which never came into being and never will
end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like
the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines
our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to
stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the
similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment,
we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the
concordance of our reactions, understanding is barn. In the course
of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what
we call "soul " or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the
functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul"
or the "spirit" ceases likewise.
I expressed these ideas long before the behaviorists,
led by Pavlov in Russia and by Watson in the United States,
proclaimed their new psychology. This apparently mechanistic
conception is not antagonistic to an ethical conception of life. The
acceptance by mankind at large of these tenets will not destroy
religious ideals. Today Buddhism and Christianity are the greatest
religions both in number of disciples and in importance. I believe
that the essence of both will he the religion of the human race in
the twenty-first century.
The year 2100 will see eugenics universally
established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the
fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man's
new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of
nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the
unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization
and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by
sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct,
Several European countries and a number of states of the American
Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient.
The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage
more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent
should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will
no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically
unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.
Hygiene, physical culture will be recognized
branches of education and government. The Secretary of Hygiene or
Physical Culture will he far more important in the cabinet of the
President of the United States who holds office in the year 2035
than the Secretary of War. The pollution of our beaches such as
exists today around New York City will seem as unthinkable to our
children and grandchildren as life without plumbing seems to us. Our
water supply will he far more carefully supervised, and only a
lunatic will drink unsterilized water.
More people die or grow sick from polluted water
than from coffee, tea, tobacco, and other stimulants. I myself
eschew all stimulants. I also practically abstain from meat. I am
convinced that within a century coffee, tea, and tobacco will be no
longer in vogue. Alcohol, however, will still be used. It is not a
stimulant but a veritable elixir of life. The abolition of
stimulants will not come about forcibly. It will simply be no longer
fashionable to poison the system with harmful ingredients. Bernarr
Macfadden has shown how it is possible to provide palatable food
based upon natural products such as milk, honey, and wheat. I
believe that the food which is served today in his penny restaurants
will be the basis of epicurean meals in the smartest banquet halls
of the twenty-first century.
There will be enough wheat and wheat products to
feed the entire world, including the teeming millions of China and
India, now chronically on the verge of starvation. The earth is
bountiful, and where her bounty fails, nitrogen drawn from the air
will refertilize her womb. I developed a process for this purpose in
1900. It was perfected fourteen years later under the stress of war
by German chemists.
Long before the next century dawns, systematic
reforestation and the scientific management of natural resources
will have made an end of all devastating droughts, forest fires, and
floods. The universal utilization of water power and its
long-distance transmission will supply every household with cheap
power and will dispense with the necessity of burning fuel. The
struggle for existence being lessened, there should be development
along ideal rather than material lines.
Today the most civilized countries of the world
spend a maximum of their income on war and a minimum on education.
The twenty-first century will reverse this order. It will be more
glorious to fight against ignorance than to die on the field of
battle. The discovery of a new scientific truth will be more
important than the squabbles of diplomats. Even the newspapers of
our own day are beginning to treat scientific discoveries and the
creation of fresh philosophical concepts as news. The newspapers of
the twenty-first century will give a mere "stick" in the back pages
to accounts of crime or political controversies, but will headline
on the front pages the proclamation of a new scientific hypothesis.
"It will be possible to destroy anything approaching
within 200 miles. My invention will provide a wall of power,"
declares Tesla.
Progress along such lines will be impossible while
nations persist in the savage practice of killing each other off. I
inherited from my father, an erudite man who labored hard for peace,
an ineradicable hatred of war. Like other inventors, I believed at
one time that war could he stopped by making it more destructive.
But I found that I was mistaken. I underestimated man's combative
instinct, which it will take more than a century to breed out. We
cannot abolish war by outlawing it. We cannot end it by disarming
the strong. War can be stopped, not by making the strong weak but by
making every nation, weak or strong, able to defend itself.
Hitherto all devices that could be used for defense
could also be utilized to serve for aggression. This nullified the
value of the improvement for purposes of peace. But I was fortunate
enough to evolve a new idea and to perfect means which can be used
chiefly for defense. If it is adopted, it will revolutionize the
relations between nations. It will make any country, large or small,
impregnable against armies, airplanes, and other means for attack.
My invention requires a large plant, but once it is established it
will he possible tb destroy anything, men or machines, approaching
within a radius of 200 miles. It will, so to speak, provide a wall
of power offering an insuperable obstacle against any effective
aggression.
If no country can be attacked successfully, there
can be no purpose in war. My discovery ends the menace of airplanes
or submarines, but it insures the supremacy of the battleship,
because battleships may be provided with some of the required
equipment. There might still be war at sea, but no warship could
successfully attack the shore line, as the coast equipment will be
superior to the armament of any battleship.
I want to state explicitly that this invention of
mine does not contemplate the use of any so-called " death rays."
Rays are not applicable because they cannot be produced in requisite
quantities and diminish rapidly in intensity with distance. All the
energy of New York City (approximately two million horsepower)
transformed into rays and projected twenty miles, could not kill a
human being, because, according to a well known law of physics, it
would disperse to such an extent as to be ineffectual.
My apparatus projects particles which may.be
relatively large or of microscopic dimensions, enabling us to convey
to a small area at a great distance trillions of times more energy
than is possible with rays of any kind. Many thousands of horsepower
can thus be transmitted by a stream thinner than a hair, so that
nothing can resist. This wonderful feature will make it possible,
among other things, to achieve undreamed-of results in television,
for there will be almost no limit to the intensity of illumination,
the size of the picture, or distance of projection.
I do not say that there may not be several
destructive wars before the world accepts my gift. I may not live to
see its acceptance. But I am convinced that a century from now every
nation will render itself immune from attack by my device or by a
device based upon a similar principle.
At present we suffer from the derangement of our
civilization because we have not yet completely adjusted ourselves
to the machine age. The solution of our problems does not lie in
destroying but in mastering the machine.
Innumerable activities still performed by human
hands today will be performed by automatons. At this very moment
scientists working in the laboratories of American universities are
attempting to create what has been described as a "thinking
machine." I anticipated this development.
I actually constructed "robots." Today the robot is
an accepted fact, but the principle has not been pushed far enough.
In the twenty-first century the robot will take the place which
slave labor occupied in ancient civilization. There is no reason at
all why most of this should not come to pass in less than a century,
treeing mankind to pursue its higher aspirations.
And unless mankind's attention is too violently
diverted by external wars and internal revolutions, there is no
reason why the electric millennium should not begin in a few
decades.