thumbnail of Prepare for survival; Preventing World War Three
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
Broadcasting is the prevention of the third world war. The National Association of educational broadcasters presents prepare for survival a radio sounding board for facts and opinions on civil defense. Missing you Bob. When the new blood instead of. This here with Ford Well we fought World War 2. Number three prepare for survival. Prevent World War 3. This country's major objective should be permanent world peace. As Senator Stewart sliming pointed out civil defense in his opinion
contributes to the deterrent to war military policies of our government. We as a nation must remain strong strong relative to the strength of any possible attacker. We must have and must maintain sufficient overall strength to deter war while we are negotiating for that peace we all so earnestly desire. The power of deterrence is more than just the power to retaliate. Unimportant but too often overlooked element in the tyrants is several defense civil defense plans and policies have been presented and criticized in terms of whether or not they provide the means by which Americans should prepare for survival in the nuclear age. Proponents of civil defense consider it to be a deterrent to war. However the dissenters have bypassed civil defense and have instead insisted on discussing the steps by which we must prepare for survival by preventing world war 3
to prevent World War 3 then is another way to prepare for survival. It belongs to this many faceted discussion of civil defense because it is the one alternative to civil defense. We can prepare for survival either by shielding ourselves from the effects of nuclear attack and a third world war or by preventing that war from starting. This is why the prevention of World War 3 must be discussed in this series. If all sides of the open question of civil defense are to be considered. That was discovered. Well I guess. I'll cover with you and me. With board World War One fought World War 2.
But can we prevent World War 3. If so how specifically philosopher Bertrand Russell Mrs. Franklin D Roosevelt and Dr. Linus Pauling Nobel prize winning chemists present their arguments Lord Russell. I think it is perfectly possible to prevent it and nothing is required except the relation that such a war would be a disaster to everybody and a determination on both sides to settle the questions not war or the threat of war but by negotiation. There are certain changes in the language of politicians which typically require President Eisenhower on one occasion remarked that he feared we were losing the Cold War that we might win the heart
war. On the other hand Khrushchev when he speaks about this sort of thing says if there is another woe we should bury will this sort of remark must stop. Politicians must not say that sort of thing. It is perfectly true I think that we should be buried equally true that the Russians will be buried a war could set a new purpose for anybody what so ever. And it is necessary to dish should be emphatically proclaimed. I should like to see a declared Asian by all means. The important is that they are aware that none of the aims of any of the powers of the will be fed by a nuclear war.
Now if you didn't need the vexed questions I'm not to be settled by war or the threat of war it becomes of course necessary that they should be settled by negotiation. I think there should be certain principles in such negotiations. The first should be that any suggested agreement should give new net advantage to either side. This is necessary because if the suggestion does give an advantage to one side the other side will not accept. A second thing which I think is important. Ease the danger zones international forces should be stationed to keep the peace
for example between Israel and the Arab states between Pakistan and Afghanistan and so on. This is a principle which I wish I could have put first but which for practical reasons I do not see him going again is the just furthest possible any agreement which is come to should be such as to satisfy the inhabitants of the regions concerned. Then I would try to to make people realize that there is perhaps a risk in signing a treaty with the Soviet Union on stopping nuclear tests at the present time. But there's a great risk you could upside the critics and the Soviets are willing to sign it. Sign a treaty without all the safeguards that we think
we should have because we haven't yet found certain. Technical way of even detecting underground explosions we think we may have it in a short time but so far we haven't got it. I still think that we should sign the treaty because I think it stands to reason that to the Soviets knowing as all the dangers as well as we do our only proposing this because they really would like their people to live just as we would like other people to live. Therefore when you're living in a world where everything you do is a risk I take the risk. Which has the most chance of being of benefit to both of us and therefore will probably be lived up to by both of us. I think kidnapped RAR is immoral and always has been.
I think that it has been wrong far a powerful nation to attack a weaker nation when she could benefit herself thereby no matter what the dictates of morality or justice were with respect to the situation. This has gone on in the world up until recently until the present century nations have been able to benefit themselves by waging rar in the old days. In past ages you could exact tribute from the nation that was conquered in recent years however after the last great wars it has been necessary for the victorious country which itself has been badly damaged to come to the aid to give aid to the conquered Come country rather than exacting large amounts of tribute from it. And no nation has benefited. Now these wars. The First World War and the Second World War were fought to with ordinary weapons.
Except for the two small bombs exploded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and even those wars in which the amount of devastation was only a small fraction of what you would expect in a nuclear now. Why are now even in those wars no body not even the victorious nations were benefited in any material way at all. And in addition of course there was the great amount of human suffering that was caused by these wars. I did cause. And it. Pushed the detour either way. Then. Let me see three kinds of questions. Cultural. Movements and territorial. The cultural questions. The easiest. They require freedom of travel freedom of the press mutual courtesy and it
gimped to each side to new as much as possible of the other. And not to do as for example was done in America some years ago to take out of public libraries or books which might give the American public a truthful picture of Russia and of course that sort of thing is done in Russia. Likewise with that sort of policy must be reversed and every attempt has been made to cause people to know of each other in a friendly manner. I believe very strongly in the training of people for emergencies. I would like to see every citizen of this country give a certain amount of time to a program of training training and discipline training in meeting the major indices of every kind First aid of every
kind. The kind of thing that if you happen to find yourself in a limited air in an area where there was a limited effect it might have value to you see. But I would spend every effort to awakening the citizens of the United States. To get the government conscious of the fact that they really want the kind of risk that may lead to prevention of a nuclear war or that they want to see that moving forward and then I think that a sense an understanding. That as citizens you have an obligation to meet the challenge
against you which is not a military challenge but an economic and a cultural challenge on as good a level as possible is one that our citizens should face and we should be working to awaken the interest of our young people. To what this challenge is the challenge of education. It's a challenge of. How you persuade uncommitted Nations to see the values of democracy and to joining in in working for freedom and justice for all. But if you can do this and do it better than the Soviets then you will not be defeated. By having more of the uncommitted nations 10 to the Soviet way and leave you less and less area in which to fight.
Mr. Herbert create man who follows is the acting secretary and director of research of the Society for the Prevention of World War 3. This is science he is concerned with educating the public on the international economic and political crises which could trigger World War 3. I think that every individual owes it to himself. In the first place to keep abreast of current events. In other words to be fully informed. Not to be caught off base by stereotype concepts all by headline but to read between the lines and to read extensively and to know all the facts as much as possible. I think from there. Individuals. Should endeavor to join. Clubs organizations. That partake in problems of
foreign relations and that these organizations should make themselves felt both in the community on an educational basis and also in Washington because Washington must hear from the people and indeed Congress wants to hear from the people I'm sure the president does and a well informed public opinion is the best Garen t for peace and prosperity in this country but particularly if it is articulated and organized. And this is the key to. A. Second part of the 20th century that will be a pleasant. Period for America. As to living. Well informed articulated organize public. Opinion. Is the key to it all. Because when the public opinion is not entrapped in stereotypes in wishful thinking or in sheer ignorance or fear.
Or see then it can react upon Congress and Congress must respond they can react upon the president the president must respond. You say. But if it's a one sided relationship where we are fed. Facts alleged facts and where we do not have any opportunity or we do not care. To examine these facts or alleged facts that we lose by default. And this of course is the great. Floor and great opportunity of democracy because in the last analysis democracy is what the people want it to be. If it's a working democracy the people must take. In their own hands. The great opportunities that democracy affords them. And this I believe is in the good old American tradition of the town hall meeting except that it should be
projected on a man's scale. And I believe I sincerely believe that the American people have the resources. I don't mean material but spiritual and mental. To overcome. Every obstacle. Is an optimistic because I think the American people always me to challenge when they know what it is. I think the trouble is that for quite a while now we've been fed optimism without any facts and that we better get some fact. As your god's eye movement which is perhaps the immediately important as the Christians involved. Extra guts of image. The British Legion has been pursued ever since the end of the second where
war must be really the best. The practice which is being pursued has been that each side draws up a scheme which it sinks will showed to the world have in each intentions but which contains some I deem that make it quite set and the other side we reject and in fact neither side has had any wish. What if at that moment conferences should reach agreements they have thought of playing a foolish tiptoeing game in which each side proposes things and neither side accepts them and if they should. Miracle the other side doesn't accept your suggestion. You would watch with Droid Now that is not the sort of way in which a grievance can be reached. There was be a determination that agreement should be reached
in the event of a difference between east and west. The method to be adopted should not be one of them and went against the other. But there should be plenty to a very small subcommittee with a view to reaching a compromise as nearly between the two situations as possible. And if representatives of east and west by themselves were not able to devise such a compromise they should be authorized to seek the advice and help of some new Kools in this way we might hope that agreement instead of disagreement would result from disarmament conferences. Here also is Mr. Donald key executive director of the National Committee for a sane nuclear policy. Mr. Keyes remarks compliment
those of Mr cretin. I heard earlier in that the National Committee for a say nuclear policy is concerned with stopping the use of nuclear weapons in situations which might be provoked by the economic and political crises which the Society for the Prevention of World War 3 is also trying to avert. Mr Key I think we have to do two things I think we have to be honest with ourselves and honest with the American public about what is actually involved in such a war and that it involves not just a question of providing a basement playrooms which can be converted into shelters but it involves the extinguishment of what we generally view as our way of life and that instead of putting our efforts there we must put our efforts in in the direction of finding alternatives to this situation that we have to find a more appropriate area for our efforts which is the area of
preventing. A continuation of the developments leading inexorably towards this possibility. And you cut territorial questions. I think that in general when should aim at the preservation of the status quo because anything else reaches such extremely difficult questions. There are two points I think about which there might be agreement when that there should be new governments of any power on foreign soil and the other the new shoes should be supplied by the more developed to the list developed powers. I believe that water is by its nature your moral and should be
eliminated from the world. I think that it is a matter of chance only that the developments in the field of science of the development of nuclear energy and nuclear bombs. These super bombs atomic bombs and super bombs has been such as to be on the side of morality. And yet it is true that the nuclear stockpiles are working on the side of morality too because they require that we have bound Anwar in the world and this is clearly a step toward morality. Individual human beings I think are. Our moral in general they are good. We have a good system of moral precepts teachings of the great religious leaders followed by individual human beings but not followed by a national government by nations in the past. Now the nations too are
forced to be moral. We are going to have to institute into the dealings between nations. The same principles of morality and justice that we accept far individual human beings. I think that the leaders of all nations recognize that it is essential that water be given up that there be no nuclear war in the world and that the people recognise this too. I believe that now the only chaps for World Destruction is the outbreak of a nuclear war by accident. I don't believe that help will occur through design. There always is the possibility of course. Paranoid national leader will come into power a man like Kepler who would be willing to sacrifice the whole world to
his egotism. But I think that this chance is a small one. I think too that the probability of accidental outbreak of a nuclear war are small and that if we. And by we I mean everybody in the world if we keep our sanity if we recognize what our situation is if we do not start off on the path of increasing militarism which would be the path that we were following if we were to begin to expend billions of dollars on Fallout shelters if we continue to work for disarmament and international agreements controlling nuclear weapons and the world then we are going to have a future of peace and a future of mortality in the world a future in which of the resources of this beautiful world that we live in are used for the benefit of the people in the world and not for a
death and destruction and preparation for death and destruction. This is what I believe and I look forward to the future. There are just a few more things to be considered. I take it to the new reasonable person could be satisfied with anything in the way of the government short of a complete destruction of the already existing nuclear weapons and rigid prohibition of any further manufacture of such weapons. I think that there will be need of an international all thought it is to enforce agreements of this and of other sorts. I think this international authority we
have to contain representatives of east and west equal numbers and or show representatives of the nuclear powers. Ultimately if we're to be this international of already we don't have to be able to enforce its will by means of an international force. Then at last the threat of war which hangs over a suppressant maybe indeed and science which has been leading this towards the media since did two words have been nice and life and here missing you about this on a world trade. More commonly and
in this century we fought World War One fought World War Two. But we can prevent number three that power that was discovered by Einstein and me can not leave this whole world power with nuclear energy. The trouble in this century we've found a new force we'll use it of course for life and prosperity me. Prepare for survival was written and produced by Richard chick and directed by Alan Murdock. The recording of Lord Russell was made for us by the British Broadcasting Corporation and that of Dr. Poling by the University of Southern
Prepare for survival
Preventing World War Three
Producing Organization
WDET (Radio station : Detroit, Mich.)
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-kk94cj74).
Episode Description
This program asserts that the prevention of World War Three is the ultimate form of civil defense.
Other Description
A radio sounding board for facts and opinions on civil defense.
Broadcast Date
Public Affairs
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Director: Murdoch, Alan
Guest: Symington, Stuart, 1901-1988
Guest: Pauling, Linus, 1901-1994
Guest: Russell, Bertrand, 1872-1970
Producer: Schick, Richard
Producing Organization: WDET (Radio station : Detroit, Mich.)
Writer: Schick, Richard
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 60-52-13 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:29:21
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Prepare for survival; Preventing World War Three,” 1960-11-17, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 17, 2022,
MLA: “Prepare for survival; Preventing World War Three.” 1960-11-17. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 17, 2022. <>.
APA: Prepare for survival; Preventing World War Three. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from