 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner Distinguished Companion to the World Honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Larry LeSir of the CBS television news staff and August Hector, chief editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribute. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Sterling Cole, representative from New York and chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Representative Cole, we're very eager to talk to you about atomic energy tonight, but I wonder if you'd mind explaining to us the difference between the Joint Atomic Energy Committee of which you are chairman and the Atomic Energy Commission. The Atomic Commission is the agency of the executive branch of government which has the responsibility of administering the Atomic Energy Law. The Joint Committee is, as the word joint indicates, a committee of the Congress composed of nine senators and nine members of the House which is charged by the law with being constantly informed with respect to the Atomic Energy Program and the Joint Committee considers any revisions in the Atomic Energy Act. So one is a legislative committee, the other is an executive committee. And you've had the full cooperation between you and the commission? It's really been amazing, Mr. Hector, the fine spirit of cooperation that has existed from the very beginning between the commission and the legislative committee. Representative Cole, it seems that one of the greatest events to me that you people have been faced with is the president's offer to set up a joint pool of atomic energy for peacetime uses. And I think now that the Russians have made a counter proposal to President Eisenhower's offer in which they state that they would desire a moral ban on the use of atomic weapons just as there was a moral ban on the use of poison gas in the last war. Now, do you think that that is acceptable? Well, it wasn't exactly a counter proposal, as I understand it, Mr. Lusser. The Russian position has always been that the nations of the world should outlaw the use of atomic weapons. Her reply to the Eisenhower plan was that the participants, the conferees, consider the outlawing of atomic weapons. Now, with that, I can find no disagreement that the conferees give consideration to it. I do hope, however, that their consideration is not serious nor long live. Well, didn't they first ask for a scrapping of atomic weapons and the scrapping of the means of their production, but now they seem to want a moral ban on the use of them, although they would be ready as weapons of retaliation? Well, that was the Russian counter proposal to the Baruch plan, that the countries having atomic weapons forego the use of them. Can you see it? And her condition with respect to the Eisenhower plan is along the same line. Well, do you think that could be acceptable to this country after all? Wouldn't we be depriving ourselves of the only weapon in which we are superior to the Russians? That's why I feel our conferees should give but short consideration to the suggestion that it would be unthinkable for us to ever agree not to use the atomic weapon. And yet, might not there come a time when the two parts of the world were roughly equal in atomic weapons and then the logic might be to ban them? I don't think that time need necessarily ever arise because it is conceivable that the two countries, Russia and ourselves, may have an offensive potential that would neutralize the other. Then the advantage would shift to that country which placed the same degree of emphasis on the use of atomic energy for defensive posture, as was used for offensive. Representative Case, the former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, David Lilienthal, has suggested that if we can't come to any agreement with the Soviet Union on the Eisenhower proposal for a joint pool of atomic energy for peace time uses, then we should go along with the western world and set up such an agency. How do you feel about that? That's exactly the feeling I have had from the time President Eisenhower made his pronouncement. We cannot allow Russia to successfully upset the Eisenhower plan. It is so essential that the countries of the world unite and pool their knowledge and their efforts to using atomic energy for the good of mankind. That we can't allow any recalcitrant, belligerent country to interfere with it because so much good can come from it. Isn't it very much like the Marshall plan which the Russians refused to come into and yet were unable to wreck? It's somewhat like the Marshall plan except there is the distinction, as I see it, we're not giving away to countries of the world something of extreme value. What we are giving now is information in advance to these other countries. We're giving them knowledge that they all would eventually learn someday. From a security standpoint, Representative Kohl, could we give away some of our atomic fuel to an agency for joint international use while the Russians still used their atomic energy for the making of bombs? Could we keep up our lead in the atomic race if we did that? I don't envision that the Eisenhower plan would measureably interfere with our stockpile of atomic weapons and certainly if I thought that it did jeopardize our national security I would never favor it. But conversely you would say then that if the Eisenhower plan goes into effect it won't cut down the amount of atomic weapons in the world. It won't cut down Russia's atomic weapon pile either. In other words, that problem remains unsolved. It will interfere to some extent with the atomic potential of whatever country has that potential but not in a great degree. I see, the contributions won't be that large you feel. Well, sir, if we did work out this plan with the Russians, wouldn't we be giving them away greatest sum of the know-how on the industrial use of atomic energy, some of the know-how which they might not get otherwise? Assuming which I think to be the fact that Russia does not have the knowledge in the peaceful, constructive, productive uses of atomic energy that we have. If the Eisenhower plan is put into effect and Russia participates then of course Russia is going to benefit by it much more than we will because Russia has nothing to give us, I think, from the standpoint of using atomic energy for peace time uses. But wouldn't Russia then be able to take a peace time use, a peace time engine, so to speak, and put it in a submarine and make a weapon of war out of it? Of course, she could. Just the same as any other country to whom we might give this knowledge and allow the use of the fishing-wool material. But as I see it, the desire for war, the need for war becomes greatly lessened as this great new force is used for production of things for which people go to war. Representative Cole, what is your idea on how this plan would actually work? Would an international agency set up factories or plants for the making of nuclear fuel around the world, or they actually put up industrial plants to create electric energy? And who would own those plants? That is one of the details that this conference must work on. My own thinking is that the international organization may either own and operate the plants or the international organization may simply supervise the plants. A country which has need for an atomic power plant would apply to the international agency, tell them the need the international agency would consider conditions. And above all, it's my thought that each one of these projects must be self-sustaining, must be self-liquidating, must be a profitable enterprise. And to get away from this WPA aspect and giveaway aspect, it must be something constructive. Well, may I ask you, Representative Cole, do you think that the Eisenhower plan would encounter any opposition in Congress if the Russians went along with it? The plan has so much in it that appeals to the decency of people in the world that I just can't believe that any American or any member of Congress would seriously protest providing the American people and the Congress at all times are assured that this plan will not interfere with our national security, which nobody wants. No, nobody expects the plan to result in jeopardy of our national security. Representative Cole, if I could just change the subject that was still on atomic energy. It was announced yesterday that we were withdrawing two divisions from Korea. Does that have any relationship to developments in the atomic field? Can atomic weapons be a substitute for manpower? In the long run, I think, Mr. Hatcher, that the more we improve our atomic capacity, the greater versatility we achieve in atomic weapons, the less will become the need for foot soldiers. However, I don't think there was any connection between the decision to withdraw two divisions from Korea has any relationship to the use of atomic weapons. May I ask you, Representative Cole, if all conditions were favorable towards the Eisenhower plan, its acceptance by the Russians, we worked everything out. How long would it actually take before such a program could be worked out for the beneficial use of atomic energy? Well, it takes about three years to build an atomic power plant. I expect that if the conferees get together reasonably soon by summertime or fall formulate their plans, the designs can be worked out by 1955. Construction started in the summer or fall of 1955, so that perhaps within the next four or five years we can anticipate an atomic power plant at any place in the world of a country that has need for it will be in operation. Would these power plants be competitive with the other types of fuel, coal, water power? Oh, yes, of course. That's the goal that we're all working for is to make them competitive so that the countries of the world which have no coal, have no water resources can have, nevertheless, have electrical energy to make the things that the people need. As a final question, Representative Cole, I'd like to ask you, we all are frightened, I think, of the atomic bomb. May I ask you, do you think that the public should have more information about the peaceful uses of atomic energy? That's one of the appealing aspects of the Eisenhower plan, is to start the minds of people thinking in the direction of how we can use this for the good of mankind. And the people should know that this same force can be used for the good of people to a greater degree than for the destruction of people. Already, more lives have been saved by the use of atomic energy than has ever been destroyed in the two explosions in Japan. The people don't generally realize that, and yet in the field of medicine, it's scarcely been touched in the field of preserving foods in areas where they don't have electric ice boxes and so forth. It has great possibilities to say nothing of generating electricity for manufacturing goods that people need. The peace time uses are without limit, and the people should realize that. Thank you very much, Representative Cole, for being here with us tonight. The opinions you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Larry Lisser and August Hector. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Sterling Cole, representative from New York and chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Why not invest part of that Christmas bonus in a new Laun Jean watch? In the years ahead, you'll be mighty glad that you did. Believe me, it will be a proud possession. And among the world's finest watches, Laun Jean alone has won ten world's fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy. The dependability of your new Laun Jean watch will be a revelation. Gone will be the uncertainty about time. And every Laun Jean watch is styled with good taste to make a commanding appearance on the wrist. The most important, whether you pay as little as seventy-one fifty for a Laun Jean and a gold-filled case, or several hundred dollars for one studded with diamonds, it will be made to the unique Laun Jean standard of excellence, which made Laun Jean in fact the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. And throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour. Brought to you on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner Distinguished Companion to the world's honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun Jean Wittner Watches. This is the CBS television network.