ouble, recounts the events that led to emmett till's murder and his efforts to get justice for his late cousin. so i left him in his store and nothing happened while i was in there. and shortly after my simeon, who's 12 years old, amy was 14, and i was so 16, came in with him and nothing happened while they were in the store. they came out of the store and and once they were out of the store, a short time later, how long was brian comes out of the store and images of banks loved to make people laugh. they never have donald in his life. he's a jokester. so he was always to make us laugh and give a little wolf. listen. and when he did that, because i mean, you had him on the stuart atmosphere in 1955 and mr. safety, a black man, was moving at a white woman. i mean, that was death itself forever. and wheeler parker jr. with his book a few days full of

trouble tonight at eight eastern on c-span q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span. now app. daniel ellsberg has passed away at the age of 92. he is best known for leaking sensitive documents on the vietnam war, known as the pentagon papers, which many believe helped to end the longest u.s. conflict of the 20th century. the disclosures would also lead to a landmark supreme court decision on freedom of the press. in 2019, the university of massachusetts amherst acquired the papers of daniel ellsberg and next from the school he talks about his career and his fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. this is just over 2 hours. all right. good evening. good afternoon. good evening. we're going to get started. so greetings and welcome to the

21st annual friends of the umass library's fall reception. i'm simon nehme, dean of libraries here at umass amherst. and today i have the honor of welcoming you to a very, very special program planned to celebrate the acquisition of daniel ellsberg's personal archive by the university. this collection represents an important addition to the umass library's special collections and university archives and to the university. the umass library's special collections are nationally recognized for our strength in documenting the history of unrest, protest advocacy and ultimately change in our society. with a particular emphasis on the individuals and groups who are champions of change and social justice. we think our many friends and donors who support the work of special collections with their continued support and our

commitment to preservation and public access. daniel ellsberg's archives will be available for teaching. learning and research locally and regionally, through and through digitization globally. for generations to come, i would like to take this opportunity to thank daniel and patricia ellsberg for sharing this incredible resource with the umass amherst libraries, and in doing so with the world. daniel's archives are in good company alongside the papers of w.e.b. dubois. horace mann, bond, kenneth feinberg, brother david. steindel rast the new england yearly meeting archive and many, many other agents of social change. we feel the archive of daniel ellsberg is exactly where it belongs. acquiring this collection, a

collection like this involves the work of many, and i just like to take a moment to acknowledge a few individuals. our head of special collections, rob cox, and the entire staff of special collections and university archives here at umass amherst. thank you. i'd also like to thank a chancellor's hoover swami and our other leaders on this campus, in particular, dr. bob feldman and dr. bob pollin, for recognizing umass as the rightful home for this archive and for working with us to make it so. thank you. so to tell us a little bit more about how umass came to acquire this amazing collection. i would like to introduce our chancellor campus of the swami,

or as he's known to most of us here at umass amherst swami. please join me in welcoming chancellor sebastian. good evening and thank you, simon. welcome, everyone, for what certainly promises to be a very thought provoking evening. i would like to acknowledge my good friend, retired state representative for amherst, ellen storey, who has joined us today. ellen, i'm not sure where you are. could you please acknowledge that. it's always a pleasure to have ellen on campus. i'd like to take a minute to share how we arrived at this evening. as the washington post once observed, umass amherst has, quote, developed a reputation as perhaps the single most important heterodox economics department in the country.

you can read, however you want to read that, end quote, that our economics faculty have earned this prominence reflects a certain unwilling to accept conventional thinking. this attitude has was evident when dr. robert poland, distinguished professor and co-director of the political economics research institute. perry, as we call it, heard through their economic animist grapevine. yes, that is one that dan ellsberg's papers, all 500 boxes were in his basement character izing this discovery as, quote, crazy. sorry, dr. ellsberg brother poland summoned all the resourcefulness expected of a umass amherst distinguished professor of economics and in a remarkably short time helped foster the relationship between the ellsberg's and umass. along the way, bob feldmann, my senior advisor, became an

invaluable intermediary working with ellsberg's and anonymous donor who stepped up to support acquisition of the papers this evening on behalf of the university community. i want to thank bob feldman. i thank our generous donor, and i thank professor pollan for once again eschewing orthodoxy and enriching the university. everyone in this room is affected by the life and work of dan ellsberg, some by living through the tumult of the seventies, while others, such as our students, are currently experiencing his historical imprint in a national moment of déja vu. i belong to the former camp. that's how old i am. in 1971, at the age of 20, i boarded a plane for the first time, traveling from my home in bangalore in india, to indiana university in bloomington to pursue a doctorate in physics. when i arrived, the campus and

the nation were in the throes of unrest. the vietnam war was just ending and watergate was about to break. i was immersed in conversations that ordinary only as a physicist. i wouldn't be a part of. those tumultuous times taught me about the us constitution. transparency, politics and rule of law. in the years to come, this unexpected part of my education was invaluable in advancing my administrative career. as i stand here this evening, leading this celebration almost 50 years since the pentagon papers were leaked after steven spielberg turned the events into a movie starring meryl streep and tom hanks, it's tempting to view dan ellsberg's life through the diffused light of a hollywood lens. but the movie could have ended very differently indeed. dan ellsberg leaked the pentagon papers to the media in 1971, exposing decades of deceit by

american policymakers during the vietnam war, when he knew it was very possible his actions could lead to a lifetime in jail. he had a family and an enviable career. he had everything to lose. yet he chose the truth. his commitment to protecting the sanctity of the truth for the good of his country outweighed his personal well-being. it was a tremendous act of courage and conviction given this university's long standing commitment to social justice and accessibility and our fundamental mission as a strong hold for freedom of expression. it is our deep privilege to receive the papers of daniel ellsberg as guardians of this exceptional collection. the university is committed to making the work of dan ellsberg's life broadly accessible, ensuring it remains in the public sphere, informing our discourse for decades to come. on behalf of the entire university, i warmly welcome dan and patricia into the umass amherst community.

please join me in welcoming dan ellsberg to the state. steps taken. thank you very much. can you hear me back? can you hear me in the back? yeah. very problem. leave your arms or something, please. that's good. okay. this is a wonderful occasion for my wife. and i was just thinking that i haven't really been part of an institution as i am now since i left rand. that was quite a while ago. and basically, in 1970. and it's wonderful to be here,

chancellor, because for me, i so much super swimming appreciate the fact that my archive will be here. but i in particular appreciate the appreciation that i've gotten from you, from robert cox, from robert pollin. it's really warmed my heart and patricia is very much so. we were very impressed when the vice chancellor, bob feldmann, representing you actually flew across the country almost immediately after hearing the possibility of getting my archive here. we were very impressed sitting around the table while we with these people, robert cox, robert fellman, robert pollin. we had to agree. rob. bob. robert, the distinguished in conversation somehow and it's

just i feel wonderful and i have been reviewing as a result, of course, some of those 500 boxes that we've sent about 250 so far as they slipped from my hand. so i'll kicking and screaming here in a way. i look at these boxes and i look at the files. wait, wait, wait. i have to reread this. it looks fascinating. various things you've collected. one thing i realize is this is, of course, pretty much covers my life history. and something i realized is that that life is almost exactly extensive with the nuclear era. thinking of that, that i'm very surprised that i'm still here at 88 and even more surprised that you're all still here. exactly. and you'll see why i feel that maybe at the end of the evening,

although there's some bad news, a lot of bad news here. actually, the good news is we are here and that i think you may appreciate how lucky we've been. actually to have come through this so far. and perhaps what we may need to do to assure that some of you will live as long as i have 88 and your grandchild and their children will have a chance to be lucky, like us. it doesn't go without saying by any means. when i say my life has been quite extensive with the nuclear era. i'm thinking of the fact i was born in 1931. in 1932. chadwick discovered what ernest rutherford had conceived earlier. the existence of the neutron. and in 1933, one year later, when i was two years old, fdr had just become president. hitler had just come to power.

leo zijlaard and i see my physicist young friend here, so we're swimming. nothing on this. leo szilard conceived in a particular moment the possibility of a chain reaction which he patented actually, and to keep it secret, patented with the admiralty hoping that it would not. the idea would not come to the country he had just left germany in 1933. now hitler had become chancellor as a minority party, but in the largest party had been named by hindenburg as chancellor in january as i recall. szilard tells in his memoirs, which are called, by the way, posthumously, his version of the facts. and he refers to the fact that he had told someone, one of his friends, i think victor, from hungary, that he was writing some notes for a memoir just for

god. and victor said, well, don't you think god knows the facts? and he said, he doesn't know my version of the facts. so in this he tells that he had a bag packed for since 1932 in his apartment in berlin, ready to leave if hitler came to power, which he did come to power in january. but two days after the reichstag fire, which we still don't know for sure whether it was set by the nazis, as gehring said, hermann goering said at one point, or whether or not it's not clear. but in any rate, it was used by the nazis immediately as a reason to cancel civil liberties, go into emergency state, a state of emergency that basically they got hindenburg to sign. the first thing was to end the privacy of the postal service

and to listen to all telephone calls as the almost the first thing that had to be done in this state. and zijlaard says that he picked up his bags, which he said required only fashioning them. and he left the room and he left germany two days later and he said it was not because. i thought that the people approved of what hitler would proceed to do, but because of their nature as obedient followers, there would be no real resistance to it. many people thought when i grew up, by the way, the germans that we saw in the newsreels and whatnot, i was only obey orders and something were a very peculiar culture, very unlike us. and i have to tell you, at 88, i and this is no joke. that's wrong. and it's very clear to me now that what happened in germany was not because of any peculiarity of the germans, as a

matter of fact. but szilard was essentially right that there not organized resistance in the way that a lot of things going on. i won't go into all that history. but anyway, szilard left and in 33 he was in london, where he read the newspaper, one morning that rutherford, who had first conceived of the neutron, had said of chadwick's discovery of the neutron, yes, this is very interesting and it will make for very interesting science. but the idea that it will be possible and in fact, you'll be able to bombard atoms with neutrons. and they had just actually split a lithium atom at that point. and he said it will have interesting effects, but it is pure moonshine to believe that. we'll get power from the neutral nucleus and leo szilard being who he was took that is quite irritated by this moonshine and he took it as a challenge. and that very day a reading that as he tells the story, he was

waiting for a red light to change just across from the british museum on london street corner as the light changed to green, he stepped off into the street and in the middle of the street, the thought occurred to him that if a nuclear reaction, if a reaction occurred by a bombard of neutrons in the atom, if neutrons were released, that could affect other atoms. you could get a chain reaction, and that's how you would get more power out when you put it. as robert four had supposed. and he that his friend victor, by the way, later said the only thing wrong with that story was the idea that he had never known leo szilard to wait for a light to change. he said, hey, know, attention to red light or something wrong with that story. but anyway, he alert did tell it off and he patented that. some years went by. your and in 1938 germans

scientists i had a reaction which to other german scientists one of them a woman, lisa meitner, realized had split the uranium atom. and he wondered, could this be the atom that i've been thinking about now for five years? so he borrowed money and he got a laboratory and whatnot to in order to test out whether other neutrons were released in the course of this. and let me break here for a moment. why? why i'm telling the story. i first heard of the possibility of an atom bomb. not at my youngest years, obviously, but when i was 13, in 1944. now, how many people here are saying 75 or older? are there? i suspect some. i mean, let me get a good look put your hands up. keep them up for a minute. how many of you with your hands

up keep your hand up, if possible. if. right. well, we're aware of the possibility of an atom bomb before august six, 1945. anybody? i don't see. i had a very peculiar experience. none of you were in the manhattan project very secret where the bomb was being made until that point. and of course, i wasn't either, nor was my father. he was in fact, a structural engineer, building factories for the production of bombing planes. he was the chief structural engineer in the ford willow run plant, which produced 24 bombers on an assembly line like cars for ford. and he took me out there once, i think, when i was 12. and the assembly line had planes starting out in just bare fuselages and moving along like cars, car bodies, people working on drilling, doing this and

that. or like i have to say, like carcasses and a slaughterhouse just moving along this line, which was a mile and a quarter long on this line. at the end, they dropped off, they were fueled up and they flew off to make war. so that's what my father was doing and he didn't know anything about atom bomb then. but i was in a i was a scholarship student in a private school called cranbrook in bloomfield hills, where most of my peers were were actually sons of car manufacturers. and so forth, and quite well-to-do. i was a student. i didn't want to didn't suffer for that at all, but i was in the just as a sophomore in the class in 1944, september, october, about now of i had a teacher named bradley patterson teaching social studies, and he was teaching this a concept called by a man named awkward

cultural lag. the idea that over the millennia, regularly technology had advanced faster than culture in various ways, but specific be more than institutions for controlling the technology that the morality laws institutions lagged behind looking back on a question whether they ever really caught up or whether that's the possibility anyway, that obviously a notion that kept getting rediscovered in the course of nuclear era. i won't go into that, but it's amazing how often i discovered that people were reinventing this idea as they looked at nuclear weapons. but anyway, bradley patterson in 1944, when the atom bomb was super secret, censored no mention harry truman as vice president knew nothing of it at that point. but bradley patterson had a

teacher, it turns out. he told me, after seeing his name in my book, he looked me up in his nineties. he's retired and now he had turned later became secretary of the national security council under eisenhower. but when he was a teacher in this high school, we were looking at ash and he said there is an element, it's a it's an isotope of uranium two, three, eight. you to 35, which is capable of a chain reaction that would produce a bomb. a thousand times more powerful than a blockbuster. now, those of you who raise your hands, i'm sure, will remember what a blockbuster was. the largest bombs of world war two were five, ten, 15, some of them were 20. the british had quite a 20 ton bombs for the lancaster we didn't have a bomber that could carry them, by the way. and they were cold blockbusters

because they would destroy a block of city buildings with one bomb and they were. by that time, though, i didn't know it being used on city buildings with people in them at night by the r.a.f. and and and going way by the us. they were being used to kill civilians and the idea then was a bomb. it would be a thousand times more powerful than that. and the question was you have a weak to write an essay, a short essay on how this would affect civilization or society. there was no emphasis as to who would get this actually, i think was kind of taken for granted that the germans would get it first. they had discovered the process in 38, 39, but that wasn't the issue because it wasn't clear when when this would come about. presumably after the war was no talk about it anyway.

how would that effect would it be for good or for bad would create peace, or would it be dangerous now think for a minute. i was 13 and as were my other classmates in this class, and we all came pretty much to the same conclusion. but ask yourself, you know, at your age now, you've never heard of such a bomb. you're not presented. is it a good thing or a bad thing to have a bomb? a thousand times more powerful than a backpack? well, think about it. think about it tonight. but i remember very well our reaction, which was the same as all our all my friends there, who were nearly all republican, by the way, which i wasn't like their parents. it would be bad news for humanity. bad enough that we had that were being used even by us, but a thousand times more don't need

that. humanity isn't up to that. okay now. i'll i'll jump ahead for a moment. nine months go by. none of you raise your hands earlier. we're in the same state of mind. and we weren't thinking about it particularly until that summer, august 6th, of perhaps it was august 7th in detroit. and i actually can remember the moment when i saw the headline, i remember the trolley car we used to have actually before gm bought them up and destroyed them. trolley car going along, electric car on wheels, clattering along the street as i looked at the headline which said that a city had been destroyed by a single bomb, the the announcement by truman, which i heard on the radio, was we have destroyed hiroshima, a

military base that false that was to reassure people, as he said, actually, in order to minimize civilian casualties, there was actually a base, more than one on the outskirts of the city. but it was hardly affected by the bomb. the bomb, the ground zero had been picked to maximize death of civilians and it killed estimates vary, but perhaps 80,000 people right away, about 150,000, 130, 150. by the end of year, with burns and radiation. but i looked at that and i'll put it to you and i won't even ask for hands here. well, actually, how many of you remember that day? you're your 7500 people here. remember the just a couple. oh, well, i'm surprised. okay. that's what i said. 75, not 88. you were maybe you were born

about that time. so you weren't you were looking at other things. but i was i was now 14 and i looked at that headline and say, i know what that is. that's the bomb that we've studied in bradley patterson's class last fall. we got it and we dropped it on a city. and i had a very ominous feeling. i can remember feeling very uneasy. e at perry truman's midwestern accents, you know, in his very flat, unemotional voice, saying this was the greatest thing, greatest development, wonderful that we got it rather than anybody else. and so in thinking there should have been more anguish in his voice, more concern, because i thought this i've already concluded after all, our class outside the manhattan project was almost the only group of people. we were 13 who had thought about

the possible implications of a bomb like that before it was dropped. and remember when it was dropped, it was in the best possible context in terms of receiving it. it was a jewish bomb developed by the sainted fdr, and my classmates didn't think he was seen it, but my family did. a lot of americans did done by fdr. it had ended the war. supposedly it couldn't been ended without an invasion killing a million people. it was a savior of american lives. as a result, almost americans then and ever since have thought too bad to kill those people. but it saved a lot of americans and it saved even japanese from an invasion. these premises is, by the way, claimed by secretary of war stimson. later, a year later, in an article in harper's and why everybody since then are all

false, as i've learned later. but i'm not going to spend time on that. but given the premise is that it saved lives, even though it did kill 100,000 people, was a lesser evil, unnecessary evil, it was not an evil. it was legitimized in a way that could almost not have happened any other way. imagine if the nazis, who had no bomb program at that time, they had stopped giving up in june of 42, just on the grounds that they couldn't get it in time for the war. hitler wanted a short war, so they'd given up at the very same month. by coincidence that, we embarked on the manhattan project, in part because leo gilardi in 1939 had been driven by edward teller to come back to him to visit, and wagner vienna to visit einstein and get his signature in 1939. in august, a month before the war started in 1939, in august,

convincing fdr that he should start a crash program on this, which didn't actually start as a crash right away. but it got rolling and this was the start of it. and if the reaction was you're telling me the germans might get this and we have to get it first, right? yes, right. he signed it. they went on that. however, what i'm saying is my unease about that at that time, some people have said, oh, he couldn't a friend of mine couldn't really have thought that at 13 i was very happy about it. but he had been in that class and he hadn't really thought about what the future might hold. well, it wasn't just 13 year old adolescent who saw an ominous thing in this jailbird himself, having patented the idea, i wanted to find out if uranium might be an element that would give the extra neutrons and

started train reaction. so i won't go into details. he actually had to borrow some money and he got a block of beryllium. i think it was something to work with and he put it up on a didn't have till an oscilloscope bombarding it with slow neutrons to see if it would on the screen be any evidence of more neutrons coming out that his idea might actually work. and by the way, nothing else in physics demanded that this be the case. if it had not been the case, you know, almost nothing would be different except for the possibility of an atom bomb. you know, no other physical theory would have to be changed, but they couldn't predicted. so they he with his friend, turned it on the obstacle to stop supposedly. and nothing happened. and then the other guy realized they hadn't plugged it in. so they plugged in the oscilloscope and so large saw

flashes confirming his suspicion, quote, this is from my version of the facts that neutrons were emitted in the fusion process of uranium. and this in turn would mean that the large scale liberation of atomic energy was just around the corner. he says. we watch them flashes for a little while, and then we switched everything off and went home. that night there was very little doubt in my mind that the world was headed for grief. well, you know, few years later, as i said, having heard about the bomb myself, months later, i realized we have use, if you wish, use this nazi like bomb, because imagine if the nazis had, in fact, had one bomb. they didn't have much chance for many that we had under bombardment and with uranium. but supposing it had one or two or three and he'd use it would

have been the very apotheosis of nazi bombing. it would be like the blitz of bombing, firebombing on a scale of a thousand or the japanese cars in shanghai or chungking, the not the franco regime with actually nazi planes and italian planes. condor legion in guernica in 1932, leading to the picasso all famous mural of civilians being killed and, you know, i didn't make a note here, but there was know i have it what happened in september 39 when the war started. the second, which is, you know, 70 years ago now, right on september the first, when the.

first attack went on. here it is. in the poland of franklin roosevelt, addressed this appeal to all the belligerent states. the ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in on fortified centers, which has raged in various quarters of the earth. he was talking about guernica, shanghai, so forth, which had led to u.n., not un league of nations protests, protests by the us and so forth. at the time said has shocked a sickened the hearts of civilized men and women and is profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity. this is on september 1st. no big bombing going on, tanks rolling across the border in poland. if resort has had this form of human barbarism during the period of tragic conflict with

which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for and who are not even remotely participating in the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives hundreds of thousands. i am therefore directing this appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall, in no event and under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all their opponents, i request an immediate reply. the british, who had not yet declared war, they were about to immediately said yes, as did hitler, who had by the way, no intention of doing at that point what fdr was denouncing.

he knew he was vulnerable. he didn't want german cities hit in, given strict orders which weren't entirely obeyed. not to get that process started. and he said yes, a key thing, by the way, before the blitz, before the british bombed germany, was that some german bombers promised bombed london, thinking they were elsewhere over a over report which churchill took as the immediate signal now to do what he had wanted to do for some time, he felt what we can do is bomb cities. and so he sent the bombers over germany. very well. that's a long story, which i tell here in some detail what i wanted to make a point was fdr. his words there now, which anybody have any memory of ever having heard such a declaration here. i don't i don't seem to have it quite striking was not something fdr had invented that reflected the thousand years of from thomas acquaintance and to some

degree, 2000 from augustine, saying that the key notion of just war and just means in war. in other words, the kind of war that could also could be very it could be participated in by christians. the key thing was the absolute immunity from direct attack of noncombatants. so the terms, the basis of the law of war and always had been hague conventions, the geneva, everything else that was key. so fdr was just saying we've seen this violated by bestial tactics in china and in spain. that's all observed that we will not do this. okay. which everybody agreed to right away, very reluctantly on the british side, because churchill really was very anxious to carry this out. but he had to go along and.

carry the story forward fast for every bomb that germany dropped on london or england, of course, the war, which killed a lot of people, something like 40,000 people, the us raaf dropped more than ten bombs on german cities and by the end of the war had killed, some say 300,000. but a better figure is 600,000 germans, civilians, including two firestorms as it were, trying to do every time. and i'll explain what that is in a minute, because it's very pertinent in hamburg and dresden, they tried to create a firestorm in february in berlin, but couldn't get it started because they didn't have wooden dwellings there. they were brick and masonry, and they killed 25,000 people in one night. what the lemay general made was put in charge in the pacific

with the express purpose from his bosses. general stead later ran trustee that i remember addressing about the vietnam war and hap arnold, who created the rand corporation later in the day, actually was one of the first sponsors of the rand corporation, and i later worked for the force, but he sent 300 bombers on three on lowell to 7000 feet instead of 25 or 30,000. so to have more bomb would of incendiaries, napalm, white phosphorous, some others. i by the way, we'll come back to this. but in vietnam i saw children in hospitals who had been burned by our napalm. the vichy didn't have an image and are white phosphorous. the napalm creates peculiar scars on people and on the children.

the white phosphorous burns through the skin to the bone. you see white bloom from the children in their and actually it is. it is outlawed under the chemical warfare convention against civilians. it's supposed to be used for illumination and for smoke because and i've it dropped in vietnam from small planes. it's very beautiful you can't miss white phosphorous. it comes up like this and a wonderful fireworks display, if you like. fireworks, which i do nothing like it. extremely white folks with little scarlet tips at the end of the plumes on this. except, as i say, i knew at that point what i was looking at, that this burns through to the bone. and as a former marine, i had said long and i, i trained with flame throwers and napalm had said to myself, i don't want to be defended by napalm. let me sound sentimental, but i

wasn't alone in that point of there's other stories about that white phosphorous was just used by turkey against kurds in the last week and what came out yesterday was it a number dozens of british firms had sold the phosphorous to turkey, which being used against kurdish civilians as we speak. right now. okay. well, was used on japan, tokyo, i have believed for a very long time that you can't understand the nuclear era unless you understand the strategic bombing, the firebombing of world war two. you can't understand how we got where we are. i think i have to say what happened in tokyo on the night of march 9th and 10th, more people were killed then in either hiroshima or nagasaki on

the first night, and virtually more than both of them together, between 80,000 and 120,000, it was the largest massacre as lemay bolstered the largest destruction of life in human history and actually in his memoir, he goes through the london fire, the tokyo fire, the san francisco fire. no, we out we did more than that. it was firebombed. it got a firestorm started, which means the winds were brought in because it was such a widespread fire that winds it created its own weather and the winds were brought in hurricane force into this thing like a bellows in a furnace, bringing new oxygen, the fire increasing the temperature to over 1500 degrees fahrenheit. so people all the the oxygen is burned in the shelters. the executed as in dresden. if you've read how many red

slaughterhouse-five, but you've heard the description of that. well, funny vonnegut was in a slaughterhouse five and thus survived as a prisoner of war, the dresden bombing, and came out and found people dehydrated by the heat to the size of little gingerbread men, basically. okay. well, in tokyo, a month later, no people, as they say, in the shelters were executed. but if they tried with their families and their babies and we japanese have the infants strapped either in their back or front like swaddling to escape the shelters, they were turned into human torches on the street because the asphalted metal was burning and they couldn't move. and so the street was filled with human tortures and many accounts of people who survived see babies caught out these hurricane winds into the flames

from their mother's arms or swaddling. but many of them set out to go in the canals. it turns out tokyo then was crisscrossed with canals like finish and they went to the canals to escape the heat. but the canals were boiling and tens of thousands boiled to death. and the the the smell of roasting flesh sickened the pilots who were bouncing from the air currents that were going up here. they had to put on oxygen masks because they were nauseated by the smell of human flesh. okay. the point is. after that, this is six years after fdr. some people fdr was dead by this time, but he had put all of this in and he was president under tokyo, under the tokyo fire, when during that helping lemay proceeded under this great success of destroying so much

part of tokyo and so many people to do the same tactics and the same thing to the next 67 cities in role. in fact, i just happened to read yesterday. he took an almanac by population and he went down the list of population for 67 cities. so they killed. some 900,000 japanese civilians before hiroshima and nagasaki which together added about 300,000 between the two of them,. 1.2 million people killed, which by the way is about how many were killed in auschwitz, were gassed, you know, and actually they didn't die better than the people in auschwitz of being burned alive is not a better death. and if that's sounds, you know, odd to hear, i'm sure. yes. submarine. i was trained to fight. i was a company commander, was very proud of it. i was in vietnam. clearly, i was not a pacifist.

and i'm not now a total person, although much, much more skeptical of any claimed rationale for going to war, for killing people. but still, marines know they face this stuff. there are better and worse ways to die. and actually this was a bad way. that's why i didn't want to be protected by napalm. so. the ends lemay is made head of the second head of strategic air command believes that he has won a war which was wrong by bombing, not by the atom bomb. by the way, he had mixed feelings about using the atom bomb, actually, which he was in charge of, because as his his superior in back of carl spots had i said, how can we justify a larger force when one plane that's the work of 300 and they

were very uneasy about that at first. there's an irony here. i'm looking at my wife. it's so happens that carl spotts is the godfather of one of patricia's brothers in curtis lemay is the godfather of another. and rosie o'donnell, who led the bomb, led bomb campaign into tokyo, is another godfather. that's strange, i think, but trivia here, so are the first atom targets, the planning, which is schilling's moscow. one population. moscow kiev in ukraine and so forth. odessa, leningrad. so the first eight cities, then 11 cities, as we got a few more bombs, then when the russians got a bomb, 49 pretty much when szilard and the others had predicted it, lemay now could say, oh, every air, air, air base in all of east europe and

russia is a potential source of attacks on it. so their targets, 500 targets were added almost overnight to our target list, but we didn't have that many bombs we had by 1952 under under truman, the bombs having gone onto mass production bases like the planes at ford will or run of of numbered about a thousand, all aimed at cities basically, if i can leap ahead, if that plan had been carried out in the berlin crisis in 48, we wouldn't be here because for reasons no one knew at that time, the firestorms create by those atom bombs would have propelled smoke upwards. we always thought of the firestorm as intense only causing temperatures that would kill people, but it had some other effect. where there's smoke, there's

fire and that that may seem a truism, except from that day to this. we know the joint have never included fire in the effects of their war plans. too hard to calculate. they include blast prompt radiation an immediate heat and fallen radioactivity came from their not fire because it's too hard to calculate. depends on the weather. it depends on, you know, whether it's wood or, you know, what you're dealing with. they've never caught fire and so they never thought about smoke. but the smoke, as in some of these other cities in tokyo where there no firestorms was not really a big problem. it dissipates. it's out. the smoke from a firestorm is propelled up by the firestorm into the upper troposphere, the low edge of the stratosphere where. it is warmed further by sunlight and goes further into the

stratosphere where it doesn't rain out and it surrounds the globe. first. within days and prevents about in a large war, which is the only kind we're prepared for with russia. 70% of the sunlight is blocked out. so the temperatures on the air during this age of global warming, but for about a decade or at least much of a decade, certainly for several years, the temperatures actually are like the ice age killing at the very least all the harvests below freezing part of every night, if not during the day, all the harvests are killed. world war i and most of the vegetation and nearly everyone would starve to death within about a year. i won't go further into that world. supplies of food are about 60 days concentrated in some countries like ours.

it's a food exporter, but we would stop exporting very quickly those of us who the blast and would last a little longer than food importing countries, but not a year and not ten years, which is how this was long. so essentially, if truman has plans had been carried out because he said we're lucky that didn't happen, you wouldn't be here. you're those are the younger your your parents would have died. you would have died. you were to starve to death again, not a good way to die by the way. it's it's not overnight, but what? your children go first. and the old. and that's what happened to nearly everybody in 1952. okay eisenhower in inherits a thousand atom bombs. the h-bomb comes in basically and is conceived in 5251, rather is tested pretty much in 52.

but the first probable h-bomb is in 54. under eisenhower, i let me as fast. how many people here? very honestly, frankly, feel you know the difference between in a bomb in an h-bomb. i see. maybe 15 hands. how many do not you okay, here, you're tracking here and some are not sure whether you know a lot or do not know. but very to the bottom to make it easy to to a bomb, to destroy hiroshima and a plutonium a-bomb on nagasaki a thousand times more than the blockbuster. a fusion bomb works by splitting heavy elements and releasing the h-bomb called is hydrogen bomb because its fuel is basically hydrogen lithium to the right

and hydrogen and works by fuzing together the lightest element. so the instead of splitting and releases more energy than the heavier and the fastest way to describe the difference that i was asking for is this way, every h-bomb, of which nearly of our bombs are h-bomb and have been a long time small, large, every h-bomb requires a magazine type, a bomb as its trigger. and this detonator percussion cap. when you're looking at a picture of nagasaki, which by the way, i saw just the other nagasaki side side with tokyo, they look exactly the same after the firebombing. you can't really see any difference, but the victims look very much the same there. most of the people in nagasaki from burns not from any else and

the same people, same in hiroshima and nagasaki died from burns. okay. which you're looking at in a picture of nagasaki is the picture what happens to a city when you exclude on the trigger to a modern thermonuclear weapon and h-bomb, the percussion cut, as i say, eisenhower inherited five roughly a thousand a-bomb. by the time he lived office. eight years later, we had 21,000 nuclear weapons, mostly bombs. that's what i came. well, actually, i worked under eisenhower in 58, 59, 63 rand corporation, then kennedy came in. i worked a great deal in the pentagon kennedy inherits 21,000. and when he went to the nixon. it's. 27,000 weapons, much smaller

number of at that point. now how did i from my 30 year old anguish about a nuclear era come to be as i alluded to right now, it's in the book working on war plans, which i was well, because i was told and top secret as soon as i got a top secret clearance in 58 when i was 27, that. the russians were had a program of icbm, they were a little ahead of us in testing an icbm. and were like as hitler would have done had he had the bombs had he had actually built was working night and day to have the ability to wipe out our strategic command and have a monopoly of nuclear weapons and run the world essentially and destroy us in the process. their main rival.

so just the way zijlaard ended up working the bomb, which is misgiving about the world coming to grief, i was working on planes for the same reason to prevent a nuclear war from happening. szilard worried about a german program that we had to first again, which didn't exist. it was plausible. i was worried about a soviet program as were all my colleagues and i learned it from them. same reason to prevent a nuclear war from happening by having the ability to retaliate. and szilard had been concerned no, actually, my mentor and boss, albert wolff's, that are of made the point very much that it might be hard under a soviet surprise attack to ensure that they would lose people as much

as they had in world war two, which, as he said in writing, they recovered very well. and a few years. so that's hardly a basis for deterrence adequately. so we were working very hard to assure that under the most the best possible soviet surprise, we would be able to kill more than they had suffered in world war two. now, as i say in the book, one way of describing that was planning for retaliatory genocide, killing 24 or 20, 30, 40 million people under any circumstance, the genocide. we obviously didn't think of it that way. it's retaliation. but the concern conscience of what could be done in the world had evolved quite a bit since september one, 1949, 1941, with fdr and again i might say by the way, when i say i'm very

surprised to be here when i went around in 58, it was 27 when i went there permanently. i was 28. the other younger, the only other young person in the department was allan enthoven, later an assistant secretary of defense. we were each about 28. rand had a very generous retirement fund. actually. tiaa cref universal fund, which which supplied maybe a lot of you have that lucky you because very generous. the institution provides more than half of the money for that. neither alan or i joined tiaa cref because in that period of the missile gap where they were ahead of us, we didn't think there was a chance we would collect on that. we were doing our best and i never got around to doing it. alan was smart enough and i was irresponsible. i never got around to joining a retirement plan. so you miss archive is my retirement from the work i've

been saying like pushing for years that my retirement plan was present and we'll how that comes out. but even if i'm in thanks to my archive of our son will able to keep our house which did not to be in the cards but i quoted zijlaard in. 38. he was actually the person who conceived the passion i mean didn't he patently nuclear reactor in which they make plutonium but he and enrico fermi were in charge of the reactor beneath a football field stagg field in chicago, university of chicago. so zijlaard was there the day that they got the reactor going, which, by the way the germans who did pursue an energy program, not a bomb program, never got a reactor program going. they had concluded the graf i was not a suitable moderator and

zijlaard had had realized that most graphite had was impure, had some boron, and you had to have super grade graphite without the boring two to enable you to have this this reaction. and so he again was in effect responsible for the feasibility of this. and on december. sixth 1941, a 42 rather not prohibiting. he watches the flashes on the oscilloscope sending the counters when they take the rods out the by the way the rods with the moderators were on ropes and there were people above standing there in a balcony with axes to cut the ropes and get those rods back as fast as possible so as not to blow up chicago and. but they didn't have to. it worked. they watched a while. they were getting a moderated. reaction not a bomb for reactors

and zijlaard takes out somebody brought out a flask of candy pre-war and they pass it around the others and zijlaard says fermi this day will go down as a black day. human history. no, that actually hasn't happened, has it? first of all, you don't even know the day i've forgotten here, but certainly not thought of the black day that we did that and the war hasn't happened. it wasn't just alan and i. he thought that war was likely. i don't think any of the manhattan people who mostly protesters of the bomb and resistors later could imagine that 70 years would go by with no more nuclear explosions on people didn't nobody expected has to be explained. there's various ways to. explain it. i mention it came up last night at dinner and explain that many people see not only the

hiroshima bomb as a savior, but the arms race, which did as having saved us from. not only a big war, russia. whether that was in the cards or not, but even little war with russian troops to no, actually we haven't shot russians and they haven't shot us with one example during the one exception during the cuban missile crisis when a soviet colonel acting against orders shot down major anderson, his u-2, and that was the casualty as an overt casualty in the war. how come we haven't had war? that could have escalated in here? well, the bombs on sides, people very cautious so people are very grateful to them. why changed? it's you. it's worked so far. and that's not without possibility. i would say it's not even

without some truth. actually, i won't go through the whole argument. but i think, for example, had the russians not had a deterrent as a 49, we would have used nuclear in korea. we would if we'd had a one. and if the chinese had not a weapon in 64, which i was in the pentagon at that time, and i remember the day very well, we would used nuclear weapons in vietnam and we had the plans for and we had the readiness for it. we had everything else, but the chinese had a weapon. so the standoff together kept us. and by the way, we you know, from the war, from very good, except at the cost of a genuine. zero risk, a positive risk, much smaller year by year, year by year, occasionally high in the cuban missile crisis.

and i don't have time to go into that, but i in the book, of course, and in another case that you don't know about, i'm almost sure 1983, when andropov believed that reagan was crazy and preparing a first strike with his talk of an evil empire and with the biggest buildup of first strike weapons since kennedy and the biggest till now under obama and, trump is possible that putin thinks, the current president, is a little boring and impulsive. hard to predict as andropov thought and andropov was ready to preempt that to go first rather than second in the belief held by our own air force wrongly, that going first has to be at least as good or better

actually not with nuclear winter hitting even few city well a couple hundred. i meant to see those cities which we we had targeted in one every city over hundred thousand in the soviet and 80% of those over 10,000 in the soviet union and every city in china. okay more than enough to cause nuclear winter. but any war now would cause nuclear war we're going against targets. so many of them were in cities or near cities. the cities would go had andropov done what he was ready do in 83 and had a false alarm. in the very midst of that, in which a colonel, stanislav petrov, was told by all of his subordinates, announce that we're under attack because the alarms were going off. red lights refreshing the screens were showing five missiles on their way to russia. and he wasn't and didn't want to

end the world. and he lied to his superiors and said in a fellow andropov. but up to andropov, not what he thought, which was that it was perhaps a 50% chance that they were under attack. his subordinates thought 100% he wasn't sure because the ground based radars were not yet showing what they should have been showing. so he wasn't sure which one are wrong. but instead of saying 50%, which is he told me indirectly in a message he knew would cause them to preempt, he and said false alarm and he wasn't sure of that anyway, for the next 10 minutes to see whether it turned, he was censured for this, for lying to his superiors. he was forced out, he had a breakdown, this and that died recently. stole petrov. there was a bbc film about him. other films with the title the man who saved the world, which

is true. we would not be here if petrov had said either we're under attack or. there's a 50% chance we're under attack because they were poised to go, so we wouldn't be here in 1961. i working in on these plans in the belief that the russians had a great many more missiles than we had. we had 40 intercontinental ballistic. a number, about 40 submarines, missiles, propellers, and actually close to 4000 and planes within range of russia. so moving planes in effect. but they had the icbm later that year, i would said strategic air command headquarters. lemay is now the vice chief of the air force and his power was now the shock headquarters with the commander that lemay had been replaced. power, power, by the way, had

done what lemay wanted to do and led the raid into, by the way, power is not a godfather. i think of any sure brothers, but yeah, power was now the chief regarded by his superior. his subordinates, by the way, is clinically insane and paranoid and cruel. a sadist. but anyway, that's another story. but he was in charge of sec in charge of the war planes and he said the russians in august of 61 had 1000 icbm and i tell was more almost the funny story connected with that. oddly enough. but the actual reality is we knew two months later, after a reconnaissance satellite had finally gone through the whole of all the possible things they didn't have a thousand. they they had four, four.

we had 40. we had thousands of planes. 2000 strategic bombers. i said 4000. but a better figure was 3000. 2000 strategic bombers and 1000 tactical bombers. and range. they had four icbm at that point. so there was a total myth at that point, basically a hoax by the air force, which was trying to get thousands of minuteman missiles and couldn't do if the russians had four icbm. but once we learned, did we change actually, which we learned in october on a program at this point we had no minuteman. did we say to the air force, you can't have the 10,000? lemay asked for or even the 6000 or the 14 or the six or 600, because you kind of know boeing and lockheed and raytheon and general dynamics were building missiles and there were

contracts be had, as there are today, when there is not a single excuse for there being icbms, even from a cold war point of view in a world where both sides have submarine launched missiles. but in april, having written the guidance for the war plans and, you know, strange, how could they do that at 30 years old? how a 30 year old, a friend of mine said, that's frightening. at 30, you were writing the guidance for the war plan. yeah, it is. but you should have seen the plan. i was replacing by eisenhower. but in the course of that, i run out of time here. i know, but this is in a way, the point in. order to embarrass the joint chiefs. their current plans, which for hitting every city in russia and, china and so forth on the first strike on everything else,

i asked a number of for mcnamara to send to the joint chiefs. and one of those questions were picked up by the deputy to mcgeorge bundy in the white house. cormier and he sent it to the chiefs in the name of the president. john f kennedy. how many people will be killed in the soviet union? in china alone? if your plans carried out as planned? and remember, they were first strike plan, our commitment to naito was then and now to initiate nuclear war. first use, first strike against the overwhelming non-nuclear forces of the soviet. well. the soviet union is no. russia has tremendously gone down. i think. i don't know. i think their forces are something on the order of, you know, 10% or something like that except for their nuclear forces, which are quite pretty. and we still have the first u.s.

commitment as a basis of natal and nobody can get out after the cold war over. okay, so plan is carried out. how many people will be killed? and i said, only the soviet union because i thought they didn't have an answer. i'd been told by colonels. they never computed that they didn't to know it any more than. they wanted to know about smoke because if knew about another effect here, you'd knew you'd need less planes in response to do it. forget about smoke. well, they weren't thinking about smoking. the stratosphere, but came back with an answer. i was wrong, i say. i said only soviet union, china because i didn't to say, wait, we have to compare compute albania here. give us a little more time. and so it just so the answer back in a chart with a horizontal axis time to allow for follow on to kill more people over a month period month by on vertical axis of

fatalities not casualties fatality. and i won't take time at this to do a quiz of how many people you thought you might think the joint chiefs would tell the that if he ordered us to carry our commitment to needle how many people would be killed in the soviet china and i'll just say when i do that people often guess. 10 million come on you know 10 million in moscow alone. it's got to be higher than 20. the number. was 275 million in the first week. but then over six months there would be 50 million more from follow. and 325,000,006 months. well, they had a calculation done which i hadn't expected. so we asked another question

from. the white house, how many altogether. and that came back not in a graph, but a chart which in a table. and that said another hundred million in top of the 325 million, another hundred million in east europe, the captive nations in part by hitting radar stations and air defenses and whatnot. so that our bombers could get through to moscow. 100 million people of hungarians, poles and millions when another 100 million in west europe needle, depending on the winds, depended on the weather from follow up without a single warhead of ours falling on west europe, keep in mind. by the way, this did not include russian retaliate and although they had only four icbm. so in 61 they had hundreds of range missiles in range of

europe. so they would have wiped out europe. the weather was and without the but we ourselves would destroy 100 million people in the middle and another hundred million. this is roughly but it's very close in contiguous areas, neutral countries like sweden, finland, austria afghanistan, japan, more or less of an ally. india, a total of 600 million. so so i thought that's 100 holocausts. and i looked that piece of paper, the first 325, and i thought, this is the most evil plan that has ever existed. and this wasn't some thing in the future war might involve or whatnot. this was the annual operational plan for the actual existing forces on alert as they are now.

and then it meant missiles to go if either the president or his i knew i won't go into this somebody else ordered them to go. it was not only the president who could do this. it was an almost unknown number of fingers on the button. then and now and you don't have to worry then or ever that if washington is destroyed by a terrorist bomb or by a bomb or by a if the president is killed, that our forces will be paralyzed. we and the russians have always delegated in a way that if communications are out with the capital, you can be sure the forces are released and will carry out their plans. and that's probably true in every nuclear state, certainly in a number of them. how many fingers on the button? almost no head state, probably. no. it's very hard to know exactly who might do it without authorization, without

reservation. but the point i was looking at was this gave me a question about my species and about my country, america, that it's certainly not been in my mind before. i knew by this time how many civilians had deliberately targeted in world two. but that had, after all, been started by the nazis, been started. they declared war on us, performed by the japanese and then i got into that. i knew that a lot of people would be killed. in fact, i'd been helping to make sure that a lot of people would be killed if we were attacked. this was in the first strike, 600 million. now, the reality was, first of all, they weren't coming fire. so that would have taken it up to a billion right away. the world population was 3 billion. so it's one third of the earth's population. and it's edward teller who invented the h-bomb with samuel,

has said, including my presence at the most in my h-bomb, will kill a third of the earth's population. two thirds left raw. okay. the smoke would kill everybody. and that was true. and it's true right now. in other words, we do have what hermann klein might call a good called a doomsday machine, which he conjectured at the time was a concern that was just for a mind experiment that no one would ever want to build, would want to kill everyone. what? well, no one wanted to kill everyone. in fact, no one ever, except conceivably lemay. and that's not a joke. no one wanted to first strike in this or in russia. nobody wanted to carry out those planes and come down to it, as reagan put it in 586, a nuclear war cannot be won and must not

be fought, which he said with gorbachev, but he did not say must not be threatened, must not be prepared for must not be ready, must not be risked. and every president since, for the last 50, since 50 or so, has been prepared, has made first use threats. sometimes very exclusively in a given moment secretly from the american public. other times not been prepared to carry this out. the $1.7 trillion modernization program in this. and a comparable one in russia is to, quote, modernize our doomsday, which is what they are. and nobody wants them to be launched except that if they are which is absolutely possible,

everybody go, not everybody, extinction is really the problem. it's kind of a straw man. maybe as much as 10% of the people would survive, according to alan. robert, i i to on mollusks and seafood on the coast of australia and new zealand. that's 70 million people. a lot of people historically. but 90% or within year do we have a right to have such a capability with a non zero possibility if it's actually going off. and let me tell you it has never been close to zero. and there have been a number of times when it is very in fact it was the way to bet on october 26, 1962, when i was in the pentagon and working for the white house. if you'd known everything at

that time in the book you'd have to say this is going to happen is is going to go off. we didn't know. about 600 million making in america. my boss that night on saturday night october 26 looked as he left the white house in a beautiful sunset as he left the white house to go back to the pentagon. and he's recorded several times. i thought to myself, i might never see another sunset. he see another sunset? who would not his family, not not the rest of america, not us, not needle, not asia. and this is hey, what we now know nobody, not the southern hemisphere. no. did he tell the president this must not happen. you've got to accept khrushchev's latest offer of the trade. no, he didn't. he went back to the pentagon and prepared to carry it out. he was not the worst that's ever

moved by any means. he was very smart and really had very instincts in many ways. and he was against nuclear weapons, and yet he records that he was in a chain of command, which he felt another way he other put it was i might never see another saturday night. well, that's a whole week away. when sunset one day we know that anybody else tell the country or else of did i that's and in other words we're always hearing about. that's not us and that's not american. that's not who we are. well, i'm telling you who we are, among other things, including some very good things. there's a country that has constructed doomsday machine is in the process of of

reconstructing it. this is russia as is eight other countries, to a somewhat lesser extent in the in pakistan, go to war over kashmir which they are fighting each other over right now. if they go to war in, it escalates to nuclear war. it will not cause nuclear winter. it will only starve, according to ira, helping can this about 2 billion people out of 7.4, they have a right to be threatening. they're planning it, preparing it risky. how can that be possible? and yet we're learning a lot of things about who we are that we didn't know. i've learned more about who we are since charlottesville in the study of civil war and racism in this country than i ever knew before who we are as a country. the president's base of support that will allow him to do anything, as we're hearing today in polls, is actually, among other things, are good people by many, many different standards,

and they are racist and misogynist and homophobic and fundamentalist and absolutely supportive of. israel, among other things, because unless all the -- go back to israel, i'm talking about the fundamentalist who are 38% of america, and that's all the -- go back to israel. the messiah cannot come. the second coming cannot come pre millennial dispensation was here. the rapture can't happen. so. that's who we are to a considerable extent. i'll close with this. my late and i wish i had come to it earlier. my hero. there's no one i admire more in this world than 16 year old greta thunberg at this moment. and on my wife and i only give

you one with one piece of good news. i was unhappy. we met her. we had a good long talk with her in. sweden joined her in her striped in front of the parliament on a snowy morning. about 60 people from school. two months later, thanks to her, 1.6 million young people had struck from school. two months later, on a friday morning leaving their school. so last october, 4 to 6 million abroad. however, has her eye very much on the ball. and what i learned and she doesn't say, she says the question is are the emissions going down and they aren't. now what i learned this afternoon, 2 hours ago is i was unhappy when she didn't get the nobel prize, which she was the odds on for. but i said to patricia, when that happened, there isn't a

person on this planet whose behavior will be affected or whose mood will be less affected by whether does or does not win. the nobel prize. i was sure of that. well, this afternoon it turns out that last night she was given a an award by the nordic council for awakening a debate on the world on this which carries with it a prize of 3,070,000 danish kroner or $52,000, which she turned down this morning. and she said the environmental movement, the climate movement, does not need we don't need more awards. he said, you nordic countries talk a good game. you say you have a reputation for environment and whatnot, but your emissions are going up and what counts is action is getting the emissions going down.

and now i will end with a good piece of good news. not on climate actually, but on on what could be done. somebody asked me yesterday a professor here, isabella, a question in my lecture. can you think of any catastrophes have been averted by a whistleblower or political action or, you know by prompt action of some kind, a climate not very clearly now, not hard. you know, i actually couldn't think of anything i said. i'm sure, there are things that i have never been asked a question before and nothing comes to mind right away. and then i realized later quite wrong. that was really wrong. patricia, you remember when we talked to greta in in sweden? i wanted to tell her and i said, i'm very appreciative of the fact that you are not just demonstrating, but you're striking.

you're taking off during a school day, exposing yourself to a risk and kicked out of school and getting whipped. and so and i said there is actually a very promising precedent for that in this. what could have been my to isabella yesterday on october 15th, 1969, 50 years ago plus, a few days, 50 years ago, 2 million people march, not only saturday or sunday, but on a weekday. it was a general strike against the war on vietnam. they had thought of calling it a general strike, which was what it was. take from universities, take off from on a weekday and hear speeches, lobby congress, do this and that. but they were worried about calling.

the strike sounded to provocative of so they called it a moratorium, basically, basically banks, not businesses as usual moratorium. what none of them, including me at that point. and i had started copying the pentagon papers on october 1st, 1969, 50 years ago. let's october 1st started copying pentagon papers. i had i was worried that the war would lead to nuclear war. eventually, but probably not until an offensive in sometime in 72, when the offensive did occur in 72. nixon is heard on the tapes and convincing see is how many did we kill? how many would be killed in lunch groaning, kissinger says. about 200,000 civilians. nixon says.

very matter of fact, we no, no, no, no. we'd rather use a nuclear bomb. got that henry kissinger says credit. oh, i think that would be just too much. that bothers you, henry, the nuclear bomb. i just want to think big, for christ's sakes. this is where we have come. this is where we in where i afraid we would be coming in 69. but what i didn't know was that nixon had plans nuclear war in 69. on november third, the anniversary sri of the bombing halt which he felt had him almost, almost cost him the election a year earlier. so he had made threats directly the russians and directly to the vietnamese, a massive escalation going into loans, going into cambodia going to north vietnam, mining, hitting the -- after oil and nuclear targets had been

picked. nobody in those 2 million people knew, including me. so i was copying the pentagon papers because someone here well, first of all, someone here, john key channel who introduced me to and thinking a year earlier and had led me to be at the war resisters league conference in haverford in august war resisters, being a group with an honorary chairman of albert einstein, conscientious objectors during and after world war one and world war two, i went to conference and there i heard another here, randy keeler, who was on his way to prison, who put had put in my mind the thought it could be worth going to prison to help in this war, because i can see the effect on me over in doing that. he's showing me that that's something i could do. i could put the pentagon papers and go to prison for life. i could do other things because

he's not that different from me. younger and harvard. and so i had copied the pentagon papers, but not with the thought that we were averting nuclear war in 69, which we were doing and did. and nixon himself says, i understood, from those demonstrations on october 15th and another one on november, bracketing time, he intended to launch nuclear war, 2 million people in the streets when they didn't know he was planning nuclear war. not good if you use nuclear weapons at that point, the country would have shut down. it wouldn't have been 1.2 school kids. general strike, i believe we were ready for it and it would have happened. so he didn't do it. actually. how many people here remember october 15th and november 15, 1969. okay. some of you, i think were not very old at point.

there were people in strollers on their back. they were doing exactly what their parents were doing, preventing nuclear war, nothing less than that is. going to make the moral here and the planning change and the operational change and the institutional change, nothing less than that. and that could only one thing among many, but a readiness to take risks, a readiness to show a willingness to stop business as usual, to get in the wheels of the war machine. like i said in in berkeley, all of that will be necessary and more is likely to change things quite, attenberg said in one of her recent speeches in their collected book that you should get triggered, she says to a group of parliamentarians, here's what has to be done. i don't believe for a second

that you will rise to that challenge, but i hope i will. that's what she said. well, that's where i am. after all, that's not an idle hope. i started this whole thing by saying, after all, i was wrong, that we get through seven years. we through without a nuclear war. we it actually happened could happen again. it was a miracle, as far as i see a miracle it took look. tremendous luck, but it happened and it was possible in the soviet union. i don't think there was one person in the world who would have said in 1983, the berlin wall will be down in 1989. that wasn't only that was impossible. nobody even thought of it. and when reagan did say, take down that wall, he was not kidding or something, you know, now, nobody thought, yeah, nice

thing to say. but, you know, impossible. but it happened. tony lewis said a majority rule in south africa, in the new york times, without a violent revolution impossible, it the impossible happened actually, the change that needs to take in this country in the rest of the is not less than what happened under gorbachev in the soviet union. not less than what happened in south africa, which not create any heaven on earth in either case, but which was just the impossible happening. and that's what gratitude work is saying. yes, it is not impossible. it is possible. and that's what we have to work with. and in a large. thank you.

why our use of the time. but you want to go on and not i'm happy to let you come up. we'll do a couple we'll do a couple. thank you. hello there. my name is rob cox. i'm one of the gnomes who works the archive in special collections collections. then is said how surprised he is to be here. i think listening to everything he said tonight, i think we're all surprised to be here. but we're also grateful to be here. and i'm really very happy that dan, as a member of the umass family now. so if we can just say thank

again. thank you. that's really what i want to. i think one thing i was i'm tempted as a former paleontologist to talk about extinction, but i won't i won't subject you to that. but as a historian, i'm particularly grateful to hear how dan has tied his history into the issues that are so current for us today. and there's better evidence of how these archives will affect we go as we as we go forward, all affect what we think and do in the world around us. so with that what i'd like to do is open the floor for just a couple of questions for dan, if anybody has it, i'll try to point people. i will warn you that because i don't my glasses, i can't see beyond the first row. but give a shot. we have one right back there in the middle of the aisle. if we have somebody with a microphone and. please do speak up and try to get you the question to dan.

and with my hearing i may have to have it. i will. i will hide. ellsberg i covered you actually. berkeley. my name is helen burge and you divulge the pentagon papers during what was known as the living room war. we knew about it. we are not getting the video of anything. nothing's in real time anymore. nothing is alive, is canned. could you comment on julian assange and his ability to even survive treatment because apparently his health so bad? yes, i glad to hear i'm absolutely as a matter of fact, i just signed a letter which this afternoon about 3 hours ago

addressed. i mean, this sounds bizarre. actually, i just said it's a question the queen of england, the house of lords, the chief prosecutor, four or five people on the addresses, very well written by a friend of mine, diana johnstone, pointing out that. julian assange is in danger of dying where he is. he was just in court after nearly a year now of solitary confinement where they're keeping him in to decide whether to extradite him to the us for a clearly political crime. and by the way, he's not under charges in sweden on sexual thing. he is not under charges for anything he did in 2016, of which i, by the way, disagree with very much for his judgment, but i don't hold a friend of mine very accountable for

judgment. after seven years in one room. it's so happens but that's not what he's charged with. he's charged with putting out what chelsea manning gave him. and bradley manning, collateral murder. how many people have seen that video? gee, i'm sorry to say, only handful. take a look up and on youtube and just put the word collateral murder and you'll see it. it's in several forms, some kind of 15 minute form. and then there's a 38 minute form. was put out that julian put out and then, because he was dissatisfied with the distribution that the next time chelsea manning gave him a 100,000 documents, which i couldn't have done in the age of zero six, but in digital form, revealing torture by us people handing people over to iraqis to be tortured, a crime should have been disobeyed, should have been

exposed. that's guilty. only chelsea exposed, of all the people who knew all that was true, etc., etc. that's what he put out gave to a number of newspapers so it couldn't be a blanket. that's what he's charged with. in other words, journalism. i was the first person in this country to be charged under the espionage act or any act for disclosing classified information unauthorized disclosure leaking. i was not first to leak. i didn't invent that, but i was the first to be prosecuted after me. two others, one of which was dropped case was the apex case actually involving israel, was dropped as the case obama. brings nine prosecutions for that under the espionage act of inevitably trump has brought eight prosecutions in his first two years.

obama was under eight years, nine three times more than anybody before. i mean, all presidents before put together trump match that in two years. and obviously he's going on. and now to get to your question, assange is the first person in american history as a journalist to be tried. the other the rest of us were sources to the press and should not have been tried under the espionage act. it was impossible. it is impossible to get a fair trial for a whistle blower or leaker. the current whistleblower, the anonymous blower, is using a new act which did not exist. our day, which is supposedly keeps them anonymous and keeps them from prosecution because they went she or he went through channels. the president is clearly calling on his vigilante constituency. percent of the public are to kill this treasonous spy person who revealed the ukraine thing

on she or he has a target on her back painted by the president of. and the problem yesterday in questioning vindman spent most of their time to get him to tell who this whistleblower was. so for what purpose not to can't prosecutor now it so happens i say her. i hope it's a she because everybody's been assuming it's a he. so i it'll be nice if it turns out that it is someone like catherine gunn in england who is the subject of the movie official secrets which i urge you to see if you haven't seen it. she's a great whistleblower. this whistleblower. the law required when her hearsay secondhand testimony to the president points out it was confirmed by first hand. people like. vindman, who just testified yesterday, the was then under

the law the inspector general compelled to give that information to congress, with no one investigating. now, if he had not confirmed, it doesn't have to give it. he did confirm it, but he sent it to the white house and to the cia. general counsel, and they bottled it up, held on to it, locked up the. and it would not have gotten out despite her going through channels and what not what would she or he have done had it been totally up? we don't know. would she have then gone on a roll to congress or not? we don't know. it wasn't tested because. some unauthorized leakers are risking prosecution for giving classified information, told congress the complaint existed so congress was able to issue a subpoena for it and actually get what we're now hearing is a partial transcript. some of you will remember the

first set of transcripts we got from nixon with all the exclusive deleted and a lot missing from them. and eventually, thanks to a number of people. alex butterfield, we got the tapes and so forth. okay, history is repeating. and in words, i was sure that that transcript they put out was not the whole transcript. what vindman testified yesterday was, well, they cut out a lot of discussion of biden, a lot of discussion, the quid pro quo is much more explicit in the in the full thing, which we haven't gotten yet congress hasn't yet gotten it. will somebody leak it or come back to assange? assange then these all sources what assange was in the position of a publisher of an if he is extradite in the current state of the courts, he will be convicted probably for life. something else. meanwhile, being held, he will

be the first. there will be no amendment worth discussing anymore. there are reporters who will like him, will go to jail and most of them won't actually. so get government handouts from an no on and we'll have more wars like vietnam and iraq and somalia and sudan and more than we have already. it'll be really very secret. we might even not know the tanks are going to syria this week, days after the president says he's getting out of syria, making people that we are now getting into combat with u.s., protecting the oil from ices, ships. you said isis's been destroyed. well, it hasn't actually been destroyed, but they're not going to control the oil protecting it from the syrian government. the russians and the iranians

that are there. so we're putting combat troops in there for oil, as in the case of iraq. exactly. clear cut aggression. i'll just mention to you, with all i've been saying here, we've managed not neither side has managed to shoot the other for 50 years here. now, except for major anderson. russians haven't shot americans except actually on covert missions, have shot down some of our reconnaissance planes. we've shot down some of theirs, but we don't any of that. so it doesn't cause a big escalation there are now how many countries that are nuclear are fighting in syria in one country? well, there's been israel, france britain, the us russia, turkey still and nato's ally and a first use nation that just announced they want to get their own nuclear weapons. so they're all in one country

fighting people. sometimes this group, sometimes that group and so forth. this is dangerous. it's very dangerous. okay. assange puts out that kind of stuff. meanwhile after seven years in one room, actually a couple rooms, he could move around a little bit, but no sunlight. for seven years, she was out on a balcony a couple of times. but when visited him, there were british police on the next building watching him 24 hours a day to see if he got on balcony and jumped down. so no sunlight. he's he's, you know, very white skin, white haired. anyway, now he looks terrible. and the last time i saw him was terrible. and but it's worse now. he's in solitary awaiting extradition. another excuses are we can't count on him not to flee. well, that in itself is fair enough. i mean, you know, he did go to

embassy before. okay. solitary, 23 hours a day when he goes to his cell block to exercise for one hour, part of an hour. the others all have to be locked up. so no communication, when he was when he recently testified in court for the first time since he's been incarcerated here, he couldn't remember his name or his age. he's in very shape. he's in effect, being tortured. solitary confinement is torture, and that's what he's been for a long time. so anyway, the appeal actually i wrote this letter and i said, look, you're going legal grounds. it's very clear, of course, he should not be extradited. of course he should be released. of course, his political should should not be subject extradition in february. but i did say to diana must say, don't hold up the petition on my account. but i do have to say, shouldn't there be mention of the fact of his mental health condition and

the humanitarian aspect to this. so what it comes down to, unless there is a hell of a lot more attention on this than there ever has been now and many people hate julian a lot of them without good reason, and some them, a lot of them with good reason, basically because of 2016. but the fact is that if he is convicted over here and extradited, there will be no more first amendment. forget it. and honors thing won't be just sources. pure censorship, you know. you know, i don't want to exaggerate here. there will be a few people like james rosen and sy hersh and whatnot who will not reveal their sources and will go to jail. but that will not be the norm. so there has to be a change. the law here that permits a judge to vacation to a fence, which the un seem to be going on here. but last week the kings bay

plowshares seven was not allowed to argue in court to show witnesses like me. i will. they won't call me as to why they had poured blood on trident missiles in trident. not a statue of some statue trident. they had gone into the kings bay trident base in, georgia. some of the been in jail for 18 months now. last week they were tried without being able to argue that they had a reason for doing that. irrelevant. did you go in? did you trespass and the necessity defense would have been to say. yeah, we broke the law that see an evil. but in a way it's the lesser evil then going ominous say which is what trident is for and and if it if the crimes at that base are ever launched their missiles, it's over.

not if one missile goes off that doesn't do it. but if they'd launched a whole if if one trident submarine launched all of its warheads which is entitled to that's the effect of an india-pakistan war. i got the calculation from the environmental scientists. 2 billion dead, one trident, someone. we have 14 and we're new ones because, as you know, building them is profitable, has votes. district and the icbm because they said so it goes off a little. but what i'm saying is they weren't allowed a justification defense. so they told me you don't have to come. they wouldn't allow you to testify. last week. no. has been allowed to say why did what they did to a jury that started with me. i wasn't allowed to say that

that law has to change. that's ridiculous. and means take the current whistleblower, reveal criminality. if they hadn't gone through challenge through channels which almost were blocked illegally, if the other people hadn't revealed that to congress, the other people who revealed that were revealing classified information, that means they could be prosecuted, the espionage act, and they could not. why they did and they couldn't say. but what revealing was a crime. yeah, but it was classified. how did get classified as vindman testified yesterday? what we've heard of it from statement, it was unclassified. it had nothing to do with national security. it had to do with presidential extortion, abuse of power in order to get personal benefit in an election by smearing his rival. had nothing to do with national security. but it was a crime. so crimes have to be classified.

so it was locked up, locked up in a higher than top secret security system, which they're also to hide transcripts. this has come out of trump's discussion with putin and, with erdogan, or in that same computer. it's higher than top secret. it's for the purpose of communications, intelligence, for assassination plots, for coups, whatever, higher, higher than top secret. this a discussion of i want you to get dirt on biden. well, it's classified, so the people leaked. that would be subject to the espionage act. it's an absurd situation. and of course, it's not only this country here in england, it would be open and shut, but even so we're saying, look, we got to get assange out of that. we got to get assange out of that jail. and so an appeal is being made

to the queen. so we'll see. long answer. sorry. i think we have time for one more question. you had a reception there at the end. just so you know. and can we can we go up here. yeah. i can't hear. oh, all right. no, just. i'm just saving up to exercise a little bit. hi. so what's your question? i'm here. i'm just wondering, in your opinion, what can kids my age and my generation as a whole would to to sort of follow in your footsteps, to try and hold the government more accountable? i think the question is, what would you suggest to people of his generation they could do to follow in your footsteps? well, look.

without randi keeler, when he was how old were you when you went prison? 25. and 70. 69. i was. what, 31? 48? 38, what? 38? right. okay. i'm 88. arithmetic is not my force of without monarchy here. introducing me to gandhian thought, which randi was following her. barbara deming, i saw there was just a lecture. barbara deming here, barbara deming's in equilibrium changed my life along. i read it around the same time. it's really very, very important. revolutionary equilibrium. the only time i met her was on may day, 1971. i see her on 14th street where we're trying to stop, stop traffic, and i recognized and i had a book with me expecting to

go to prison. her book, revolution equilibrium. i thought if they let me have a book in prison, i'll take this. and then and there is she, along with ben spock, talking to each other, and i got her to autograph her book. anyway, so the first answer is inform yourselves and others. where was the person who asked that? i hard to see there? okay. may i take one moment and say the most embarrassing? i can't see anything here because there's a reasons. why was the most embarrassing moment of my life that i can remember is that there was a film showing about and i was getting up afterwards in 71. this was with patricia, two of speak to the audience. the film, the lights were the so the audience was totally black. i couldn't see. so i like now pretty much i can't. so i wanted the guy the lights

up there either to turn those down or to bring the house up. so i said, okay, bring the house up. then i can see i can see most of you now. so i went like this. i was looking up there and people began one by one rapidly to get up for a standing ovation, thinking that i was summoning them up for a standing ovation or whatnot. i so that was a bad moment, really on this. i believe. by the way, i would like to see greenwich. it will depend on youth to a large extent. they are doing and the strike, i told you, going back to the moratorium prevented nuclear war, i thought for a long time that you have to have a movement. you have to have the awareness. but the tactic much better than a demonstration and i'll tell you, i would not have copied pentagon papers and i not think of it on the basis of the

saturday morning, sunday morning days off, people demonstrating. sorry was fine to do that. but it was people in nine and i didn't even know it who went on a weekday and took a strike and they going to do two days on november in fact what they did do. and then there was going be three days in december, a rolling strike. i told you, remember i said, you've a strike here on fridays, but think of the possibility of a two day strike, you know, and then a three day strike, a rolling thing. and then so it was the strike that it in. i started out as a laborer economist would have had gotten on with some of your people here on that in the unions. i joined the uaw at night at 17 and drove was going to be in labor. but so i was i was used to the idea of it. and i still see for example. i'll give you an example.

there should have been a general strike in the 2000 when the supreme court cut that voting and people would have should have said no, absolutely not. gore or did not vote for that. that was a good time for if there was an immediate prospect and we'll only know this from a whistleblower, but whistleblowers are better fruit, a better odor than they've been for quite a while this week. so maybe there will be a before an attack on iran. there should be a general strike if there's a prospect of an attack on iran, which would be a catastrophe. i don't i'm not in the business of giving, but i saw that one time of sending her advice, whatnot. but i have to i have two thoughts that i would like pass on. for one thing, she keeps saying because she's still only 16 and

this is her first big action, which she's been at since. she was nine basically, or 11, but and she knows the subject. she said if only people knew what i know, this a paraphrase, they would they would take care of this. and the only thing she's asking all the time, like today, she said, i don't want to prize. all i'm asking is that you listen, the scientists actually that's enough. there's a lot of people have listened to the scientists. they're not doing diddly squat in congress or anywhere else, debating health in the debates. are we debating climate? the guy who made that his one big issue is out after one debate from, washington university. so one thing is it is more than people just listening to the scientists and it's more than the scientists talking. people have act. and she does see this all the time. what i want is action.

yes. to do something, act on it. and just knowing the science is not the example of people who are doing more than that is contagious and can lead to more. the other suggestion i would make to get a bit of, you know, i'm not going to she's doing fine on her own. but if i was talking to her, i would say have those schoolchildren make their parents join this strike? the way you changed your appearance, you she got she won't go on the air she came across here on a boat to cross the country. she won't go on air because the oil, the fossil fuel that's involved. okay. her mother is a major international opera singer and she got her mother to stop using jet planes. her mother just just sings in

sweden now changed all career. i said, okay. and she she got her parents to be vegan, except that she did say she they sneak up sometimes the cheese but when they when they think asleep but if they can change their parents and the others in the school why are the school letting the children be out on strike? have they not gotten the picture here, gotten message? so get the schoolteacher out. and i don't mean just in sweden, you know, all over the world, but not only school. they've got plenty to complain about. but this is they can follow their schoolchildren on who happen to be right. why should we listen to a 16 year old girl with asperger's? what do they say? well, because she's right. she's she's wise. she's got the picture because she's right and you're not so this this in other words, you what can young people do?

follow example. she is model for organizing and for getting things moving and for our eye on the ball and getting other people into it. and not just shaming, but realizing, educating that they have to act as well. you know, when i said that i want to close with this one, janaki here, channel. introduced me to the thinking of martin luther king, barbara deming gandhi of i looked up a quote that i had only slightly in my mind today on on the of what gandhi had said about hiroshima and here's what he said. those who invented the atomic bomb have committed the greatest. as john king for me sin is more

of a christian. he was very hindu. it's it's not a typical thing for gandhi to say, he said when i heard about it, i only sit in silence for a long. that was part of what he said. unless the world nonviolence, this will spell certain suicide for humanity. well, yes, suicide, you can call it that. strictly speaking, it's murder. it's homicide. those people are not working anymore. committing suicide in the people under a gun in jeans town in guyana were committing suicide. they were being spoon fed cyanide. unless they or at the risk of being shot actually, it was not mass suicide, but 900 people whose murder what we're talking about here is collateral murder. collateral. and that's what assange release.

collateral murder, except this is collateral mass murder, multi genocide, right? it's not genocide. that's five 6 million people, 600 million people. it's not genocide. so what do you call it? multi genocide. but it's not everybody. except that it was everybody, nearly everybody. so it's homicide but john somerville said, the philosopher, you have to have a new term. the humans have not faced up to the difference it makes to the institute notion of war to add nuclear weapons to it. war now dangerous in a way that has not been for 4000 years in new way, war has been compatible. even big war with global population rising steadily too much. that's not true of world war

three or what's promised on this. and so the last comment that can be made was and this was one of them for what is have said, they destroyed japan. well, they didn't destroy japan is still very useful for. but it was it was what zijlaard and the others saw coming and. i might say that as early as 42 with the manhattan project started szilard truman didn't even know there was a manhattan project. he didn't know there was a bomb he knew nothing about it. but these scientists knew that it was not just an atom bomb, that the atom bomb could be the trigger for an h-bomb. they knew that from the beginning in 42. they couldn't people that without losing their so by name. eugene rabinovich. when zijlaard and james had a committee in may just after the german surrender in may or.

of 1945 to examine the implications of the nuclear weapon and what should be done, frank nobel prize winner had participated in the poison gas project in world war one, so in the there was a guy named, fritz haber, whose wife committed suicide because of what her husband had done. frank said, okay, i'll go in the manhattan project only on the condition that as a scientist, my voice will be heard on the policy before the bomb. you. so they had a committee to keep him quiet and szilard was on and a guy rabinowitz was the reporter. later the head of the federation of american society of bulletin for the atomic scientists. and the the the doomsday clock, which. in 1947, 46. so. rabinowitz. actually advised in writing and i just saw this recently we

should the congress and the public what's coming here and what this all means truman never did hear it. they made a petition not to use the bomb in the first form of the petition, which had about 100 scientists. but he wanted to get the first one said, don't test it without russians. if you test it, an arms race is. and they thought, you know, the world will blow fast. they underrated what deterrence would do what it will we'll build a doomsday machine that's what they said said okay and moreover you should not use it. and they did not know that the japanese that we were reading their cables communications intelligence here, the scientists did not know that the japanese were willing surrender at that point, that the emperor was on condition that the emperor would be preserved, not subject people to talk knew that, but the scientists did. so they thought maybe there will

have to be an invasion. and zijlaard actually said even and frankly, even if u.s. lives are at stake this should not be used even u.s. lives are a cost and an amazing statement. so that report was bottled up just like this whistleblowers report. truman never did see it. stimpson didn't see it until after potsdam. groves bottled it up. truman zijlaard later had had a wrote a paper called the voice of the dolphins. i won't go to the context, but it included a chapter my trial as a war criminal. and he fantasized being tried by the russians for what he had done, he said, but i advised against it, and the prosecutor would say, but you went through channels. you knew it wouldn't get anywhere. and he said, i had to admit that's true. i hadn't done what could be done. and he didn't but rabinovich

said we should it. i've never seen a statement like that anywhere in in the government, the papers, somebody actually saying and writing what tony russo said to me, you've been fired from iran. you ought to leak that. okay. never seen. well, they didn't do that. so rabinovich wrote a letter to the times in 71 when patricia and i were the fbi. we were underground, so i didn't see it at the time. i saw it much later thanks to my friend, you know, a friend put it in the book. rubin try to learn, says ray. the case of. daniel ellsberg, who we didn't knows, he said, who's being shot, you know, for they didn't use the word whistleblower for revealing. so i now want to reveal that i spent sleepless nights in 1945 considering whether should not tell the congress and the public

that we were to use an atom bomb on japan. and he said later, he said, i don't flatter myself that the public would have denounced that, you know, we would have gone against they probably wouldn't have would have accepted it, but at least they would be responsible they would know what they were getting into. they would know that this was not inevitable, etc., etc. he says, i still feel this is one of the olujimi fbi. i still feel i would been i would not have been wrong to do so, says rabinovich, the head of the doomsday clock. what gandhi said two days after hiroshima. what happened to the soul of the destroyed aging nation is yet too early to see the soul of the destroying nation. it's not too early to signal. it hasn't been too early for a long time. it wasn't just hiroshima

primarily it was tokyo and hamburg and dresden and all the others. the willingness to massacre civilians as an instrument of war, which was simply implemented by. the atomic bomb. it made it cheaper. that's all it raise any new moral problem, whatever. for truman. to kill 100,000 people with one bomb was simply a cheaper of doing it than to kill them. as we've done five months earlier with firebombs with 300. but there was no moral issue. the only reason not to do it was civilization and humanity is endangered. ultimately, not next month. but by doing this and that remains true today. so we need a revolution it's not enough. get back to the pre-world war two immunity of civilians, which isn't going to happen per, say, with the institutions remaining.

they are now it has to be a rapid evolution of humanity here or what i think your chancellor calls revolution and or bernie sanders says revolution. and that hasn't ring of violence to people which should be a rejected, i believe, you know, explicit very clear violent revolution is not going to get there is not going to make of the change that you need no matter what did change, you might change things, but it wouldn't change any of this. so non-vr transformation of morality as well as institution center structure and everything is very urgently needed. and we do have examples leading there. and as i say, great. attenberg is can't do better. look at her her.

thanks everyone. go on. going out to eat. there's feed there. visit c-span shop, dawg c-span online store and saved during our father's day sale going on now save up to 15% on all our c-sp products. sitewide. there's something for every fan and every purchase. help support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right to shop during c-span shop's father's day sale going on now at c-span dot org. the chairs of european parliamentary foreign affairs committees also discussed the