Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be, and indeed has been, falsified in order to bring about desired results. Here he said, “People don’t ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting.” Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objective, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all. To falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church, you just don’t do that. Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N. and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the U.N . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty. Economic interdependence would foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint. Avoidance of war would foster it from the standpoint of worrying about hostilities. It was recognised that doing it peaceably was better than doing it by war. It was stated at this point that war was “obsolete.” 


I thought that was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen as useful is no longer useful. But war is obsolete, because of nuclear bombs, war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could be controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the “wrong hands” are. We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent years I’m wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people that we’ve assumed they’ve had nuclear weapons all along, maybe they don’t have them. Just as it was stated that industry would be preserved in the United States – a little bit just in case the world wide plans didn’t work out; just in case some country or some other powerful person decided to bolt from the pack and go his own way, one wonders whether this might also be true with nuclear weapons. When he said they might fall into the wrong hands, there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody who had nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them. But I recall wondering at the time, “Are you telling us, or are you implying that this country willingly gave weapons to the Soviets?.”


At that time that seemed like a terribly unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The leaders of the Soviet Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one wonders whether there may have been some fear that they would try to assert independence if they indeed had these weapons. So, I don’t know. It’s something to speculate about perhaps. Who did he mean when he said, “If these weapons fall into the wrong hands”? Maybe just terrorists. Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful co-operation with everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty and then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. Everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the ‘New International Political System.’ This was stated and a very impressive thing to hear then, “If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two or possibly more nuclear weapons.” As it was put this would be possibly needed to convince people that, “We mean business.” That was followed by the statement that, “By the time one or two of those went off then everybody, even the most reluctant, would yield.” He said something about, “This negotiated peace would be very convincing”, as in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. 


People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realisation that peace was better than war. In this context discussing war, and war is obsolete, a statement was made that there were some good things about war. One was you’re going to die anyway and people sometimes in war get a chance to display great courage and heroism. If they die they’ve died well and if they survive they get recognition. So that in any case, the hardships of war on soldiers are worth it because that’s the reward they get out of their warring. Another justification expressed for war was, if you think of the many millions of casualties in WWI and WWII had not died but had continued to live and continued to have babies then there would be millions upon millions and we would already be overpopulated. So those two great wars served a benign purpose in delaying over-population. But now there are technological means for the individual and governments to control over-population so in this regard war is obsolete. It’s no longer needed. And then again it’s obsolete because nuclear weapons could destroy the whole universe. War, which once was controllable, could get out of control and so for these two reasons it’s now obsolete.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s