TAPE ROLL NO. V.17
Shot No. 117

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

A (cont)

Have we any kind of contribution or is it just arranged
between the United States and the Soviet Union that they
wouldn't throw nuclear bombs at each other or other people
and could I really believe that, that one day they might
not change their minds, and so I think we should pay
more attention to nuclear proliferation whatever that
means, there seems to be difference of opinion on that,
but I'm not happy at all on the fact that so many of the
developing countries are now hoping to get a nuclear
reactor, nuclear plant for energy because of the cost of
oil, and perhaps in some countries the running out of
energy resource like water. In my country I think the
electric authority there is adamant on their stand that
they will have big electric plants run by nuclear energy,
and I'm not happy about that and I'm not quite sure whether
that would be safe for our people due to the nuclear waste
and so on, and has I wonder that sort of energy plant been
perfected by the people who know, and how to get rid of the
waste and how to control it and all that sort of thing;
that's all, it's just a question that comes up in my mind.
My country will really never become a nuclear power, we are
too careless people. We might really drop it somewhere.

Well K, can you reassure my old friend that you will be
equally uncareless as well as on the question he asked
about proliferation.

Well I think on the level of strategic arms it has to be
arranged between the nuclear super powers because they're
the ones that have the capability of annihilating humanity,
and I believe that the arrangement, so long as it doesn't
lead to a political condominium, is in the interest of all

/cont

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

K (cont)

of mankind because a nuclear war between the super powers would have physical consequences everywhere, not just indirect ones. How can one associate other countries with that process is important but I don't think that the non-nuclear countries need necessarily be associated with the negotiation of the Salk agreement unless they're part of an alliance system that is affected by it. On the question of accident, I agree with Ted that there are many levels, there can be a genuine accident where one of these things goes off that nobody intended, or there can be an accident where it is not intended by the political leadership but some subordinate uses it, or there can be a mis-judgement on the part of the political leadership, and all these are three different levels of accident. I fear that as nuclear weapons spread into more and more hands the restraints that, as long as the advanced industrial nations had them, the risks to them were out of all proportion to the benefit and their understanding of the nature of these weapons was sufficient to induce restraint, but if they spread into more and more hands, the calculative risks may not be that evident and the understanding of their technological characteristics may not be adequate, so the dangers of one of those three levels of accidents increases.

I Well could I add a few words.

JKG

And about particularly the extent to which you are concerned about the dangers of accident and the possibilities of -

TAPE ROLL NO. V.17

Shot No. 117

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

K

Let me make one other point about accident.

If there is a danger of accident - as the danger of
accident increases, it must lead inevitably to precautions
by countries that might be drawn in, that they will not be
drawn into a nuclear war against their will and you already
see agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States
and between the Soviet Union and France by which they can
inform each other about accidental nuclear explosions so
that they're not triggered into a catastrophe by the actions
of others, so that the spread of nuclear weapons may have
the paradoxical consequence of drawing those who have the
greatest risk of being involved into a closer co-operation
that would otherwise be the case.

I

Yes, I wanted to refer that we have some agreements on
accident, to prevent accidental launching of nuclear
weapons. I'm not in a position to judge whether it's enough
or we need some more provisions for this. This must be
always checked upon by the governments, but in general, I
wouldn't say that our position is such that the steps that
already were taken with Soviet/American relations, the
negotiations which are under way now take away the whole
danger of nuclear war. There must - this is a very
complicated task, and there must be a lot of work done to
ensure it really is all guaranteed because here you cannot
have 99% guarantee it must be over 100 really to make it
sane and safe.

/cont

TAPE REEL NO. V.17
Shot No. 117

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

I (cont)

And we have proposed some other measures like agreement on non use of force, and I think that there will be other initiative on that but I think it is very closely connected with the whole international situation. The progress of detente will make less and less possible nuclear war, even I think by accident, and it will work even in the direction that it will take the premium away from the strive to get nuclear weapons by other countries, because if it includes satisfactory solution of international crises, crises situation that are at hand or are possible, forseeable in the future and I think that the problem must be passing from cold war relationship in the global scale to this new relationship of peaceful co-existence. It calls for a very radical reconstruction of international relations, and this will include also economics spheres and many such spheres. I think this is all in all can only give satisfactory and fool-proof guarantees of peace and prevention of nuclear war although other steps are also useful and must be pursued as quick as possible.

And I didn't answer to your question, our position - Well K spoke about it but we were always very consistent.

Shot No. 118

I might remind you that one of the reasons of the deterioration of our relationship with the Chinese was our refusal to help them in acquiring nuclear ability, so we don't do it with our allies, we don't do it with other countries and we, I'm sure, will be very positive on that in any international agreements and organisations which can be built up for it. I think nobody can complain about our allies, that they do it.

TAPE ROLL NO. V.17
Shot No. 118

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

E

But can one be sure that as we're trying to reach
international agreement against terrorism, the Soviet Union
will be on the side of those who actively sponsor such
agreement. We are against terrorism, we are against
terrorists and this we have declared many times, but it will
depend on the proposed agreement because the concern is that
can it include some - it will be too broad and will include
not only terrorists as such but will also be directed
against some parts of liberation.

C

Can I ask a question (ALL CHATTING)

A

When I was in China last year, they were quite sure that
there will be a nuclear war between the super powers, and
they're making all kinds of preparation for it, practical
preparations. Who is going to convince them that it's all
as cosy as we have arranged. Just from their remarks and
their statements of conversation, they were absolutely sure
that that war will happen in the near future.

JKG

I accept that as a rhetorical question because I would think
that on one point, there would be point of agreement
that neither United States nor the Soviet Union will be able
to reassure the Chinese on that particular point.

I

Especially if they needed this, war danger - for their
internal purposes you know.

A

They are digging tunnels and things - and very
comfortably furnished underground -

TAPE ROLL NO. 17.
Shot No. 118

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

K
I haven't availed myself of the opportunities, but they seem to be more convinced that one super power may attack them than concerned that the two super powers may co-operate with each other, although they have both -

A
Well, what they said to me was that the two super powers will fight each other in their country. (CHAT TOGETHER)

C
I only wanted to make two points and perhaps before 'J' speaks because he could take them into account really. One was a very limited one which was to follow up what 'J' asked and simply say is there no way in which these two super powers can impose before its too late, a much tighter system of inspection because it isn't only the inspection of the civilian power stations that seems inadequate but even, for that matter, the inspection of nuclear weapons on say U.S.military basis, which seems to be the least of it a little carefree, and one does I think, want to ask whether, before the power begins to pass, almost pass the point of no return, whether the United States and the Soviet Union couldn't in this respect almost establish a condominium in insisting upon much tighter methods of inspection. The other point I want to make is much more wide and far reaching one and I wonder if,I'd be very grateful if 'J' and others would address themselves to it. At the very beginning of his remarks, K said that you could not divorce - I'm transposing your remarks K, you couldn't divorce you said, nuclear stability and nuclear detante from political detante I think - you couldn't completely, the two were inter-related which seems obvious.

/cont

TAPE ROLL NO.V17
Shot No. 118

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

C (cont)

Now I can see listening to your conversation that there's a sense in which you can exclude the rest of the world from the second of these propositions, namely, the nuclear stability one, except there's irritants - proliferation and so on, the terrorist threat, but clearly the rest of the world insists in a very tedious way in walking back on the political stabilisation front and keeps trying to destabilise the situation whether its Eastern Europe at the present time, Western Europe and specifically Italy at the present time, Southern Africa at the present time, the Middle East and so on. One is conscious that we live literally month to month, being mildly surprised if something like the Lebanon happens and the two sides don't get involved, or something like Angola happens and at the right moment the United States decides not to take the matter any further, and therefore, what I really want to throw into the pot and bring you back to, is how you deal with this chaotic political situation in which the rest of the actors insist upon being on the stage and how you relate this to what seems to me to be an extraordinary kind of controlled calmness that you feel about the nuclear situation, because it's very hard to see how you can keep the two apart for very much longer, in fact, they insist upon being brought together.

K Can I respond to this before Arthur makes his remarks?

J This leads to the point I would like to make.

K I was afraid you'd shake me so much that I'd forget my reply to this.

THE AGE OF UNCERTAINTY

J Well you go ahead and reply but I will

JKG No, I think I'll over-ride even the Secretary of State
since 'J'... has been so unnaturally silent
this morning, as you would be the first to agree, K,
that we must give him his moment.

J Well, my moment, my point is not a momentous one. It is very
much related to what 'C' was saying. The one
point of agreement with which our two distinguished
representatives of the super powers seem to have, was in the
rejection of the new selective detante. At least I
understood Mr. 'I' to endorse K's - rejection of that
ideal. I find myself as an historian unable to conceive any
other kind of detante except a selective detante. Now there
maybe ambiguities between descriptive and pre prescriptive
uses of the word detante, but it seems to me that
essentially detante is an expression of the stabilisation
which has been brought about for other reasons and other
grounds, and when this stabilisation has reached a point,
it is recognised and we call it detante. Therefore detante
is possible in Europe where the balance of forces and the
exhaustion of efforts to upset that balance have reached a
point where finally it could be formalised in one form or
another, but where this stability does not exist as in the
Middle East, as in Africa, it seems to me that you cannot
expect the detante to operate in the same sense as it does
in Europe.

/cont.