United States quit manufacturing atomic bombs and destroy atomic bomb material by dumping it into the ocean.

I think I am using his description of it.

Senator McCarthy suggested that this was an indication that I was following the current Communist Party line.

There was a statement also in the head note on 18 that "This would appease Russia."

Now I understand that this reference to appeasing Russia has been repeated by the Senator on the radio and that sometimes it has been difficult for the radio audience to determine whether or not that appears in quotation marks and whether I had said, "Let us take this action in order to appease the Soviet Union."

I take it here it is merely an indication by Senator McCarthy that he considers that was part of my motivation, which, of course, it was

not.

Now I think, Mr. Chairman, that some of the facts in regard to this matter were brought out in the hearings when Senator McCarthy referred to this material yesterday.

Attention was called to the fact that this proposal made by this group of the faculty of Columbia University was made on February 16, 1946.

It was pointed out that this was some 4 months before the Baruch proposals were put before the United Nations.

The United Nations had already created a commission to look into this question of atomic energy and atomic weapons, and that is the Commission referred to in the letter where we say, "In order that the discussions of the UNO Commission may proceed in an atmosphere of mutual good faith."

If the whole letter is read, I think it is quite clear that this is no suggestion such as I think I recall crept into a comment of Senator McCarthy in the hearings, that the Communist line was that we should tear down our atomic plants here.

I think it is already clear from a reading of the letter and from the discussion in the committee that this was a suggestion for a moratorium of 1 year on the production of fissionable materials, in order that the discussions in the U. N. might proceed in an atmosphere of full good faith and of confidence.

I would like to call attention to paragraph 3 of the letter. We can conveniently use the text in Senator McCarthy's photostat. I think it is accurate this time.

It says:

We are prepared to have the disposition of our present stockpile of bombs considered as one of the items in an agreement to be entered into by us and the other governments.

We did not propose that our stockpile of bombs should be destroyed. We anticipated, as I think most Americans then hoped, that the United Nations Commission would be able to work out some scheme by which atomic weapons could be brought under international control.

STASSEN'S SPEECH, NOVEMBER 8, 1945

Now I believe there was some discussion in the committee, Mr. Chairman, when this matter was raised before in regard to a proposal which was advanced by Mr. Stassen in his address to the Academy of Military Science, on November 8, 1945. That was about 4

months or 3 months perhaps before this letter of ours was written. Now, as I think was pointed out, Mr. Stassen, in his speech, was talking about a more distant future than we were talking about. He is suggesting an amendment to the United Nations Charter forbidding the manufacture of an atomic bomb and making the manufacture and possession of such a bomb a crime against mankind.

I believe it was brought out in the committee here yesterday that at the time at which he wrote, or spoke, November 8, 1945, either the United States had, or we all assumed that it had, a monopoly on the manufacture of atomic bombs.

Now the conclusion I draw from that is that Mr. Stassen like a great many other people at that time in the United States were addressing their minds to a very difficult problem which was posed by the creation of this United Nations Commission and the declarations of our Government in regard to the study by the U. N. as to how we were going to control atomic weapons.

Mr. Stassen, in his speech, addressed himself to the future and how you should amend the charter of the U. N. in order to establish an effective control.

My colleagues and I at Columbia in dealing with the problem addressed ourselves to the negotiating stage in the United Nations Commission and suggested that this moratorium on the collection of fissionable materials might assist that Commission to get good results. I believe this was put in the record yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the letter of Mr. Stassen, or the speech of Mr. Stassen.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I think it was only an excerpt which came in. Ambassador JESSUP. If the committee pleases, I will be glad to offer that for inclusion in the record.

Senator SPARKMAN. Without objection, it will be included. (The material referred to appears as follows:)

[From the New York Times, Friday, November 9, 1945]

CAPTAIN STASSEN'S SPEECH URGING ATOMIC BOMB BE OUTLAWED TO SOLVE DIFFERENCES

(The text of the address of Harold E. Stassen of Minnesota, delivered at the annual dinner of the Academy of Political Science last night, follows:)

Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests and fellow-citizens, there can be little doubt that we meet at the opening of one of the crucial decades of history. A world-wide war, tenfold more destructive that any previous war, has ended.

It ended, and left in its wake a billion of the men and women and little children of the world hungry and short of food. It ended, and left a quarter billion of the people of the world without shelter. It ended, and left a half billion of the earth's inhabitants, including many on every hemisphere, seething in the ferment of political and social unrest. It ended, and left 50 millions of mankind wounded or ill or long, dreary distances from home, at strange locations to which they had been swept by the flood tides of the conflict. It ended, and left little white crosses, row on row, around the globe, as signposts of the youth, virility, and manhood that was no more and as symbols of the sorrows in the hearts of their loved ones.

It ended, as the United Nations were preparing to put into effect their charter for peace. It ended, and left the production and distribution system in great areas of the world disrupted and destroyed. It ended, in a rapid succession of guns that shot farther, or airplanes that flew greater distances with heavier bomb loads, of rockets that outsped sound itself.

It ended, with the awesome flash at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, signaling to the world that science had unlocked the devastating and disintegrating force of the atomic bomb. It ended, and we face the future. And, what of that future? What shall our course be?

FRANK DISCUSSION HELD NEEDED

I believe the best way to discuss that future course is to take up specifically one of the world's problems. I believe we can best come to grips with the issues of the days ahead by discussing frankly and in detail our policy on the world's major challenge of the future-atomic energy. Needless to say, I speak as an individual and not in any sense for the Navy or the Government.

Seeking to find the wise policy as to atomic energy, it is important that we first endeavor to clarify basic factual information.

First of all, the successful development of the sustained neutron chain reaction resulting from nuclear fission, and the manufacture of the atomic bomb, was a result of many years of effort by scientists of many countries, including Denmark, France, and Germany, culminating in the specific intense work by large groups from England, Canada, and the United States in the Manhattan Project in Washington and Tennessee, and in groups at Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Los Alamos, Clinton, Hanford, and elsewhere.

Second, scientists do not anticipate that there can be any successful scientific counter-measure to an atomic bomb. There appears no scientific theory that would provide for its neutralization or its advance detonation.

Third, the production of atomic bombs requires an installation of such size that a rigid inspection by competent scientists could ascertain the presence or absence of such production.

Fourth, it appears likely that the tremendous energy developed can at some future time be harnessed and controlled for peaceful and constructive purposes for the benefit of mankind.

Fifth, there is nothing about the scientific features or fabrication methods of the production of the bomb that cannot be ascertained in a relatively short space of years by any group of able scientists and engineers anywhere in the world. Sixth, the destructive power in one small bomb is greater than a thousand of the greatest bombs made previously, and it is physically possible to manufacture these by the hundreds and to further increase their destructive power.

ALTERNATIVES ARE LISTED

If these are the correct basic facts, then what should the policy of America be? Obviously, there are a number of alternatives. The first is the policy of secrecy and suppression. Under this policy we would provide for heavy penalties against anyone who would reveal any part of the information that was not already public. We would keep our own scientists under surveillance. We would investigate all reports of any of our scientists meeting with scientists or representatives from other countries. We would follow a policy that is inherent in the preface of the Smythe report. I quote:

"All pertinent scientific information which can be released to the public at this time without violating the needs of national security is contained in this volume. No requests for additional information should be made to private persons or organizations associated directly or indirectly with the project. Persons disclosing or securing additional information by any means whatsoever, without authorization, are subject to severe penalties under the espionage act."

Under this secrecy and suppression policy, we would give to our Government extreme powers which it has never approached before in time of peace. And what would be the result?

Throughout the world other scientists and other engineers would pursue the same discoveries, would experiment and develop, until they too had atomic bombs. Throughout the world the pressure of all governments would be on their scientists to develop the explosive and the destructive powers of the atomic energy. Throughout the world the research and experimentation and the utilization of atomic energy for peaceful and constructive purposes would be retarded.

Here in America, for the first time in peace, we would be restricting the freedom of science. For the first time in peace, we would be departing from that basic liberty and openness of science which has led in the past to our superb scientific achievements. America would become less attractive as the home of scientists and we would begin to establish conditions of a nature similar to those which caused many scientists to flee from Germany and seek refuge elsewhere.

IF WE RELY ON GOOD FAITH

Or, as a second alternative, we can say we have no secrets from our allies, and open up our entire records and details of production to every one of the United Nations, and rely on their good faith in their use of this information.

What then would be the result? Many other nations would manufacture some of the bombs. There would be an uneasy apprehension between nations as to what their future course might be. Changing policies of Government and changing leadership would be viewed with uncertainty around the world. Relations between nations would be carried on with the dread of possible surprise attacks.

All of history says that good faith alone is not sufficient for the peaceful relationship between men. Good faith must be coupled with a framework of order, of law, and of justice. Under the give-away alternative, there would be no guarantee of reciprocal openness of information. We would, in effect, be increasing the armament of every other individual United Nation. There is no logical reason why each nation of the world should have the power to destroy other nations. Balancing of power has not proved in the past to be a road to peace, but rather a road to war.

NEW GOVERNMENT LEVEL SOUGHT

It is the third alternative that I advocate tonight. This is the alternative of placing the control of the atomic bomb definitely on the world level. To my mind, it is the only basis that has real hope for future peace, stability, and progress. To my mind, the splitting of the tiny atom, and the destructive release of its tremendous energy, urgently requires the uniting on this great earth of the constructive energy of all mankind.

This new development is one additional powerful reason for developing a new and higher level of government to serve mankind. The progress of science, of communication, of travel, and of mass production have already brought the people of the world close together. All of history tells us that whenever men are living close together, they require a government of some form to prevent anarchy and chaos, to establish order and justice, and to facilitate progress and well-being. The world needed government on a world level before the atomic bomb. Now it has become an imperative.

I present tonight specific detailed recommendations, not because I am insistent that these are the precise answers, but rather because it is my observation that to discuss a subject in broad terms that mean all things to all men, does not contribute to clarification or decision. I present exact detail in order that men might differ with me and from the discussion of those differences we might find the way to the best answers.

I suggest that the United States propose an amendment to article 43 of the United Nations Charter, an amendment granting to the Security Council the right and the duty to establish and maintain a small United Nations Air Force of 5 bomber squadrons and 10 fighter squadrons, manned by volunteers from the United Nations, not more than one-fifth of the personnel of any squadron to be of any one nationality background, to be based at five different suitable bases around the world, to be financed by a small tax on an international travel, and that the United States furnish five atomic bombs to each of these five bomber squadrons at the five bases around the world to serve as the stabilization force for world order.

I suggest the United States propose an amendment to article 26 of the United Nations Charter providing that no nation shall manufacture an atomic bomb, and that the manufacture or possession of such a bomb would be a crime against mankind. The present plants would manufacture the number required for the World Stabilization Force, and then stop.

I suggest that the United States propose to the United Nations that the Security Council be given the right and the duty to establish an Atomic Commission of distinguished scientists, with the power and the duty to thoroughly inspect all nations, including our own, to ascertain the fulfillment of the foregoing Charter provisions.

TO GUARD SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM

I propose that no one shall engage in any nuclear or atomic research without registering with this United Nations Atomic Commission, but that once having registered, any scientist would be entirely free to carry on scientific research and to publish his results to the world. I wish to emphasize that scientific freedom is just as important as academic freedom or freedom of the press to our way of life. The registration should be merely for the protection of mankind as to the location of the research and to facilitate the inspection of the activities.

I know full well that poposals of this kind will be attacked. There will be those who call them visionary, but I might ask whether or not to fail to seek

some such method would not be blindness. Are not each of these proposals in fact practical, sound, and attainable?

Some of the clamor of opposition will come from those who will say that such a proposal will violate the absolute national sovereignty of the member nations. Yes, it will!

But the narrow concept of absolute nationalistic sovereignty belongs in the same historical discard as the theory of the divine right of kings. The proposal that I make would not cause the people to lose sovereignty. They would be simply delegating a portion of their inherent sovereignty to a new and higher level of governmental machinery where it can be more effectively administered for the people's welfare. Principles of government must stand the test of service to the people if they are to be respected.

The concept of absolute nationalistic sovereignty no longer serves the people of this world. It is a barrier that prevents that successful cooperation which every other fact of modern life demands. It is a fertile source of those clashes and frictions that lead to war. And, might I add, that the diplomats' squeamishness about abstract sovereignty, as they refuse to take steps to prevent war, does not impress the millions of men who have seen the intimate innards of their pals spread over the landscape by war.

Measures of world cooperation, steps of effective working together, machinery that serves mankind, should be judged on their own merits, not by seeking to apply to it the outworn shibboleth of absolute nationalistic sovereignty.

"SELF-INTEREST" ARGUMENT HIT

Another argument in opposition that will probably be made is that this proposal does not serve the "self-interest" of America. It will be argued that we now occupy a position of great power with our armed might and the possession of the atomic bomb; that we should use this power for our own enlightened "selfinterest" rather than diffuse it on a world-wide basis.

Permit me to meet that argument head-on. In my judgment, if the selfish interest of America becomes the official guiding light of our world policy, it will by one of the most tragic phases of American history. The doctrine of "America first" is purely and simply the extension of the doctrine of "me first." There is, and there will be, a considerable measure of this doctrine in life. But if it ever becomes the officially accepted standard to be followed by everyone, the tragedy, chaos and suffering, the demoralization and disintegration, will be indescribable. Selfishness is not a virtue for individual life. Neither should it be considered a virtue for national life.

It is my view that the first pennant nailed to the mast of our foreign policy should state the objective to promote the slow, steady march of social, economic and cultural progress of all mankind and the general welfare of one world at peace.

Nothing less than that is worthy of America. This does not mean a policy of waste and extravagance. It does not mean the encouragement of idleness in other lands. It does not mean a careless charity that undermines the recipient and dissipates the resources of the giver. It does not mean placing the welfare of any other individual nation above that of America. It does not mean that we should be weak in armed force. It does not mean we love America less.

But it does require a broadness of concept of our policies. It does require that in our domestic activities we constantly be concerned as to their effect on peoples of other parts of the world. We are today the most powerful nation in the world. We do have the greatest productive capacity. We do have a homeland-thank God-that has not been ravished by war. We do have an economy that is healthy and strong. If we seek to be selfish and narrow in this position, that same selfishness and narrowness will pass on down to groups within our country. America will be divided. It will be bigoted and intolerant. And our economy will wither. We shall lose that precise powerful position which we seek selfishly to maintain.

MORE THAN LIP SERVICE ASKED

The broad policy I advocate means specifically that we must do more than give lip service to the United Nations Organization. We must do more than cooperate in a manner of detached, aloof interest. We must seek constantly to give it vigor and vitality and contribute to its growth. I know there are those who speak of its inadequacy. It is true as I said long since, that it is only a "beachhead in the battle for peace," that it is only "a very small step in the right direction."