Lights come up. A second lectern is to t...

Lights come up. A second lectern is to the side of the one Russell has been using. The park bench has been removed. Russell is at one lectern, and Lord Gladwyn is at the second one.

RUSSELL Thank you for coming, Lord Gladwyn.

GLADWYN My pleasure, Lord Russell. It was indeed kind of you to send me the literature concerning the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation and to ask for my views.

RUSSELL Thank you. I should like to hear them.

GLADWYN As a general observation, I should at once say that I question your whole major premise.

RUSSELL In what sense, may I ask?

GLADWYN I really do not think that general nuclear war is getting more and more likely. I believe, on the contrary, that it is probably getting less and less likely.

RUSSELL On what do you base your optimism?

GLADWYN I do not think that either the USA or the USSR has the slightest intention of putting the other side into a position in which it may feel it will have to use nuclear weapons on a “first strike” for its own preservation -- if that very word is not in itself paradoxical in the circumstances. Nor will the Chinese for a long time have the means of achieving a first strike, and when they have they likewise will not want to achieve it.

RUSSELL That seems to me to be putting one’s head in the sand, and at a very dangerous time indeed to be doing so. You point out that the danger of a nuclear war between Russia and the West is less than it was a few years ago. As regards a direct clash between NATO and the Warsaw Powers, I agree with you that the danger is somewhat diminished. You also say that it will be a long time before China will be effective, but I see no reason to believe this. The West thought that it would be a long time before Russia had the A-bomb. When Russia had the A-bomb, the West thought it would be a long time before they had the Hbomb. Both these expectations turned out to be illusions, Furthermore, in estimating the wisdom of a policy, it is necessary to consider not only the possibility of a bad result, but also the degree of badness of the result. The extermination of the human race is the worst possible result, and even if the probability of its occurring is small, its disastrousness should be a deterrent to any policy which allows it.

GLADWYN Oh, I admit we are no doubt in for a difficult, perhaps even a revolutionary period, and the West must stand together and discuss wise joint policies for facing it; otherwise we may well lapse into mediocrity, anarchy or barbarism.

RUSSELL I believe the greater danger is that we may lapse into nonexistence.

GLADWYN I believe that opinion is a bit reactionary. If we do evolve an intelligent common policy, not only will there be no general nuclear war, but we shall overcome the great evils of hunger and overpopulation. Here, however, to my mind, everything depends on the possibility of organizing Western Unity.

RUSSELL You admit that the present state of the world is not desirable and suggest that the only way of improving it is by way of Western unity. You seem to imply that this unity is to be achieved by all countries of the West blindly following one policy. Such unity does not seem to me desirable. Certainly the policy to which you appear to think the West should adhere -- a policy which, for example, upholds the present United States war in South Vietnam -- cannot possibly avoid a lapse into mediocrity, anarchy or barbarism, which you say you wish above all to avoid. In addition, the entire concept of Western or Eastern unity leaves the various nuclear confrontations in place, along with their dangers. Universal unity, however, such as might be achieved by a World Government, I am entirely persuaded is necessary to the peace of the world.

GLADWYN I consider that hope an idle dream, at least, for the foreseeable future. Let me go on. In the Cold War struggle the general position of the West is likely to be strengthened by the recent ideological break between the Soviet Union and China, which seems likely to persist in spite of the fall of Krushchev. Next to the so-called Balance of Terror between Russia and America, I should indeed place the split as a major factor militating in favor of prolonged World Peace, in the sense of an absence of nuclear war.

RUSSELL I agree with you that the danger is somewhat diminished. On the other hand, new dangers have arisen. All the Powers of East and West, ever since Hiroshima, have agreed that the danger of nuclear war is increased when new Powers become nuclear. But nothing has been done to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. France and Belgium, India and China and Brazil have or are about to have nuclear weapons, and West Germany is on the verge of acquiring a share of NATO weapons.

GLADWYN The spread of nuclear weapons is, of course, a major cause for concern. But they, too, have no choice but to be controlled by the Balance of Terror, by which I mean the ability of each of the two giants to inflict totally unacceptable damage on the other, or any other nuclear armed nation, even on a “second strike.” I believe this deterrent is likely to result in the maintenance of existing territorial boundaries, or the Status Quo, in all countries in which the armed forces of the East and West are in physical contact and a continuance of the so-called Cold War, in other words a struggle for influence between the free societies of the West and the Communist societies of the East, as well as in the emergent countries of South America, Africa and Asia. .

RUSSELL I believe that the human race is capable of and, if it is to survive, must do better than to agree to live under the dismal threat of ever-impending universal doom.

GLADWYN The Balance of Terror has not turned out to be so “delicate” as some thought; with the passage of time, I should myself say that it has gotten even less fragile. I developed my general thesis in 1958 in an essay called “Is Tension Necessary?” And events since then have substantially confirmed it. The chief feature of the present landscape, in fact -- and it is a reassuring one -- is that America and Russia are becoming less afraid of each other. The one feels that the chances of a subversion of its free economy are substantially less; the other feels that no attack can now possibly be mounted against it by the Western “capitalists.”

RUSSELL What do you propose with regard to the possibly of war by accident? You seem to consider it so improbable that it can be ignored.

GLADWYN I think it is so highly improbable that it needn’t cause undue alarm.

RUSSELL There is, however, the possibility of war by mistake. This prospect has already almost occurred several times through mistaking the moon for Soviet planes or some such misreading of radar signals. It cannot be deemed unlikely that, sooner or later, such a mistake will not be discovered in time.

GLADWYN I admit it is not an ideal situation, but I believe that all possible safeguards have been put in place..

RUSSELL But, Gladwyn, it is a simple matter of mathematical statistics that the more nuclear missiles there are, the greater is the danger of nuclear accident. Vast numbers of rockets and other missiles, primed for release and dependent upon mechanical systems and slight margins in time, are highly subject to accident. Any insurance company would establish this where the factors involved relate to civilian activity such as automobile transport or civilian aviation. In this sense, the danger of accidental war increases each day that the weapons systems are permitted to remain. Nor is the danger wholly mechanical: human beings, even well “screened” and highly trained, are subject to hysteria and madness of various sorts when submitted to the extreme tensions and concentration that many men having to do with nuclear weapons are submitted to.

GLADWYN Unfortunately, there is always the possibility of an act of human lunacy. Have you a remedy for it?

RUSSELL Has the human race ever had a remedy for it? What if an emerging country got hold of a nuclear weapon?

GLADWYN Would it not be suicidal for such a country to employ it?

RUSSELL What if the people who possessed it had, in psychoanalytic terms, a death wish?

GLADWYN Then they might well achieve their goal, and rather suddenly.

RUSSELL With very unpredictable consequences. I find the risk entirely unacceptable. Another danger is the existence of large, adventurous and very powerful groups in the United States. The US Government has run grave risks in attacks on the forces of North Vietnam. And, in the recent election, some 40%, or thereabouts, of the population voted for Goldwater, who openly advocated war. Such warlike groups can, at any moment, create an incident, such as the U-2 incident, which put an end to the conciliatory mood of Camp David.

GLADWYN There are warlike groups on all sides. But notice that Goldwater was not elected. I would like to address something else. It is absurd that everybody, and more particularly the USA and the USSR, should spend such colossal sums on armaments, though it seems probably that, the nuclear balance having been achieved, less money will be devoted to reinforcing or even to maintaining it. It is also wrong, in principle, that Germany should continue to be divided.

RUSSELL But don’t you see, you’re enumerating difficulties that can only be solved by the United Nations or the creation of some other international institution to control nuclear weapons.

GLADWYN Clearly, general disarmament is desirable.

RUSSELL Thank you. I’m delighted we’ve found some common ground.

GLADWYN I thought we might. Yet it is arguable that any general disarmament will be achieved until an agreed settlement of outstanding political problems, and notably the reunification of Germany is peacefully negotiated. The truth may well be that in the absence of such settlements both sides are in practice reluctant to disarm beyond a certain point, and without almost impossible guarantees, and are apt to place the blame for lack of progress squarely on the other. What is demonstrably untrue is that the West are to blame whereas the Soviet Union is guiltless.

RUSSELL You find fault with me on the ground that I seem to hold the West always to blame and the Soviet Union always guiltless. This is by no means the case. While Stalin lived, I considered his policies abominable. More recently, I protested vigorously against the Russian tests that preceded the Test Ban Treaty. At present, I am engaged in pointing out the ill-treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union.

GLADWYN That’s all highly commendable. However, in particular, I question your statement -- in the African paper you forwarded to me -- that the Soviet Union has already agreed to disarm and to accept adequate inspection in all the proper stage, and that failure to agree on disarmament is solely the responsibility of the West.

RUSSELL My own view is that disarmament could now come about. Perhaps you know Philip Noel-Baker’s pamphlet “The Way to World Disarmament - Now!” In it he notes accurately and dispassionately the actual record of disarmament negotiations. He said, among other things, that Soviet proposals entail the presence of large numbers of inspectors on Soviet territory during all stages of disarmament. In 1955 the Soviet Union accepted in full the Western disarmament proposals. The Western proposals were withdrawn at once upon their acceptance by the Soviet Union.

GLADWYN On the contrary, the facts are that, although the Soviet Government has accepted full verification of the destruction of all armaments due for destruction in the various stages of both the Russian and the American Draft Disarmament Treaties, they have not agreed that there should be any verification of the balance of armaments remaining in existence. There would thus, under the Russian proposal, be no guarantee at all that retained armed forces and armaments did not exceed agreed quotas at any stage. Here the Americans have made a significant concession, namely to be content in the early stages with a system of verifying in a few sample areas only: but the Soviet Government has so far turned a deaf ear to such suggestions.

RUSSELL It is far from being only the West that cries out for disarmament. I believe Russia has a sincere interest in it, and China has pled for it again and again, the last time a few days ago.

GLADWYN It’s on thing to want or to plea. It’s the specifics upon which the issue depends. For example, there is a whole problem of the run-down to the Agreed Principles, as regards which the Soviet intentions have not, as yet, been fully revealed. Finally the West want to have an International Peace Keeping Force, which would clearly be required in the event of complete disarmament, under an integrated and responsible Command, but the Soviet Government is insisting, for practical purposes, on the introduction into the Command of a power of veto.

RUSSELL I do not see that as an insoluble impediment, particularly, if the West also has the power of veto.

GLADWYN What I am attempting to establish is that I cannot possibly agree with your position that, if we are to alter the drift to destruction, it will be necessary to change Western policy -- and apparently Western policy only.

RUSSELL That is not my position, Lord Gladwyn.

GLADWYN Apparently, at times it has been. For instance, at the time of the Cuba crisis, you circulated a leaflet entitled “No Nuclear War over Cuba,” which started off “You are to die.” We were to die, it appeared, unless public opinion could under your leadership be mobilized so as to alter American policy, thus allowing the Soviet Government to establish hardened nuclear missile bases in Cuba for use against the United States.

RUSSELL It was written at the height of the crisis when most informed people were expecting universal death within a few hours. After the crisis passed, I no longer considered such emphatic language appropriate, but, as an expression of the right view at the moment, I still consider it correct.

GLADWYN The fact remains that we did not die. Of course, some day, all of us will die, but not, I think in the great holocaust of the Western imagination. The human animal, admittedly, has many of the characteristics of a beast of prey: mercifully he does not possess the suicidal tendencies of the lemmings.

RUSSELL He doesn’t? Are you aware of the death instinct, as developed by psychoanalysis, and which we see evidence of in the rampant violence that blights much of the world?

GLADWYN I do not pretend to be a psychoanalyst. But it is obvious that what we want in the world is less fear and more love. With great respect, I do not think that your campaign is contributing to either objective.

RUSSELL Do you think that less fear and more love are to be achieved by the Balance of Terror? Is it not evident that, so long as that dangerous policy prevails, there will continually new inventions which will increase the danger of a nuclear holocaust, as well as the expense of armaments until both sides are reduced to penury? The balance of terror consists of two expensively armed blocs, each saying to the other, “I should like to destroy you but I fear that, if I did, you would destroy me.” Do you really consider that this is a way to promote love? If you do not, I wish that you would give some indication of a way that you think feasible. All that you say about this is that you see no way except disarmament, but that disarmament is not feasible unless various political questions have first to been settled.

GLADWYN Realism is, admittedly, a complex matter, Lord Russell. As to the expense of the present arms production programmes, I, naturally, agree with you.

RUSSELL I should hope so. Arms production on the part of the great powers is in excess of the gross national product of three continents -- Africa, Latin America, and Asia. I do agree, however, that disarmament would be easier to achieve if various political questions were first settled.

GLADWYN I see no other way.

RUSSELL But it is precisely for this reason that the Peace Foundation is engaged at present in an examination of these questions and discussions with those directly involved in them in the hope of working out with them acceptable and feasible solutions. And it is with a view to enhancing the love and mitigating the hate in the world that the Foundation is engaged in questions relating to political prisoners and members of families separated by political rulings and red tape and to unhappy minorities. It has had surprising and considerable success in all these field during the first year of its existence. As a result, I do not understand your negating its importance.

GLADWYN These are matters of great moment to our people and indeed to humanity. I should hope that you would one day be prepared to advance your proposals in the House of Lords, where they could be subjected to intelligent scrutiny.

RUSSELL Thank you, Lord Gladwyn. And thank you for your participation.

GLADWYN Thank you, Lord Russell, for the invitation.

Lights fade down.

For licensing inquiries, please contact [email protected]

Tom Attea