Age of Overkill; 11; Beyond Power - To What?; Will to Do What?

it's b in power as the cancer about time for these races and places of mankind we've seen in helping the cancer the killer you live in a world which is constantly trembling on the brink of disaster but is there some basis for believing that another way of organizing the world as possible it may cause some stirring of openness that even in the midst of the pensions of political struggle of men are still thinking as hard as they can about how to nail

down an enduring peak i want to explore what these ways of thinking are the chances they have of success this is the eleventh of my series of talks about our age of overkill and other people's and leaders of mankind can save themselves from the idiocy of destruction i don't speak for him a party or government for liberalism are conservatives i don't play six games when the stakes are life and the world that time is running short or so i speak as objectively as i can the survival of humanity for the continued weakness of free america thus far in this series i've talked of the new weapons court in the balance of power in the struggle between the two roadblocks in the new nation states in an undeveloped world and the need for greater leadership and for a creative america the three jobs that remain a show in

america the question of what steps we must take to nail down this enduring peace what chance there is that there will be cake don't want to talk about what lies beyond the power principal in world politics what lies beyond the colors pop out the us it has been since the beginning of the us it will always be they say that the way to get pieces to have more arms and the enemy well the world has always organize for in the world has always had more only this time or would be for keeps there had been periods in world history when their worst spells of peace when a single empire owed over the known power world i suppose this is conceivable for the future a russian empire the chinese world empire or even an american world empire the trouble with this is that the road to world and i would

have to come through nuclear war that case there wouldn't be much of the world for the empire through low and you know i feel that we cannot escape the necessity for adequate weapons of events then the spiral in the balance of terror by deterring will be with us for some time while they may prevent our being conquered they will not bring peace and they enable us to live for a few years longer under the shadows of our time but every pop are on our shadows will only deep be zhou has been raised by professor henry kissinger as to whether it is safe to leave the decision about pressing a retaliatory button for the president of the united states there's something in the book however that's worth reading for itself the book is the

necessity for choice and in it he asks us to imagine that the russians spiked first and knockout fifty percent of our retaliatory for us until the american president that if he presses the button they destroy everything about having knocked out half of course they have the advantage because it is says in these circumstances the harrowing possibility exists but the communist leaders might come to believe that if they could induce any delay in our response they might escape unscathed from even a nuclear attack and so you say they may offer a peace and what this amounts to is a kind of mechanical trigger that gets into fields is important if users better not to give the president the decision as to what to do with trigger for the kind of world he says must come almost mechanically he has such a mechanical triggers of course politically

intolerable even though it's politically intolerable his conclusions that's what it amounts to in his chest is it the age of overkill is also the age of dehumanized automatic decision in this book exposes in a way the total profile of a demonized weapons race aiming at it de humanized war and preventable only by the rubber principle of demonized decision well there's another peace process that if the continued use of the power principle involved is in these games the kissinger is talking about ms baum to bring destruction or not renounced power over again says there is a third there was a road of the world fair i'm going to eliminate evil is to eliminate color and build instead a lot well on morality and the conscience of men cut the difficulty is

that when india tried this kryder bass its relations with china and she'll on the five principles of morality is in a low base for international relations the chinese refused to respond more it became a unilateral morality that's the trouble with moving beyond our to morality and as another kind of approached her immorality of the kind that says if we will strip by sonos of arms unilaterally it will create again amal infection than the russians will do the same only one moustaches which russians people on a leader you know the people could be reached by this kind of moral infections is doubtful with complete government control of communist communications but even then the leaders would not be swayed by the people the chance of reaching the leaders with this message and appealing to the better side of their nature scenes a slight shall we say as mankind finds itself stand at the way go and cynical a way

of our principal leads to destruction you abandon it can rely on morality without being able to get the other side to do the same that leads to either communist world perilous our destruction of them without having only one possibility remains that possibility is but we and you immediately on a dialogue with the communist world clark on several levels and without abandoning the power principal tried to change the basis on which both sides are using it or let me start with the disarmament by a lot of people so for disarming was made most dramatically by could shove on his visit to the united nations in nineteen fifty nine where so many people live in effect it was this let's do away with all weapons nuclear and conventional by several states when we've done that and we'll talk about an effective inspection system now the logic behind the russian

proposals was clear the absence of arms they come down on the superior man power of the communist nation's the pleasures series of insurrection some revolutions and depressions and capture world power that way allow nothing thus far has come of this grandiose approach to disarmament talks on a more modest scale that have been going on for several years i do and although without results the fact that the talks have continued mean something about side nor does it make him is that both sides are already before the world to shoulder the responsibility of breaking the talks thus we may say that the disarmament dialogue is not quite stopped yet did not quite begun i say this as a early in nineteen sixty one it's quite possible that by the end of the year by nineteen sixty two by nineteen sixty three the dialogue will have taken a few steps forward so

one reason is that in december nineteen sixty a group of some funding for american scientists and students of nuclear warfare medical group of russians moscow and they had a couple of weeks of conversation moscow meeting was unofficial but it had the blessing of both governments and out of that emerged at least better working believe that both sides know the disarmament is an imperative for survival and that the best approach there's a series of very concrete steps which will lead in the end to almost total national decide what's new about this creative idea i think is that that that of simultaneous steps toward disarmament and inspection each keeping pace step by step would be up and that way you see the russians are of blank for disarmament but have been afraid of inspection the americans were open for

inspection but have been afraid of disarmament without it they will both be reassured by having them into law i like to show the blackboard what occurred that represents this looks like here's a character play that was it is where we are now with respect to me start with where we are in the answer is with the law and over a period of time in a silent night we'd go down to where we're about ninety percent to suffer and so the rush the photo in this so that at a certain point or about ninety percent with effective international inspection under disarm they see these two carriers intersecting in this way a flock of the world's best i think there are two stages in which the space

but when you get down to those nine percent pointed to so you then reach a kind of transitional the parent of ten percent of the ten percent ineffectiveness and inspection and during that period the russians and the americans presumably will be able to work out some agreement for a world authority that will be a police force are the russians agreeing to this and the basic premise of that and the show groucho proposes is that note let's design first and talk about inspection that they would not be saying let's to cyber and inspect simultaneously in this into law process step by step and then let's create a world police or say the first step is no informally enough on average turn of events may notify until you know about the ban on further nuclear test it won't be easy to regain a sense of trust between the two powers but i don't think it's impossible for example

james wants or who served under the eisenhower administration well there's a disarmament of us here in geneva and also the american delegation of un succeeding lot you said when you left office that he trusted the russians to carry out and the disarmament commitments they may there was a debate between two great american scientists edward teller and the us ally and teller spoke of irresponsible trust in the russians and some unanswered but there can also be irresponsible mistrusts i hear other two shells between which we must gear they should both will say search also has put it is a gamble is a gamble that we may or may not be able to succeed in the disarmament effort but if we don't take this gamble or we don't make a creative tried added them as the alternative candidate is not even a gamble it's a certainty that weatherbee by accident or design the cells will be used

in the next decade now there are difficult problems in this song what is hoping to develop a reliable inspection system when so much still remains to be done about the pecking underground pass the answer here i suppose is corporate research on both sides which would mean that both sides would set to work to discover how best they could limit each other it's hard cause in the russian case where regime in a social system have lived on secrecy for almost half century that nourished us psychologically and nourish themselves on the myth of being encircled to talk to make this kind of transition to the confidence the number matters the will to do what we must do and this in turn requires on both sides and to show confidence building steps very small but crucial exactly because they are confident greatest creativeness of our age will have to

lie not in the creation of the weapons but in the creation of confidence in each other's intentions and always there is the problem of priam and how much time will owe this disarmament dialogue take how much time was there and that you can't answer at any absolute five barkan or fifteen years or less i can only say quite flatly the time as a function of confidence that if there is a will to take the steps involved in the disarmament dialogue and even mention as obstacles can be overcome if it's not then we'll have regular hill becomes a moment the question you see a burning precious view may well ask why my answer is for further steps toward disarmament and then beyond that for an ultimate world of sorrow

but you know there are some who are skeptical about all this i think the best of them isn't as professor hans market within a standard book on politics among the nations and whose doubts i want to read from his own book is this is a a textile and international affairs and professor morgan that was considered a very realistic thinker he says men do not fight because they have arms they have arms because they deemed it necessary to fight and he answers take away their arms and they will either fight with their bare fists or get themselves new arms with which to fight with the causes and the occasion for fighting about mood and you see the removal of all this is not a solution i recall having an eminent indians scientist say to

me that you know both sides gave up their arms tomorrow coming of hand and brain by which these weapons were developed could breed new ones need he says when we think of the fruit of the tree of evil and we shall carry the knowledge of it wherever we go this leads to another dialogue if the communist world won't give up any of its grand design a world power but will push like restless flowing streams and every night where does meet resistance and disarmament a futile you can't talk of disarming in at the same time stand up every political witch's brew of anti colonial slogans and racist hatred said communist ambition masquerading as revolutionary nationalists their negotiation dialogue is to succeed it must involve both the usual channels of diplomacy and also some poetry

i don't see any reason why it's an either or proposition why we have to choose between ordinary diplomacy and some of the problem is to settle it the great friction points in early nineteen sixty one there were forceps points testing points for the negotiation dialog one was barely where soldiers of both sides had built up they will allow communication between these two world was intolerable for the communists that those should continue to be a western ireland in the communist sea of east germans may i say west also found something intolerable they founded intolerable that there should be any thought of surrendering a pre population through communities the second was not wearing young men always seem to be flying

in an accessible jungle were inaccessible terrain where they seemed doomed to be is slogging through all kinds of underbrush in a seemingly unending war of brother against brother or that might be repeated in other places in the world the third was the congo whenever he's the establishment of an independent state a produce chaos and the power vacuum the russians immediately tried to move into that vacuum on the un found that it had to move into in order to prevent or the civil war and armed intervention congo yes he was a test not only for what the un could do an effort but for a succession of things that would be faced with doing in the future of what was killed where castro is brash and grandiose adventure and caribbean revolution had led to an alliance with russia

so for the first time russian economic and came into this eight american and flames a rose throughout the caribbean where there was also a danger that those flames that revolutionary style would spread to the other americans well the policy of today has undergone some crucial changes if we try to see how to deal with these friction points despite the indictment of american diplomats that have been made in the ugly american and other books america is being crowded into sending abroad diplomats or good technician and technicians object becoming pretty good diplomats both of them have had to learn the strange language isn't a plan dish ways in outlandish cultures but another thing is that the un has had to become a diplomatic forum for every mission i'm sure because it is the place where each nation projects its image

sharply and immediately upon the world you know just as important as the security council and the assembly is that delegates loyal to the united nations where delegates from every country meet and chat and the problem is that don't succumb easily to have the direct approach mesa come through they interact each one of these countries really is a totally different universe with a totally different kind of a pain there are two major ways of carrying on the station the stabilization dialogue from ordinary diplomacy and through the un dissolves with their summer trips at a meeting of the heads of state at the summit was not a black eye as a method of problem solving ever since versailles after world war one one of the worst examples was a meeting of chamberlain and hitler munich when

chamberlain went there to appease hitler when he thought that he would be able relate to the buy time for england and for europe and when he came back waving his slow piece of paper the idea that he had brought peace and i can only improve to be american history piece piece that that war what is often forgotten you see by those who distrust summitry is that the oil diplomacy has for centuries been tried it has failed as a method of getting any lasting peace signing of the nazi soviet pact in nineteen thirty nine which cleared the way for it or to attack oh it was a product of the old diplomacy so is the dispatch of the japanese envoys to washington just before those japanese planes spot good pearl harbor it was also a product of the old folks there'd been protected diplomatic negotiations between japan and the united states which had led nowhere because

owen view of the man at the head of the two governments with completely at variance as for they must be baited summit conference of all the one in paris in the spring of nineteen sixty when the big format and talk to each other and didn't even succeed in getting a global summit meeting started the special circumstances of the u two incident which don't get even before the foreman got the paris sat down you say the fact is that that the political leaders aren't equipped to discuss issues a technical level but it's also true that the diplomats and neither the paterno the feel for that total world pictured to be able to dispose of issues at the top level summit is required and tough problems is an alternation of these two methods of the diplomats can make real progress and their meetings can build a base on which the heads of state can reach a meeting of mine

and then the art of summitry can be useful it can clear away enough of the political friction points the political issues to get some chance in some meaning for the disarmament dialogue that's the crucial dialogue you see this brings me to the nub of the matter that is the collective security dialogue when i say young power to what i dont mean that we can have a world without power that would be as impossible as to have a world without struggle without tragedy without injustice is a built in just as there is no reason why tragedy in and justice should be a way of organizing the world so there's no reason why the struggle for power should be a way of organizing world order power is a principal and politics always has been and i suppose it always will be politics has been the science

of power but unless it also becomes science and out of order you know we're left for power to operate it it can't move away from power and discarded anymore than you can move beyond the emotions in the human heart and discard them that we can and must move beyond the balance of power system with its metaphor of the checkerboard as a way of organizing world order what this means is in the nuclear age is that the world must move beyond balance of terror power to world order power beyond national security power to collective security power for short range safety united states will of course have to depend on nuclear weapons and on the missile weapons spiral the short range safety it will also have to depend on effect of political warfare for diplomacy disarmament dialogue these are always of

buying time when i asked earlier buy time for what the answer has to be buy time for the effort to hammer out a method of long grain safety for america and for the world a collective security dialogue our conversation must be set in motion not just between the united states and russia and between all the nations of the world power will have to remain in force and weapons but they'll have to be a change of perspective i watch national interests merge with the world and it's an exchange of the power system so that western nations have skipped themselves of the weapons are world destruction these weapons can be turned over for a world authority to be used for the police world stage what i'm saying is the power can't be discarded we got to change it for you the old forms of power are treacherous suicidal suicide is not an imperative a real imperative is where

survival when anyone tells me this is impossible i answer that the imperative must become the possible what must be must become what can be otherwise what world will be left for our children we discuss national educational

television and radio and last this is at a national educational television ms ba fb