~100deadly weapon into the hands of others we might help create an atmosphere of good will from which, however, we could expect no more than passing gains. To rule out this radical solution docs not mean condemning as useless or impracticable the idea of gradually lifting the veil of secrecywhich today surrounds the pro~ duction of atomic energy and atomic weapons. The revelation of secrets will tend to shorten the duration of our monopoly, but it might constitute a reasonable and limited concession in return for which the Soviet Union might permit the UNC to start experimenting with inspection schemes suitable'tofuture conditions of dual possession of the bomb. oS No attention need be given to the idea voiced:h d there that we dis- close our secrets to the Russians in return for a promise on their part not to make use of then. It would be folly to expect them to make any such promise Since if they did they would be condemning their country to permanent mlitary inferiority. Britain is in a different position. Although in on the secret she may decide to forego the luxury of cstablishing plants-.of her own in the belief that she is sufficiently protected by our possession of the bomb. - It is being widely held that there is still another way by which our monopoly could be brought to an end, Instead of substituting for -it’ either total atomic disarmanent or multiple possession of the bomb, we could aim at what is being called the internationalization of atomic weapons, This would suggest a transfer of our atomic monopoly to the United Nations Organization, On closer scrutiny any scheme of UNO possession of the atomic weapons, however, turns out to be not a solution sui generis but another form of cither American monopolistic possession or of dual possession of the bomb. This can be demonstrated by an analysis of ir. Stassen's suggestion that all stockpiles of atomic bombs be handed over to an international police force and that further production be stopped. 10. : 70 Address of Harold FE. Stassen delivered before the Academy of Political Sci- ence, November 8, 19145. New York Times, November 9, 195,