November 1964 - Linus Pauling Day-by-Day

Check from Gustav Albrecht to Salinas Feed and Seed: $55.60. [Bank Statement from Bank of America to Gustav Albrecht, Lillian Albrecht, and LP December 14, 1964] [Filed under LP Biographical: Business and Financial: Box #4.020, Folder #20.1]

Letter from Dwight J. Ingle, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, to LP. RE: Reminds him that they hope he will write an essay relating to his research interests for Perspectives. [Letter from LP November 19, 1965] [Filed under LP Correspondence: I: Correspondence, 1936-1973: Box #185 Folder #185.26]

Letter from Ernest Shaefer to LP RE: Shaefer is writing on behalf of the Hadley Program Committee and is asking if LP would be willing to deliver an evening, Hadley Memorial Fund lecture some time between Oct. 1 1965 and May 31, 1966. Shaefer encloses a program from the recent program. Schaefer lists some things he would like to know from LP. [Letter from LP to Shaefer: December 8, 1964] [Filed under LP Correspondence: S: Correspondence, 1964-1965: Box #383 Folder #383.1]

Letter from G.N. Ramachandran to LP RE: Ramachandran invites LP to come to the University of Madras as part of the Visiting Professorship program. Ramachandran will be at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor for a year starting in April 1965 and hopes to meet with LP sometime. [Filed under LP Correspondence: R: Individual Correspondence (Rabinowitch-Randall): Box #326 Folder #326.4]

Letter from H. W. Salzburg, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, to LP. RE: Invites him to review the book Non-Stoichiometric Compounds by Lyon Mandelcorn. [Letter from LP January 28, 1965] [Filed under LP Correspondence: S: Correspondence (1965): Box #383 Folder #383.2]

Letter from Marcelia J. Hill, Secretary to LP, to Larry W. Bryant RE: Informs Bryant that LP is in the Eastern United States at the present time and that he will receive Bryant’s November 17th post card asking permission to quote from LP’s July 28th letter when he returns on November 30th. [Filed under LP Correspondence (B: Correspondence, 1962-1964), #40.3]

Letter from Mark Sexton to LP RE: Sexton says he is forwarding LP a copy of Hughes and Maloney: Advanced Theoretical Chemistry, in which they used diagrams and charts from The Nature of the Chemical Bond. Sexton asks if LP has a more optimistic report on the next revision of The Nature of the Chemical Bond. [Filed under LP Correspondence: S: Correspondence, 1964-1965: Box #383 Folder #383.1]

Letter from Richard Fulton, Richard Fulton Inc., to LP RE: Invites LP to address a Reform Jewish Congregation in the greater Metropolitan area of New Work in February or March. Asks LP what his desired fee is. [Letter from LP to Fulton December 8, 1964] [Filed under LP Correspondence (F: Correspondence, 1957-1966), #129.8]

Letter from Ron Locker to LP RE: Locker discusses his concerns on the resolution passed by the Academics’ Conference on his motion to approach the countries of Latin America and ask them to initiate a nuclear ban motion in the United Nations. Locker feels that the Australian and New Zealand governments are not taking significant action in working to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Locker asks if LP would like to be a part of this effort and Locker encloses a copy of a letter which was sent to Chile concerning French bomb tests. [Filed under LP Correspondence: L: Correspondence, 1964-1966: Box #233 Folder #233.1]

Newsletter: “The Augsburg Voice” [Filed under LP Speeches: Speeches by LP, 1964: Box #1964s2 Folder #1964s2.13]

Newspaper Clipping: “Pauling Visits Cleveland, Sees UN Seating Red China,” Cleveland (Ohio) Press, November 18, 1964. [Filed under LP Newspaper Clippings: Newspaper Clippings, Magazine and Journal Articles related to LP, 1964: Box #1964n2, Folder #1964n2.92]

Newspaper: “The Augsburg Echo” [Filed under LP Speeches: Speeches by LP, 1964: Box #1964s2 Folder #1964s2.13]

Press release: “Dr. LP to Speak at Bowdoin On ‘Molecular Diseases and Evolution’” [Filed under LP Speeches: Speeches by LP, 1964: Box #1964s2 Folder #1964s2.15]

Program: “Sixth Annual Barnett R. Brickner Memorial Lecture” [Filed under LP Speeches: Speeches by LP, 1964: Box #1964s2 Folder #1964s2.12]

Statement: “County of Santa Barbara.” Tax statement for LP. [Filed under LP Biographical: Business and Financial: Box #4.002, Folder #2.9]

Telegram from Dr. Joseph Dobretsberger to W.H. Ferry, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, RE: Tells Ferry that he appreciates information on success of getting participants for the conference. Says that he can hold the ticket until November 23rd. Handwritten note in right margin: “L Pauling.” [Letter from Ferry to Dobretsberger November 17, 1964] [Filed under LP Correspondence (F: Individual Correspondence, Feinberg - Feynman), #119.8]

Telegram from Ocultt Sanders, to LP. RE: Welcomes him to Cleveland. Sends their regards to AHP. [Filed under LP Speeches: Speeches by LP, 1964: Box #1964s2 Folder #1964s2.12]

Typescript: “Linus Pauling Lecture” [Filed under LP Speeches: Speeches by LP, 1964: Box #1964s2 Folder #1964s2.12]

MAN STRIVING FOR PEACE

By Linus Pauling

Dr. Spock, Mr. Chairman, Ladles and Gentlemen. I believe that there will never be another great war in the world. _________ weapons involving nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are used. I was asked just earlier today how I can believe that. Isn't it true., I was asked, that man is pugnacious by nature, warlike by nature. That going to war is an innate part of him that he can't give up. Isn't it true that there have been peace workers in the world before. ________ Von Sutner, 1843, Jane Adams, Emily Green Balch, Norman Angel. Norman Angel who pointed out in 1910 that in the 20th Century no nation would benefit from war. Not even the victorious nations. That all nations in the great war would come out better off than they were before. But despite the peace congresses, the peace meetings and the peace treaties, the disarmament treaties, the first world war came along with twenty million dead, the second world war with fifty million dead. Can't we expect the third world war will come along with one hundred million people killed. The fourth world war with one hundred fifty million and so on. No - the answer is – no! We can't expect this and for two reasons. One, I reject this statement that man is warlike by nature and my wife says that man is a cooperative animal. His cooperation extends through the roots of human beings within which there is good communication. In the past in the early days - the early history of the human race, these groups were small, and the groups who were strangers with whom there was not communication felt with one another. As time has gone by these groups have gotten larger. The nature of war has changed you. In the early days war was a sort of expression of the democratic principles. The side with the most lawyers won out over the other side. But of course with the passage of time this failed to be the case. No longer was there any justice associated with victory in war. Only a fifty per cent change as to whether the war ended on the side of justice or injustice. Now the means of communication and transportation that exist in the world are such that we are all bound with one another -all human beings into one great organism. It is true that this great organism is still somewhat schizophrenic. One part of it fights with another part that hasn't achieved sanity yet. But it is on its way to achieving sanity and I believe that it will achieve sanity.

The second reason why the effort to achieve permanent peace in the world is now going to be successful is that the world has changed. And changed in such a great extent that no longer is it the same world. The change has been a qualitative one, not just a quantitative one. In the field of armament there have been two great discontinuities. First, you know the second world war was fought largely with one ton block busters, one ton of TNT, 10,000 lbs of dynamite, you might say 2900 sticks of dynamite... a bomb of that sort could smash a building such as this, and kill, technically, everybody in it. Millions of tons, millions of these great one ton block busters were used in the second world war. They were used at the rate of about one million a year. Then there came the sixth of August, 1945 when the bomb was exploded over Hiroshima and the ninth of August, 1645 bomb was exploded over Nagasaki. Each of these bombs involved a nuclear reaction and just two pounds of explosive. Uranium 235 Hiroshima plutonium 239 at Nagasaki. The nuclei when these materials are suddenly compressed. The nuclei and the millionth of a second undergo a chain reaction in which they spread apart into halves or thirds and two thirds liberating some neutrons. Liberating a tenth of a per cent of their mass of energy. The total energy in this explosion in each of these bombs is equal to that of 20 thousand tons of TNT. The bombs became twenty thousand times more powerful than they had been before. A small city, in each case was pretty largely destroyed. At Hiroshima the Japanese say over two hundred thousand people were killed by this one bomb. And then there came the first of March 1954 when the United States exploded the first modern weapon at Bikini. This was a twenty megaton bomb. The three stage bomb. It consisted of a trigger - ten pounds of plutonium which underwent the reaction of nuclear fission producing a temperature of fifty million degrees, causing then the second stage explosion to occur - the nuclear fusion of the light nuclei with the deuterium heavy hydrogen in about 200 lbs. of lithium deuteride. This caused then the third stage to take place all in a millionth of a second - nuclear fission in 1000 lbs. of ordinary uranium metal. This three stage bomb - these are the standard weapons now - this 3 stage 20 megaton bomb weighed less than a ton - contained less than a ton of nuclear explosive. It had the explosive power of twenty million tons of TNT. Twenty million one ton block busters..greater than all of the explosives used in all of the wars in the whole of history including the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war. Just in this one bomb. Such a bomb exploded over any city on earth would destroy it essentially completely. Exploded over New York it would smash an area over twenty miles in diameter. It would set fires on a clear day fifty miles away causing a tremendous fire storm. It would produce radio active fall¬out. In the case of a ground burst, meaning within two miles of the earth, the fire ball four miles in diameter with the temperature of the sun would vaporize thousands of tons of earth, steel, concrete, human beings and other material and then as the fireball continued to expand, and cool the condensing material forming little droplets would in fact be highly radioactive fission products released in the first stage of the bomb. They would fall within a few hours, most of them to ground, contaminating an area of about ten thousand square miles if the wind is blowing fifty miles wide and two hundred miles long stretching and reaching farther than from New York to Philadelphia - if the wind were blowing in that direction or the other way. And exposing most of the people in an area of ten thousand square miles to high energy radiation and on the first day sufficient to cause them to die of acute radiation sickness. When one receives five or six hundred _____ full body radiation the cells of the body are damaged in such a way that the person becomes feverish, nauseated, suffers from internal bleeding and then dies in a few days. There is no way of protecting against this. Pills taken a few hours before the bombs burst may require that you receive seven hundred or eight hundred instead of five hundred or six hundred. If you know the bomb is going to burst perhaps and have the pills at hand and are lucky enough not to be killed by the blast and fire that just exposed to the radiation and then are in a little belt where the radiation is lost and seven hundred or eight hundred ______ you might survive with the pills.

In general, it is estimated, in the discussions of nuclear war that about half of the people would be killed by blast, fire and immediate radiation effect and the other half by the effect of the fallout - the high energy radioactivity. That about half of the people would die the first day and the other half would linger on for some time before they die. These bombs are cheap. Such a bomb exploded over New York or London or Tokyo would kill ten million people. The explosive material, tutonium cost fourteen dollars a gram in manufactured large quantities. I hope nobody is selling it. Fourteen dollars a gram - 10 lbs. 4540 grams at$64,000 worth. Uranium duteride cost $27.00 a pound -$5,600 worth is enough to multiply the explosive energy by 500. Uranium metal is $17.00 a pound, $17,000 worth doubles the explosive energy again so that altogether for this extra $23,000 about this, from Hiroshima type bomb to a 20 megaton bomb , a thousand times more explosive than before. For $85,000 worth of explosive materials one can kill ten million people. You have to pay for a rocket, perhaps, to lob it over the city. A war when it happens is this. Eighty years ago Alfred Nobel who invented dynamite and invented the blasting detonator, the mercuric fulminate blasting cap contributed greatly to man's well-being by making high explosives safe. Alfred Nobel said that he would like to invent a substance or a machine with such terrible powers as mass destruction that war would thereby be made impossible forever. This is what has happened now. And everyone in the world must know it. It hadn't happened before. You see, one percent of the population of the earth was killed in the first world war. One percent isn't enough. Two percent killed in the second world war. Two percent isn't enough. But now if the nuclear explosives that exist now were to be used in the effort to kill off as many people as possible most of the people on earth would die. That is enough. That's the difference between the world of the past and the world of the present. My estimate is that nuclear stock piles amounts to 320,000 megatons. This is enough to do the job. It's more than enough. That is what is meant by overkill. The United States and the Soviet Union have overkill capability. More weapons than needed to kill everybody on earth. Whether everybody on earth would die if there were a nuclear war I don't know - depends on where the rockets are aimed - where the explosive explode - it may be that almost everybody in the northern hemisphere would die and that the people in the southern hemisphere - no bombs explode there - would survive. Some of them. World-wide fallout would cause many of them to die of cancer. The human germ plasm might be badly damaged - perhaps fifty per cent of the children would have gross physical or mental defects. It's very hard to predict exactly what would happen. But it would be bad enough. And it's easy to imagine. You know, President Johnson said if there were to be a great nuclear war a hundred million Americans would be killed on the first day. He didn't go on to say that the rest of them would die in the later days or weeks. But that is what would happen. The people damaged by immediate radiation - by the fallout radioactivity would last beyond the first day but then they would die. I estimate that ten percent of the stock pile of nuclear weapons would be enough to kill everybody in the United States -everybody in the Soviet Union - everybody in the various European countries - it would do a lot of damage elsewhere.

There is no argument, really, about this, anymore. I estimate that there are 320,000 megatons of nuclear weapons. President Kennedy said in January, 1960 that there were thirty thousand megatons and the Pugwash scientists later said there were sixty megatons. It sounds as though there were a contradiction. I have a letter from Wenzio (?) Clark, a researcher working for Grenville Clark, saying that President Johnson had said just a few months that there were 30,000 megatons of nuclear weapons and I said 300,000 - 320,000. Had I made a mistake in the decimal point. Well, this was a shocking thing, of course, to write to me. I hadn't made a mistake in the decimal point. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have been doubling in - every year the stockpiles of explosives doubled every year since 1935 So we are about a million tons of high explosives - one megaton in existence in 1935. One year's supply for use in the war - the second world war. Should you double every year you get up to 30,000 by January, 1960. Sixty thousand by Jan, 1961. - 120,000 by Jan. 1962 and I sort of leveled off at 320,000 which I estimated last year because I thought there's a bit of sanity coming into the governments of the great nations and perhaps the stock piles would remain at this level for awhile. 320,000 megatons - what does that mean? One ton of high explosive could smash this building covering nearly an acre. 320,000 megatons is 12 tons - the equivalent of 12 tons for every acre of land on the surface of the earth including Antarctica and Greenland the Sahara Desert as well as places where there are people. One stick of dynamite can kill a man. 320,000 megatons is equivalent of 100 tons of dynamite for every human being on earth. The second world war was a six megaton war. It took six years to be fought in these primitive times - in those stone age times - 1939 - 1945. Six megatons used in six years.

Now there might be a small nuclear war tomorrow - equal in one day to the second world war - compressed into one day - a six megaton war. And then a six megaton war the following day and the next day and the next day and the next day and so on. Day after day for 146 years. Then the stockpiles of nuclear weapons would be used up. This is the situation. If there would be a nuclear war most of these weapons would be used up on the first day. The day of the nuclear war. This is why, now, we say, no dispute between nations can justify nuclear war. There is no defense against nuclear weapons that cannot be overcome by increasing the scale of the attack. Fallout shelters - that is a fraud. A form of militarism - worse than useless because where they might give people the false idea that they provide some protection and thus increase the probability that war will take place. It would be contrary to the nature of nations to carry out limited war - to fight limited war is using only small nuclear weapons. This is not the solution. A gentlemen's agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic — that we would use only atomic bombs of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki size will not be 1000 times greater, ones that we have stockpiled now by the thousands. Even smaller wars today are perilous because of the likelihood that a small war would grow and become a world catastrophe. The only sane policy for the world is that of abolishing war. And this is the proclaimed role of the nuclear powers, in fact all of the nations of the world. I like to remember what President Kennedy said, Sept. 25, 1961, before the General Assembly of the United Nations. The goal of disarmament is no agreed -it is a practical matter of life or death. The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison with the risks inherent in a continuing arms race. We need to move forward. We are beginning to move forward and along the lines that President Kennedy laid down then three years ago in his United Nations address. The first great step has been taken - the 1963 Treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere on the surface of the earth and in the oceans - a great step - I believe that it will be decided by the historians that his is the greatest action ever taken by national governments. I believe that this is the first in a series of treaties - international agreements that will lead ultimately to the abolition of war and its replacement by a system of world's law based upon the principles of morality and justice. Extending these principles from the individual human beings who in general accept them to the nation themselves which in general have been immoral in the past., all nations. Because they have believed in national selfishness -not in ethics and morality. Even the testing of nuclear weapons causes damage. They differ from ordinary weapons in this respect. It's true that the testing has involved considerable amount of weapons - 600 megatons - that is one hundred times as much explosive used during the whole of the second world war. Exploded just to test some of the bombs - a small part of the existing stockpiles exploded in tests. Each year about 100 million children are dying in the world. About 4 million of them have gross congenital defects, physical or mental defects. And many others are damaged so seriously that they are not ______ but die, neo natal deaths or childhood deaths or even embryonic deaths. Some of these defective children and embryonic and childhood are caused by high energy radiation. About five percent of the defective children who are born are defective because of gene mutations and are caused by high energy radiation. Half of them are defective because of mutated genes and about a tenth of the mutated genes are caused by the natural background of high energy radiation to which we are exposed. The cosmic rays, natural radioactivity such as radium, potassium forte and natural carbon-14 produced in the upper atmosphere by the cosmic rays. Now the fallout radioactivity from the bomb tests increases the amount of high energy radiation to which our reproductive organs are exposed by about 10 percent at the present time. Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been doubled., over the natural amount by the bomb tests for carbon 14. Every human being has this extra burden of carbon 14 in his molecules of organic substance that exists in his body. Every human being has thesium 137 and strontium 90 in his body. The little bullets of high energy radiation manage to cause every human being damage to the of human germ plasm causing gene mutations. It is a moderately straight forward process now to calculate on the basis of the estimate made by geneticists and the information released by physicists on bomb tests, the number of defective children that the bomb tests will produce. The amount of damage by the bomb tests. The calculation that I made and the - agrees essentially with that of the Federal Radiation of our Federal government is that these bomb tests will in the course of time if the human race survives seriously damage 60 million unborn children, to such an extent that will suffer embryonic neo-natal or childhood deaths or will be viable children but with gross physical or mental defects..perhaps with extra incidents of children with cystic fibrosis or children with microcephalae or one of the metabolic diseases..with diabetes, for example. Hemophilia. There are thousands of these diseases. 60 million. It is usually said that when the Federal radiation capsule - that this estimate may be five times too small or five times too large. One percent of the fission product defect - five percent of the fission product defect and 3/10 of a percent of the carbon 14 effect will occur in the first generation and then the damage will continue to be done and to show up in later generations. That's a lot of children. If only a few children had to be brought together and tied to the bomb before it explodes these bomb tests wouldn't be carried out. Because we can't identify the children. Because many of them are not yet born..that these bomb tests are carried out. President Kennedy in his bomb test Treaty broadcast on the 26 of July 1963 said referring to this matter..The loss of even one human life or the malformation of even one baby who may be born long after we are gone should be of concern to us all. Our children and grandchildren are not merely statistics towards which we can be indifferent. Many scientists that this high energy radiation in small doses is carcinogenic. On this basis the estimate that one can make is that the bomb tests will cause two million people now living on earth will die 10-15 gears earlier than they would have if the bomb tests had not been carried out. Cancer, leukemia, bone cancer, cancer of the thyroid and all kinds of cancer caused by the bomb tests. We can be thankful that the bomb test treaty has been made.

That doesn't stop the damage. The amount of strontium 90 is still building up - the amount of carbon 14 is still going up because so much of it was thrown into the stratosphere - the upper atmosphere and is filtering down slowly - that the amount on the surface of the earth continues to increase by this process. After a while we can hope it will go down again. We may be thankful that this treaty was made. What a tragedy it is that it was not made sooner. Negotiations were going on after the first of November, the 30 of October, 1958 -through 1959 - I960 up to September 196l when the Soviet Union resumed the testing of nuclear weapons and the United States resumed the testing of nuclear weapons. And in this later stage, since the 2 Sept. 1961 3/4 of the total amount of testing was done. Pour times as much -it's become four times as it was before the fourth of November, 1958. Raising the estimated total of children from 4 million to lo million. Human beings that will die of cancer from 500,000 to 2 million. Any why? The nations said. The United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain that they could not reach an agreement about the methods of inspecting underground tests. The United States said that the seismographic method was not good enough to detect the bomb as big as the Hiroshima bomb. The Soviet Union said that they were good enough to detect even a bomb 5 times smaller. This disagreement was not resolved in 1963 and yet the bomb test treaty was made - by just leaving out the underground tests. What a tragedy it is this simple solution was not found by the negotiators before the terrible series of tests of 1961 and 1962. And in yesterdays Cleveland Press, I read, 17 Nov 1964, find a test wave stronger. Washington: shock waves from a recent underground nuclear test explosion in Mississippi was 4 to 6 times stronger than expected. The results raised the possibility that a global system for detecting underground tests might be set up with less difficulty than had been supposed. These tests supported the statements that the Soviet seismologists had made rather than those that the American seismologists had made. And perhaps that error was the reason for this tremendous sacrifice - damage to the/human germ plasma because of these tests. Why couldn't that treaty have been made before? Leaving out the underground tests. And what is happening now? The Chinese people's Republic has exploded a bomb. It's only 1/50th of a megaton - just the size of a Hiroshima bomb doesn't amount to much. Today's paper said- Cleveland Paper-Red China sees nearer H bomb than forecast. They may explode a hydrogen bomb. Prance is planning to test a hydrogen bomb. And there are efforts being made to stop this. The United States took seven years to go from the first atomic bomb to the first H bomb. The Soviet Union took 5 years to go from the first atomic bomb to the first H bomb. That is about these bombs - now so that China might take three years. That means we have three years to prevent China - less than that for France. It may come sooner. If China or France explodes one 20 megaton bomb, either one of them, one 20 megaton bomb, that will be at the sacrifice of an estimated 500,000 unborn children born damaged in the ways I have described-with the uncertainties in the estimate I have mentioned. An estimated 70 thousand now living who will incur cancer if I am right in thinking that there is no thresh-holds for the production of cancer by high energy radiation at low _____ rate. 70,000 now living. China and Chinese People's Republic and France might go ahead and test 600 megatons of bombs. That would be as great a tragedy as not achieving the bomb test treaty in the period before the 2 of Sept. 1961. We need to move forward to decrease the danger of nuclear war - to decrease the damage done to the human beings now living and to our grandchildren -by tests. Why is there not being made any further progress toward disarmament? President Johnson announced that by that we were decreasing the military budget by a billion dollars and the Soviet Union followed our lead by a similar decrease. The United States and the Soviet Union without making a treaty have agreed to reduce their plutonium manufacture by 40 percent. These are small steps but we need to take some great ones and they are not being taken. Part of the answer I think is that there are still many people, some of them powerful people who have not yet accepted the thesis that the time has come to abandon _______. Part of it is, as expressed by expressed by Harold Wilson before he was elected the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, about six weeks ago Ghat the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain cannot take any significant steps towards disarmament unless the Chinese people's Republic is involved in the disarmament negotiations and is a signatory to the disarmament agreement. They need to have the Chinese People's Republic brought into the efforts to abolish war from the world. The Chinese People's Republic is the potential great nuclear power. A danger to the world and banking now upon the nuclear adventure -she will continue it - have a stockpile of nuclear big enough to destroy civilization within ten years, I would estimate, unless she is stopped. She can't be stopped by force. Without also destroying civilization. She can only be stopped by World law..by negotiation. By bringing the Chinese People's Republic into the community of nations under conditions worthy of her stature of one of the great nations of the world. The one with the most people with an increasing industrial capacity. This we must do - to work for the recognition of China. That is the say to work. I think the best way of all now to work for world peace. The United States and Australia and a few other countries refuse to recognize the existence of this great and important part of the world. We manage to keep her out of the United Nations. There is so much hatred of the United States in China I've been told by some friends of mine, scientists who have just been there that it seams unlikely that China would accept an invitation to become a member nation of the United Nations. I can be sure that she would not accept this invitation unless she were given a seat on the Security Council that is now held by Nationalist China. And, of course, the Chinese People's Republic has said that Formosa is apart of China and must be recognized as a part of China. I don't know that Formosa must be recognized as a part of China. I'm not sure that Formosa should be a part of the Chinese People's Republic. But I do know that there are 9 million Formosans and 2 million Nationalist Chinese and a dictatorial government in the Nationalist Chinese government. And that the Formosans do not have - are not able to express themselves politically. They are put in jail. The editor of the newspaper that says we should have democratic elections is thrown into jail in Formosa. What I think should be done is that there should be held a plebiscite - an election by the people of Formosa to decide what sort of government they want. Whether they want to join - whether they want a government of their own or to become a part of the Chinese People's Republic or to stay under the dictatorship of Chiang Kai Shek. I believe in democracy. The Cleveland Press had an editorial yesterday Nov. 17 -Collision Course. Sec. of State Dean Rusk's remark that the United Nations is not a reform school is not particularly apt to the fundamental purpose of the United Nations... to reform the nations of the world from their warlike ways. But it must be admitted that Red China has shown no aptitude for such reformation. This is just one of several reasons that the Peking government once more should be refused United Nations membership at the General Assembly sessions that start next month. That issue - I skip to the last paragraph..that issue is the survival of freedom, whether communism shall prevail in the whole western pacific multiply the threat to American security. These are old fashioned words that aren't meaningful anymore. American security is threatened by the existence of nuclear weapons in the world. That can destroy our nation. Lead to the death of all the American people. in this editorial. Until that is settled either by negotiations or force of hands - that's just a silly remark. Force of arms. The Suez adventure shows that it is silly. When two great and powerful nations embark upon a military effort and then realizing that it was too dangerous backed out. The sensible thing is not to embark upon it in the modern world. But to negotiate. To use the democratic principle in the case of Formosa. Well, our editorial ends...until that is settled the United States votes to admit Red China to the United Nations is unthinkable.

I regret that I am unable to talk about China from my own observations. The way that I can talk about many countries in the world. The United States government for¬bids it. I'm not allowed to go to China to see what is going on in this great nation in the world. But, my friends, some of my friends are. Sir Mark Oliphant is a friend of mine..in Australia. Australia doesn't recognize the Chinese People's republic but they do a tremendous amount of trade with the Chinese People's Republic and the Australian National Academy of Sciences sent a team of four scientists there just last month. I talked with two of them - with Sir Mark Oliphant and Professor ________. They were united in saying - also Professor Charry, President of the Academy that there is great enthusiasm of all of the people in China about the new China. They are going somewhere. Oliphant said people are going to die this year of hunger in Indonesia but no one is going to die of hunger in China. This was Oliphant. Oliphant said they feel that the break with the Soviet Union was a great thing. They are embarking on a do-it-yourself spree. They believe that they can do anything that anybody else can do. And they are doing it. They are making their own germanium and transistorizing instruments. They are making atomic bombs. The atomic bomb was exploded while Oliphant was there. They are carrying out a great program of education and I know many Chinese, I know myself, how much ability many of them have. We can't make the Chinese People's Republic cease to exist by ignoring it and this is dangerous for the world. We must all work for the goal of bringing the Chinese People's Republic into the community of nations. We are in large part responsible for making her an outlaw nation. Making her what she is today. For increasing the danger to the world by causing her to decide upon the manufacture of nuclear weapons. I think that it can be stopped. It is expensive and it really is just a waste of money to make these nuclear weapons. But it requires understanding wisdom and a degree of farsightedness witch many politicians don't seem to have. They think only of the immediate problem. We need to apply pressure on them. It is going to be quite a while before these problems are solved and before the nuclear stock pile can be gotten rid of. I think really a long time. I believe there is danger so long as these weapons exist there is danger a great nuclear war will occur. Perhaps because of some human error. . some psychological accident or some technological accident. Or some combination of circumstances that not even the wisest of national leaders can prevent., fall over the precipice into the catastrophe of world destruction. I think that we must take action to decrease our danger now in my Nobel lecture a year ago, 11 months ago , there should be United Nations observers in control stations of the nuclear powers. For all nuclear weapons. With authority - not with some authority - just whatever can be worked out quickly and then I think as soon as possible the great stockpiles of nuclear weapons should be put under joint control of the United States and the individual nations. The United Nations and the United States authority have equal control, veto power in every case over the use, all weapons in our stockpile. The Soviet Union and United Nations authorities have joint control over all the weapons in the Soviet stockpile. I don't think these weapons should be turned over to the United Nations. I think we need to have an improved United Nations - an improved world government. But not a world government with military might, greater than that of anybody else in the world. Or with all of the nuclear weapons in the world. I think that such a powerful government, world government, can become dictatorial, a dictatorship in the course of time We need to have a complicated system and I think that this -I haven't heard anyone, I may be biased, I haven't heard any proposal that seems better - more sensible than this one that I have made. But it may well be that better proposals have been made and that someone will make a better proposal. We don't have time to wait indefinitely. The chance of world destruction is any day.

The replacement of war by world law should, if ultimately, must include also small wars, not only great ones. The abolition of insurrectionary and guerrilla warfare - wars which are accompanied by even greater savagery and a greater amount of human suffering than the great wars would be a boon to humanity. I think that we can abolish these wars, too. And, of course, this will take a longer time. We must not remove from people, in a country where there is a dictatorial and oppressive government all hope of getting out from under, from overthrowing this dictatorial and oppressive government. We shall hope to have some intervention of the world as a whole in the affairs of every nation in order that the dictatorial and oppressive governments can be gotten rid of. I don't know how this can be done. I have some ideas. I don't think they're good enough for me to talk about now because this is something rather far in the future. But in the meantime there is something that could easily be done. That is, for the great nations of the world to stop their actions of instigating and aggravating the wars and the small and underdeveloped countries of the world. As we have done during the last ten years in South Viet Nam. The reason that we did not accept the recommendation that the eight nation committee that Viet Nam be made into a neutral nation with a government elected democratically by as close an approximation to a democratic process as possible in Viet Nam -South Viet Nam. That we were determined that South Viet Nam would be an anti-Communist nation and not a neutral nation. And the result has been that for ten years in South Viet Nam there has been a savage civil war fought under a dictatorial government and militarily a dictatorship - sometimes that was called a civilian dictator¬ship supported by the United States. I'm not proud of this - I'm ashamed of it. That our government would not accept this recommendation. But I think it is time now that this recommendation was accepted. That a new conference of powers meet to discuss ways of bringing that terrible war to an end. I have read that this war is fought entirely with American weapons. Viet Cong makes attacks and captures American weapons. And, of course, there are flame throwers, helicopters used. These are not Vietnamese products and I've read about defoliation by chemicals. This is not Vietnamese. We are responsible for it. So, I think there is something that could be done fast in the way of decreasing the amount of human suffering in the world just be action of the great powers.

There is something else that I would like to see done. Maybe it is a minor problem but perhaps it is a major one. Last year the United States spent one hundred million dollars on research and development of chemical and biological methods of killing people in large numbers. One hundred million dollars twenty fold during the last ten years. This is so large that these methods - ways of killing people must be very promising. They seem to be very promising. The Soviet Union probably is spending an equal amount of money. These are dangerous. I've read a book by a man whom I knew during the second World War, General Rothschild in which he discusses the way in which these weapons might be used by liberating them into the atmosphere. In the Arctic Ocean when the winds were blowing in the right direction, so that all of the people in the Chinese People's Republic could be killed by improved nerve gases, fuel phosphates or toxins such as ribotulines, botulism toxin or virus such as the yellow fever virus, spores such an anthrax spores have been improved, without damaging any of the industrial installations of course. That's a voluble way of killing people. But dangerous. At the present time this isn't danger - it doesn't compete with nuclear weapons as a way of killing people. But if two hundred million dollars is spent next year, three hundred million, four hundred million dollars in the United States and. the Soviet Union, there may come the breakthrough. It may be possible then for a small group of evil men, perhaps in the small country, to manufacture enough of these materials rather cheaply to cause hundreds of millions of people to die. Now is the time to stop before the cancer, the cancerous cell of knowledge, in this case, has developed. Which would, might have its metastases in the course of time that would be the end of civilization. This could be - I think that this should be stopped by a treaty and international agreement with, of course, the inspection, international inspection of all microbiological, technological and pharmacological, chemical biological research institutes in all of the countries in the world. I believe that this can be done. I think we can, once the Chinese People's Republic is brought In to the disarmament negotiations and the German problem is solved - the problem of Germany. And this must be solved by - it can only be solved, I believe, by disarmament and not rearmament of West Germany. Once these problems are solved we can move ahead to a bright world of peace, a great decrease in the military budget. I'm not worried about the economic aspects of disarmament. The eleven nation committee, the United Nations made its report two years ago saying that with the proper amount of planning on both the national and international scale the transition to disarmament can be achieved without any economic dislocation. Without any depression. But rather with great benefit to all human beings and all nations And this is reasonable. We are spending about - In the world - about one hundred and fifty billion dollars a year on militarism. This is equal to the total annual income of 2/3 of the people in the world. The poor people of the world. Think of what could be done with this money. I read in the Cleveland Press of the 17 of Nov. 64, happened to be the only newspaper I had. Cleveland Press, again of 17 Nov. 1964 yesterday. Even 15¢ lunch is too costly for many school children in Cleveland. This doesn't make me happy. But even the 15¢ warm lunch is too costly for many of the school children here. I've read in your Cleveland Press of the 17 Nov 1964 the article by Ed Zeitz, Medical Writer, saying, quoting Dr. Geo. W. Alpee, there is 13 times as much schizophrenia among the poor as among the well to do. When a person from the tough area becomes psychotic, he is shipped to a state hospital to be stored in a human warehouse. This is the reason that the American people although they are the richest people in the world are not the happiest. The incidents of disease, is higher for Americans, than for others. The life expectancy is lower for Americans than for people in a number of other countries. Five or six years less because we have the best medical system in the world for rich people and by far from the best one for the poor people. This is one way in which money could be spent that would be - money that is spent instead of being wasted on armament. Spent for the benefit of human beings all over the world. Often I am asked is there anything that we can do, some girl may say. Truly, is there anything that we can do. I believe that there is. I think that we can all work in one way or another to apply pressure on our government. And I think that this is the thing to do. Work to apply pressure on the governments of the world. Ambassador Wadsworth in Geneva. When my wife and I went in 1959 to talk with him and Ambassador Seropkin of the Soviet Union and Ambassador Sir Michael White (?) of Great Britain, said Ambassador Wadsworth - we could go ahead if we only had permission from our government in Washington. You go back and talk to the American people. Get your organization Sane. This was a misunderstanding on his part that I ran the National Committee for Sane Nuclear Policy. Get your organization Sane to work harder. Nobody in Washington can stand up against public opinion. We can save the world from destruction. We can, I mean, you can. You and I. I'll contribute my share. I'd like to be back thinking about chemical problems and physical problems and medical problems. But I'm willing to do some work. In the Cleveland Press of the 17 Nov. 1984, there was a little drawing by Lichtig. A girl with long straggly hair and a beatnik costume said 'But'' to her mother But Daphne's only 16 and her mother lets her get arrested in student demonstrations Well, Daphne's mother is wise. That's what we need to do. The 16 year olds and the 18 year olds. The Observer for the 15 Nov. 1964. There is an article Our Hope., the Young Younger Generation. When people were asked questions and they answered. Here is one: An 18 year old laboratory assistant at Fort Sunlight, Lord Leaderhume took me and showed me around the laboratory - he said 'Now this is Lever BROS., where they make soap and things of that sort 18 year old lab assistant. We have made fantastic progress in every way over the past 50 years. Why shouldn't this continue? Since Cuba even the politicians have learned to go easy over nuclear warfare. Real insight, this fellow has, or girl, I don't know what sex. Another few years and they might even have worked out ways of taking the threat out of the bomb. This can be worked out I'm sure. Well, I'm sure, too. I believe that it can be and that it will be. I believe that we are going to get rid of war. We have to attack economic problems, too. They are the main causes of war. Exploitation of man by man. Economic exploitation of foreign countries. These problems have to be attacked in the course of developing world's law. You can't develop world's law without accepting for the interactions of the whole world -within the whole world. Principles of ethics and morality. I think when I spoke here last I mentioned that I accept a basic fundamental principle that I call the golden rule. It runs like this “Do unto others 20 percent better than you expect others to do unto you.” The 20 percent being to make up for subjective error. Well, perhaps you don't heed to put the 20 percent in when you develop the system of world law. But you do have to have the world law based upon principles of justice - principles of morality. I think we are moving at a significant rate but not yet a great enough rate in that direction. I believe that we are going to succeed in abolishing war in the world. I feel that we are fortunate - really fortunate to live at this extraordinary time. This unique epoch in the history of the world. That marks the difference, the demarcation between the past when we have had wars ever greater and more devastating wars with their accompaniment of death and destruction and human suffering. And the future when we are going to have no more wars in the world and are going to use the resources of this for beautiful world in which we live for the benefit of human beings everywhere. Thank you!