thumbnail of Toward a new world; A new foreign policy for the United States, part two
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
So it's also a more parking lot they've got cumin which can be meet against losses. In Saudi and also fees based upon some underdeveloped nations underdeveloped because they are lacking in capital and like a lot of the north. Gets them draw the sand technicians to Saddam and say be it economically. Simplistic and economic abode for economic development. All the little kids. See the size of the important also known economic fact are flash and the fact the off more of the clock. For economic development. Take what seems to us to be a simple and almost snaps of the concept and such a saving. Brought hundreds of millions of people in with no concept
of saving. Saving for an emergency or saving for a profitable and productive investment and we have found in our foreign aid operations time and again to expand. See absence of civic concept and insuperable obstacle to economic development. A couple of months ago and number two can cause a lot of selfish inefficiently where you are so distraught by it by sending. More sports to boat please step ducks but stopped fishing and so you do best be at time.
I don't know what the vibes about the Kenyan fisherman do in time. Whatever it is. You have probably up a storm. If you still carry another suitcase because you had already eaten. Now I'm not criticizing society do we could even imagine Kenyan fishermen are much much happier. And let me say fishermen in San Diego say enjoy life much more about what I'm saying is you have our cultural differences you have differences in the international upload model of code to boot to your site and to your fellow man. Cannot. Outside interference more particulars it cannot be transformed by a by suspend by
suspending off money and taking a lot more vision of technological whole which can only be transformed through a slow autonomous in good. In this development if you don't purchase outside forces may pour Mert but we chickened out the gate does not exist. And I call your attention to this unique clock. You may see a policy call it Nations or only accept. Upon what you might call a modern economic development. Why not seein the Chinese on this it's happened for a leason deeply embedded in the model in the US if we take out the decent nation it seems to me to be absurd to suggest a similar development
in the pound can be artificially created at its high about good intentions. She tells us. Now we have learned a lesson. By creating experiences and just respect. For the simplest thing to know that after she expended many billions of dollars. An hour up. To a lesser extent on supply the Soviet Union China committed. Still as uncommitted said Ross. When we started to spend all that money. There seems to be a tendency a kind of stubborn tendency to paddle see new nations of to be miss of a billion sour one way
then to be happy you need to say you Chinese will say Yeah but in any way in any way sets of ways and I think the lesson to be drawn from this is that you can support certain tendencies from say outside but you cannot make a foreign Indian and all especially all societies when you have heard the idea propounded by many and wider meaning members of our government. That we are in Vietnam that we are fighting and leading and spending and dying in Vietnam you know to do build a nation has been a nation in Vietnam longer than a nation on the North American continent. Sure a different nation a nation which we don't understand.
We trace their full undivided fearful and social connect since they've been political. And I think again vital meaning and good intentions in all of what all it's a great deal of ethnocentric line in the idea side we have. So whisper them. Into goodness. Because we have the power to make less and lighten the nations of the underdeveloped developing nations in our own image. The Fourth even if we see you know the forming our thought and facts we've got through our lessons with our relations with the
communist. Uncommitted. We would still be in Sudan we are not able to come to terms with nuclear power. For here. Indeed in supplies of the first three years of our delusion we chase ocurred into various selfing and other relations since the beginning of history. For from the beginning of the 1940s. We've been forced as a means of foreign policy and application of force for understanding. It was cute about. The concept of a dress. Because certain wars
to be had. Because. Of the interests at stake. We need support. We who are into use of force. Last comment. You could watch wisely you saw certainly a nation might lose a war by miscalculation or by accident. But still it's a borrowed them from the inside. It would be justified to use. Force to force the purposes. We sought in other words a statesman throughout history. Who is willing to risk a.
Russian backed resources if he wouldn't stand taken by rising gains made and lost everything. Now nuclear weapons competition from conventional of their destructive war possible object. Nuclear war as an instrument of national policy and. A celebration of Cuba was a defense of the US or whatever. And he's not a national undertaking but it is a mash up of. Suicide. He sees suicide upset at the.
End it is again of us the gap which exists between two conditions under which we live. And. The fact that we still are thing. And. Stole nuclear weapons we are not qualitatively different form. Convents that we as United States. Union has flattened as the United States. If nuclear weapons were nothing more than a quantitative extension of conventional weapons but they wouldn't at all but the early polls.
Would be irrational. A nuclear war fought over West Berlin over Cuba. Would of course still followed by the value of perspective but weeks of war. Indeed would inflict intolerable damage is not fatal damage to nations such as war. Of course obvious to most folks because a school of thought which really believes and our assumption that nuclear weapons are only quantity not quality. We differ on that. For instance the possibility to wage a nuclear war in a kind of elegant nice relatively innocuous way. People have talked about to glean time again
whether it was a serious concept made to Point Nuclear extent. Or people have talked about tactical nuclear or limited purposes only I haven't got time to go into details but school of thought we try to make it appear that say some of the way in which you can wait for nuclear war. Somehow at some point to stop the nuclear weapons.
And to bring in nuclear weapons which are really not weapons into you sand but the means of mutal of suicide and mass. On the compost. Now is this a true problems at best and. Bring this issue to sis for. Ron. Establishment of the development of missile missile system which is it's a bad moment along else you may need before our government and the other one is the Nonproliferation Treaty. In favor. Of and against nuclear weapons. It's of course the conventional thinking the difference between nuclear and conventional.
And let me exemplify the. Reason I got to see the nuclear armaments the anti-missile missile system and nonvolatile. Competitive conditions under which nations. He's perfectly chest to side with conventional so much seeing more pieces of a nation the more powerful it is doing so is put to the side so that another. One nation has found a twenty machine guns and other nations only just peace but the second one says that the goal of the populace. So it's an optimum with regard to nuclear weapons because they are enormous destructive. If you are capable of.
Killing every man woman and. Five times with you existing weapons. Today you gain no advantage. By acting through sad ass and enormous destructiveness which will enable you to kill every man woman and child on to face off at a time. Or you can you can apply sees to it through and perspective enemies such as I would you know sign a. Situation in other words say send up to move beyond we don't need to grow. If you disobeyed units into position in which both of us can destroy each other many times over. We see weapons in existence even under some most unfavorable imaginable conditions. So in other words to adopt our thinking new conditions entirely
different from superceding on and to put a stop to a competition which is meaningless in minutes. Same as in a different weight. Of an anti-missile missile system and costs them into the conventional sense. Which is let me say 30 percent and effective having if you if you can shoot down run out of incoming airplanes brought. In on time Islamist system. 90 percent and effect is. Nigh an hour. Also an incoming missile and the missile hit San Diego you might and rather not have Hep C and it's.
Simple if you get the point whether you agree with it or not. It is generally accepted. The missile system is not going to be 100 percent perfect. But if that is not completely effective in contrast to conventional defensive systems it is not worth having. Such a system using good Mattia based again upon obsolete modes of thought. Find it miss a vote about all this. Again I have to come back to. It is interesting to note. Nuclear weapons because you have access to this woman and again you can see. A case of.
If we had not a single nuclear weapon in so far as our relations with Vietnam are concerned we wouldn't be any of the. Boys. The balance of military power today within be it defies our participation is concerned. Before stop balance of power hour a procession off an enormously destructive and the of move you have ever so destructive that stay on useable. What difference does it make. But it has some who've I spects in what I suspect tends to rural France prevail in which it cannot give a lot of who is right against a non-nuclear.
Has clearly no point in using nuclear weapons because it has conventional weapons against any imaginable enemy convention and. Against a nuclear power such as says the Soviet Union and I did state sanctioned is perhaps not the have an 11 but not vital. See a girl can say to that but if you don't do such and I'm going to do and if you do without We're going to before you do that we are going to live. Such an extreme symmetry it's found the relationship procession of nuclear weapons by the by a power such as is simply implausible to
see vanity of certain individuals by the self no relevance to see Act. You would know what he says because and again I have to be very very sketchy and please leave an important nuclear power such a CS process. I see United States itself but I think aided upon a technological and industrial establishment Porson such as only the United States and to a certain extent not and to a much lesser extent I showed that the Soviet Union process frauds the RS those. Nuclear weapons toys which gives the illusion of power without giving reality. Rock. Solid foundation of nuclear weapons. We'll have an anomalous clock.
Nuclear power we see peace and a lot of loss when it is not sad to grow it can threaten the United States and we. Can do something adults can do something by it. Before it was made this point very clearly we might run Taxus overdoing it with nuclear weapons and United States might not know. What to do now is not going to London Economist put it so union the union jack painted upon. Nuclear war. Against another smaller nuclear power such as France or the.
United States would have to be doing we have to and if you imagine for a moment 20 nations have nuclear and United States. And nuclear explosion on the East Coast it can easily be done on the mentality of a merchant vessel and whatnot or with a suitcase to live over. It is all to protect us against. And you can be sure to. Make it appear that somebody else has done it.
Probably a state of terror which is almost unimaginable with nuclear weapons in prospect 10 years from now we will look at 20 years of nuclear as a kind of nuclear Where's the bipolarity of nuclear power. Peace and Order and survival. Now finally the. About about our set of about the purpose which United States has. In conducting foreign policy and this problem has of course because some but they clearly do. And in recent weeks when question has been the days where we can afford to wage a costly war in Vietnam our domestic society goes to pieces.
Let me say first of all this is not in my view a cause like. Trucks to put into war legally in the national interest. He's really defending Lynn and I did state fair. I would certainly put war with all of that. Doubtless of. Domestic demand which our society makes me upon our government. Indeed I believe that problem policy that is to say so that is survival of the nation of the other nations has by most of all other objectives. But this is really not the point because in my view into view of many Vietnam War people today in Washington
who would if they had to make the decisions again we could have made four five and six years ago two years ago would make soulless decisions again. It's not so odd to be a worthwhile objective but we are caught. And we don't know. How to disentangle. A problem or. A basic object of a nation or the home and the body. And obviously a loss of self. By committing. She made a most powerful nation on war which we can neither win we cannot afford to win nor afford to lose. So it's not really
a soup to 200000 persons. Even with the military in my boat she's alone. Osho is a distortion. And there is of course a more serious distortion. We are trying to bring blessings of our institutions of democracy that we are trying to build a nation in Vietnam. Why our nation. He seemed at home. But it is not me and they need to think not what was for what he did for what he did
for us and do some lessons well at home and abroad. Forms that infamous awful examination. Thank you very much. 1000 You have been listening to the Institute on world affairs a series of lectures on discussions held each year on the San Diego State College campus. At this session the principal speaker was Dr. Hans Morgenthau from the Center for the Study of American foreign
Toward a new world
A new foreign policy for the United States, part two
Producing Organization
San Diego State University
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-m03xxr0v).
This program features the second part of a lecture by Dr. Hans Morgenthau, director, Center for the Study of American Foreign Policy, University of Chicago.
Lectures recorded at San Diego State College's 25th Annual Institute on World Affairs. The Institute brings together world leaders to discuss issues in politics, culture, science, and more.
Global Affairs
Public Affairs
Media type
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: San Diego State University
Speaker: Morgenthau, Hans J. (Hans Joachim), 1904-1980
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 68-9-2 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:29:41
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Toward a new world; A new foreign policy for the United States, part two,” 1968-12-15, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed September 26, 2021,
MLA: “Toward a new world; A new foreign policy for the United States, part two.” 1968-12-15. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. September 26, 2021. <>.
APA: Toward a new world; A new foreign policy for the United States, part two. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from