\
-1,9that which his neighbor has and no nation will covet that which its neighbor
has,

Although Secretary of Commerce HenryWallace definitely does not belong to

the do-nothing school of thought, his assertion that "the expectation of a new
age of abundance for all will do more to prevent war than the fear of being
blown to pits?

illustrates the attitude which sees escape from disaster and

indeed from the necessity of binding international agreements through a mass
distribution of the benefits of atomic onereyBrogvetaone

If the new sources

of energy developed in the last century and /i halftad made the twentieth century more pacific than the eighteenth or ninbteentat we might gain more comfort
from this line of reasoning. than we actually do,
The "tough-minded" argument for a do=nothing policy is somewhat different.
It is argued that whatever progress other nations may make in nuclear research,
the Unitec States can with its magnificent laboratories and brilliant scientists
keep its present lead,

If it were true that a better atomic bomb would give

Security against one not quite so powerful, the United States would indeed be in
an advantageous position.

Its present lead will, however, seem less important

when it first becomes known that some other nation has learned how-to produce
even the most primitive bombs,

As Dr. J. R. Oppenheimer, director of the group

which actually designed the first bomb, has declared, "from the armament race
that would almost certainly follow, the United States might or might not emerge
the winner, nor would it greatly matter,

It is not necessary for a nation to be

able to produce more or bigger or better bombs, but only for it to decide to
proceed independently with its owm atom bomb program, after which with very few
bombs it could put any other nation, our own included, out of action."?° When
dealing with the absolute weapon, arguments based on relative advantage lose

oh.
95.

Now York Times, December 5, 19h5.

Testimony before Senate ‘committee, October 17, 1945; quoted in the New York
Times, October 18, 195.

Select target paragraph3