ki proječujem, če ne možem se zapraviti, ne koncerti neč vse postavnih. Ale je vznik tehnologij, kaj je zelo zemljena in vsega poživnje kemikalne komparacije in vznik kemikalne zelo. Zelo življno. Zelo je tudi pravda. S k�om počkaj kaj je večjava spolivna, tvoj je zelo načiniv. Vse bolj je tehnoloč jazil. Tko je izhtjev, zelo je tudi tehnoloč, ne v sej načiniv Bogu, uhronovajnega, zato v Vzbek, tvoj tehnoloč je zelo načiniv. Zelo je to zelo. OK, tako... OK, tako...  So nalega se vas stojev na tem, ki se poglede in že težer pas pozet Opera. Sva, da je v pomembnje v tem, prihvori se obč links, And US will find some decision. I would like to underline that in 1977, after some special degree of President Carter, US stopped any activity in reprozession and stopped reprozession. Now they also only accumulated fuel. Some examples from other countries. Finland, patlj, before sent, were there for 40 fuel for reprocessing, but during last 30 years they kept fuel for in-wet storage and a reactor sent will dispose it. Canada can do it, now it's more acceptable way, it's really a disposal. Sweden also open fuel cycle and they are going to put in operation some specific repository. Germany with their very specific policy, they stop sending off, they spent fuel to France from 2005 and now all fuel should be prepared for disposal, but they did not yet select place for disposal of fuel so on, so on. Switzerland also have the same strategy, now they have from reactor dry storage and continue considerate some places for repository. In other group of countries we've closed fuel cycle, France, leading country in area of recycling and additional to storage and reprocessing, they have very advanced project for repository of high-level waste in vure place, but this place not for spent fuel, place for high-level waste after reprocessing. Japan, in spite of different political problems, they kept close fuel cycle as key line for future. Unfortunately, we have not very good example here from point of view of commissioning of Rakhash Murpland. Here, it's very long project. I remember some articles about its opening in the beginning of 2001-2001, but now, of course, but this facility is interesting bit more advanced in comparison of Mayako, Laak plant, Russian and France, Japanese colleague will receive directly mix of uranium and plutonium so from point of view of safeguardability is one of key interesting decision. China has program for construction of new reprocessing plant. They had old military plant in Lanzhou region, but now first pilot reprocessing plant under operation. It's also purics process, modified process and second reprocessing plant is under construction from last year. Russia has Mayako plant. This is one of very flexible reprocessing plant in the world. And I worked with them many, many years and they can now reprocess big variety of fuel from research reactors, from some submarine, ice breakers and the cycle of this technology taken to account relatively high enrichment from research reactors can produce the fuel close to relatively high enrichment that can be used directly in RBMK or some other Russian reactors. Russia has another place for wet storage and dry storage of spent fuel of air, not only from Russia and from some other countries. U.K. had very interesting from historical point of view program for reprocessing of fuel. First of all, they complete reprocessing of magnox fuel, they had the best in the world from technological point of view reprocessing plant, Thorpe. But unfortunately, political and other reasons and some problems in the past regarding mox fuel production, finally they decided to stop this reprocessing. And India now has group of small reprocessing facility. Truly speaking, part of the M were constructed in parallel for military goals. But India has also strong direction to close fuel cycle in future and India has program for fast reactor construction. We can, you can see the world is different, some countries has different approaches and we can say that we have now new or maybe renew approaches. No, first of all, key tendency, as we used to mention, more than 70%, 75% of fuel, it's storage or now one of renewed idea under discussion with some countries that send back to manufacturer for reprocessing. Now this option fixed on the paper only, only in relation between Russia and Iran. I know that Bangladesh, Belarus, Turkey, now you pronunciation, Turkey, also considered this system, but we will see in future. From other hand, France and Russia had very long term experience for reprocessing taken and managing of products. France as usual send back materials after reprocessing, but Soviet Union and Russia has interesting conception historically. The plutonium kept in Russian Federation after reprocessing and belong Russian Federation for other recycling. Another line of current approaches, it's discussion about international repository, but this discussion start and close, start and close during last 40 years. And number of states express interest through international spent nuclear fuel story. So, from other hand, agency is one of platform for discussion about future fuel cycle and the idea about internationalization of fuel cycle can be split on two line. Assurance of supply of low-reach uranium for current fleet of nuclear power plants, front end and also some attempt to establish some multilateral approach regarding spent fuel. Currently, we can say that first point now decided international level. Some countries which have enrichment capacity, UK, Germany has initiative for preparation of long term contract without any political obligations. Russia prepared some special reserve in Angarsk plus also some initiative. U.S. also has initiative. And plus final last point, it's special low-reach uranium bank of IEA in Kazakhstan, 160 tons of enriched uranium for if some country, some state will have some specific situation then from political reason other states will stop. Delivery of uranium agency should help. Next part, it's a hundred discussion now. And very simple picture prepared maybe ten years ago, maybe more, one of my friend, why the country have discussed about international repository. For example, U.S. big territory, they have and will have expected two places for repository. We have a mountain and we have waste in Los Alamos, also facility for disposal of radioactive waste that contains actinates. If we compare with Europe, Europe has a lot of states. And if every states will construct national repository, we will have a lot of repository in different places. And it is, yes, yes, yes. So it is one of simple explanation why the discussion about multinational approach for backend of fuel cycle continues. And I remind especially one of picture from previous lecture about in pro, one of the way it's establishing of some international cooperation, separation of responsibility between different countries. And it is one of expected tendency to establish of international regime for control and managing with spent nuclear fuel. So some countries have only nuclear reactors, some countries have additional fuel service in backend or long term storage. And some countries can burn plutonium and can reduce radio toxicity effect of nuclear power on environment. And agency prepared, it's only last 20 years, 25 years, a lot of papers related multilateral issues. But till now we have no strong decisions, we have only some proposals, suggestions, limited contracts due to specific of national and illegal aspects. And I will explain these aspects a little bit later. Some remarks about spent nuclear fuel strategy, first of all backend is one of key problems in nuclear power as a whole. And from many points of view, most nuclear countries do not have final strategy for backend of fuel cycle. Long term storage, it's intermediate decision, it's not yet final decision. Final disposal keeps long term dangerous related actinates and long lift fishing product. But reprocessing options is sensitive from non proliferation point of view. Second important point, absence of standard and easy approaches to backend also give some strong effect to decision makers in countries. And also additional maybe negative point for decision makers for new countries. It's necessary or necessary start construction of nuclear power plants. No, it's about necessity of control, but it's very specific current legal situation. Joint convention on safety of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel management radioactive waste. Safety fundamentals, ISFT standards, European Union waste management directive 90, all emphasize that ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management rest with the state. In that case, sometimes not very easy to transform responsibility from one country to another, maybe necessary to update some legal documents and so on, so on, so on. But in any case, we have relatively bright future. Currently, we've considered all market of fuel. We work in area of uranium 235 fuel cycle. We have good experience and good understanding of next advanced options uranium plutonium fuel cycle. And a lot of research and development and some pilot studies related innovative fuel cycle based on uranium plutonium minor actinates and thorium uranium system 2. Taken to account reactor system, accelerated driving system, maybe in future systems with fusion fusion and so on. So it's last slide of my yesterday presentation. Vladimir, what idea? Now questions about fuel cycle or after second lecture, small. Or maybe you have some questions related fuel cycle. Quick questions on nuclear fuel cycle or we can let me check our audience here. OK, they will have time. I will continue. So, but I need to change presentation. OK, now we have finally short presentation on legal and institutional aspects of new nuclear technologies development. Yes. Through speaking, this lecture is relatively fresh. I had idea to prepare some type materials last year, but partly it was demonstrated during some meetings in Prague, but I think your auditorium also should receive these doubts or ideas related legal and institutional aspects in new nuclear technology. Like 15 minutes or more? 20. So, first of all, why legal aspects are important for nuclear power and fuel cycle? First of all, we consider the world safety from national and international level, nuclear security from international and national level and non-proliferation on international level mainly. These aspects are covered complex of international treaty and conventions. For example, in legal framework on nuclear security we have convention on nuclear safety. Oh, no, nuclear safety, sorry. Nuclear safety convention on early notification of accident and joint convention on safety of spent fuel management and safety of radioactive waste management. So, they established some system that includes other documents plus agency provide some system for review of participants of all conventions. And of course, the whole hierarchy of safety standards also based on these conventions and they cover a number of areas related safety, nuclear installation, waste, transport, radiation protection, emergency preparedness. And truly speaking, now we have a lot of guidance, guidance, number of requirement, and of course one fundamental basis for this system. Security convention on physical protection of nuclear material based document and it has amendment after 2001. And now this convention and followed document on nuclear security also cover all relation between states regarding transportation, protection of nuclear materials, more anti-terroristic system. And of course third line, maybe not visible from point of view of research development and international legal framework for civil liability. It is one of conclusion from previous systems if some state will have some accident and this accident will effect on neighbor countries. Some block of conventions covered this situation and explain what type of compensation should be paid and other steps. And of course key, one of key political document, it's treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapon. It's also covered to some special system organized by the agency. Every country, each country has safeguard's agreement state and of course safeguard system works, they have a lot of instruments taken into account. Sampling, analysis, control plus not investigation, searching of open sources and some other systems. And so we have relatively strong platform where gaps can be really impediments for innovations. In nuclear security, first of all technology or facilities design could not meet current standards requirements. The current standards requirements were developed on the basis of current practice.  And so some advanced technology could be located in some type of gaps. The similar situation in nuclear security. Facility design also, for example, is not meet security, current security and safeguards requirement. In safeguards, some facility request using of relatively sensitive materials, Heinrich uranium or maybe relatively pure plutonium or uranium 233. And in other point, very difficult point, sorry, it's contradiction between different areas of safety. We have fire safety, we have another system of the safety. In my practice, once we met, I participate in project of high temperature reactor for disposition of plutonium, GTMGR, organized by ACBM. And of course one of idea was to use pilot facility if it was constructed for production of hydrogen. But we found that in Russia, the facility for production of hydrogen should be located on three or five kilometers far from reactor. The transportation of high temperature, high potential heat for three kilometers, it's very expensive. In that case, electrolysis is much better. But if facility can locate near, of course we can use effectively sulfite iodine cycle for production of hydrogen. But it's maybe who works in some facilities, we have sometimes competition between fire safety and nuclear security. First floor windows should be blocked by some special grid. But from fire point of view, first floor window should be easily open for evacuation. It's simple example. So if consider current request for infrastructure for new nuclear power programs, of course if one of newcomer member states would like to construct relatively innovative facility, they will have not headache, but a number of difficulties in area of nuclear safety, legal part. It is not technical legal part. We will framework, take into account that some type of technology cannot be covered current documents. Safeguard, human resource development, you too, you need system for education and preparation, training of personnel specially for innovative reactor of facility. And site and supporting facility, mainly siting also will meet, some specific problem. No, of course nuclear security and problem related nuclear fuel cycle. In the INPRO we have a number of study related legal and institutional aspect of innovation. I mentioned before that INPRO is good hierarchical system where it's easy to find some gaps, not only technical and legal too. And here is example, first study was dedicated to transportable nuclear power plants. Now we close to publishing second part of this study, especially for deployment of factory-fueled transportable nuclear models. Cooperative approach to approaches to the back end of nuclear fuel cycle, also consideration of drivers and impediments, institutional, economic and legal. And just this year we start similar study for consideration of similar aspects for prospective deployment of fusion facility. Some words about floating. First of all, key point, the floating nuclear power plant. Plants do not cover by nuclear safety convention. Nuclear safety convention fix and describe only land-based nuclear power plant. Transportable underwater, transportable for many time or lake location outside of this convention. And of course, all hierarchy of documents has big gap for this system. Next study we considered a lot of other aspects, namely for this nuclear battery. If when supplier filled facility to make some operation for ceiling of reactor and send to host state for production of energy. Electricity, heat, desalinated water. But in that case, as minimum two new participant of the operation. If you, if some countries support and sell construction of nuclear power plant in the land of in new country. Finally, operator and host country has full responsibility for operation and some other things. But here, two states and maybe some third states. Also, it's some problematic point, especially for floating. For example, you can, you will prepare here, send it by sea to another country and operating state will locate here. So now we have a number of design of similar facilities and it's not the same as academic monosov. It's a little bit advanced system. And life cycle also specific. We compare with traditional nuclear power plant, design, construction, operation, decommission. But here another system. You can construct, design and construct, complete design and construction before decision making in host state. And so here you will have some repeated transportation. This system is not described fully by current safety and security documents. We found that safeguards from point of view of documents is enough, but in any case it's necessary to establish new system for control. But for other line and maritime law also very specific. 40 years ago when experts in the world established safety, maritime safety for nuclear power reactors on the sea, they considered only reactor for propulsion, but not transportation of system for fuel. Of course maybe it's easy to consider as transportation of radioactive materials. We have SSR6 that cover transportation of radioactive materials and it's a good established system. No, reactor with loaded fuel cannot be tested as a container for fuel. And so it's also some big gap from one hand. It's very interesting market decision from point of view of safeguards, from point of view of keeping responsibility in the supplier state that have good experience in all areas and providing maybe more expensive electricity but without headache to establish full scale legal infrastructure in new states. But unfortunately it is not easy. We consider it as usual legislation subject safety, security, safeguards, the process of licensing taken to account not only nuclear aspects. Licensing sometimes includes some other points. And no similar system, especially considered staffing and training. It's also interesting. And we suggest it to some splitting of responsibility for these states. So now we start similar discussion about fusion facility due to from technical point of view, from point of view of conception. We have a lot of conceptions. But nobody who works in ETER, nobody who works in international laboratories cannot consider this system as system in the frame of current legal international and national systems. So also a lot of problems due to expected if during deployment period we will we should to make some decision. For example, after our studies related transportable nuclear power plant, safety department start reconsideration of some safety rules regarding adopting them to transportable nuclear power plant. For example, why I joined only on Wednesday, I participate on Monday and Wednesday virtually to another consultant submitting dedicated to this problem. So if I will stop here. So brief simple conclusion nuclear world is very complicated. It is not only technique that you need consider a lot of additional points. It is connected not only with social acceptance. Sometimes it is connected with strong, legal walk and strong understanding of international nuclear safety, nuclear security and the role of non-proliferation treaty. Unfortunately, maybe fortunately the all new technologies should be considered from point of view of this system. And in this way we could try to support member states to consider so complicated questions in not technical, but institutional area. Thank you very much. So. Thank you very much, Alexander. So questions to Dr. Buchkov. Please take the microphone. So there's like various convention for nuclear safety come to join assistance and then early notification so the convention on nuclear safety in 1994 that's not legally binding everyone, among them convention are legally binding but convention on nuclear safety 1994 that's not legally binding, why is it? Oh, it's the question not for me. I'm not expert, I'm not lawyer. Yes, I know that some nuances exist and experts who developed this convention fixed this nuance, I don't know. Unfortunately, I cannot reply to this legal nuance. I'm not expert in legal full legal aspects. I cannot make interpretation of conventions. Close to join conventions. Even Vienna convention is legally binding. It's Vienna conventions. Ah, you mentioned liability. No, six other convention early notification then assistance in case of event, Vienna convention amendment to Vienna convention IMO, maritime convention everything else is legally binding. Yes, I know that some conventions first of all for liability we have two conventions Paris convention and from point of view of practical reason it's possible to adopt if one state and another state has different members of different conventions it's possible to organize the communication in some other cases. But I'm not expert in interpretation of conventions. We as usually invited experts in this area for our study from member states and from the agency for detailed consideration of application of some conventions for specific cases. And another question is like the countries who has like the nuclear fuel supplied from the manufacturers you will see in the future about the back end of that waste and now I'm a little worried about because in Bangladesh we also have like turnkey project so we are getting fuel directly from suppliers so what will happen when we go to decommissioning or hours spent fuel? Here I cannot also make complete reply due to here we should consider additionally national legal system. For example in Rosatom a lot of experts taken to account technological cycle and prepare the procedure of take back fuel from our partners Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt Belarus maybe in future Uzbekistan we have technological from technological point of view it's understandable and we have capacity but first of all Russia had national low on nuclear energy using of nuclear energy that had also some limitation regarding radioactive waste. Now it's a little bit modified but in any case here we should walk in some parallel lines and we completed new study where we fix these gaps and areas which are necessary for adaptation for realization of similar system or for reprocessing reprocessing without send back of uranium, plutonium or maybe only ready fuel and sezium stronson concentrate only or disposal in some international disposal system for example in frame of IFNEC it's not Russian side it's IFNEC the group walked in a rea of consideration of unique case in neighbor country Slovenia and Croatia has one nuclear power plant under operation by both states 60-40% and they prepared some model for discussion to establishing one repository for spent fuel why for one nuclear power plant is necessary to have two repositories but of course it is a long way for future and no full reply for your answers in the world only tendency thank you dr. we as scientists and engineers we saw all the lectures about the technical aspects of making innovative nuclear energy systems viable but can you say in the legal aspect there is equivalent efforts and advancements to make these systems viable in my opinion of course experts in legal line should work maybe in cooperation with scientists and managers who truly speaking have activity in nuclear power sometimes it is not necessary to have deep knowledge but expectation that you can meet some not technical problem on the your way should be in my career I met regularly some new steps when I should avoid or adopt current situation for example our facility was first facility for separated production of most of us and we need in 90's to prepare some special system for security of facility it was big volume of knowledge later when we adopt expert control system in Russia to other approaches but it was process in many countries in 90's I also received a lot of new information political in other aspects and step by step when I walked in the agency I understood that I have a lot of gaps in my knowledge mainly in legal but in some stages maybe it is not necessary but you should have idea that sometimes please mute your microphones if you want to ask questions please raise the hand sorry it is a long explanation I reply I reply on your question it is more in the sense that is the agency putting as much effort as in the legal aspect as in the technical aspect we are making this maybe we have to wait the technology to develop 50% of the agency activity and political activity truly speaking technical implement into some political yes it is United Nations system ok I saw we have a question ok please it is the last one ok good morning I would like to ask you about the interface of nuclear security and nuclear safety in nuclear infrastructure development and the last question is about limitation area of nuclear safeguard and nuclear safety because in my office that nuclear safeguard handle the new nuclear material accounting control and nuclear security handle it too how to about the limitation area nuclear safeguard and nuclear security thank you it is necessary to prepare one special lecture truly speaking the agency now really have some instruments and recommendation to for harmonization of approach to safety and security take into account safeguards but in security we have two line, two approaches some group of member states consider nuclear security activity as classified activity you too if you will have open communication of course you will have a lot of information for terrorist and some other specific but from other hand communication of efforts of new member states of course on first stage is much better to have unified approach to establish of national systems but it's system and rules it's one point but real technical instruments for security is another point so in any case we will have full scale interface here interface it's mainly documents and as I know in some countries nuclear safety it's a special regulatory office under government but nuclear security or it's some special service organization or ministry of defense but safeguards safeguards here it's it's my opinion I suggest to consider separate line due to it's routine work of group of inspectors who has some specific instruments and if state really have no any secret program related nuclear weapon of course in that case it's much better to follow agency agency now has a lot of recommendations and approaches for countries with different nuclear programs research reactors or some research reactors uranium mining or nuclear power plant or many nuclear power plants so I cannot reply fully for now integrated integrated 3S framework yes, yes it's the same it's this idea this conception works very well for design now it's interesting approach safety by design security by design and safeguardability by design here 3S works very well but for some implementation we can meet difficulties and maybe some states will select traditional way splitting of this activity it is not obvious so ok, again thank you very much thank you very much


Hi, I'm David Hatcher-Chillris. Please join me now as we investigate the secret space program NASA and a British television hoax known as Alternative 3. Alternative 3 was a television program broadcast in the UK in 1977. Incredibly, it is banned from being shown on television in the United States. Why you ask? Could this even be possible that it's banned? We will explain this in a minute. The Anglia television show on Alternative 3 was purportedly an investigation into Britain's contemporary brain drain. It was supposed to uncover a plan to make the moon and Mars habitable in the event of some terminal catastrophe here on Earth. There were two earlier alternatives, Alternative 1 and 2, which were reportedly scrapped as impractical, and only in certain elite persons were be relocated to the moon and Mars, and this was the so-called Alternative 3. The environmental catastrophe in question was overpopulation, and the three alternatives were 1. Cut the population down, 2.  Alternative 3 began as a fictional hoax. It was an heir to the Orson Welles radio production of the War of the Worlds. The original program was supposed to be broadcast on April Fool's Day 1977 in Britain, but it was delayed to a June broadcast because of an industrial strike. So the show wasn't able to air on April 1st. Let's watch the beginning of Alternative 3 now. We have to go back in time some 18 months when we began work on another film which examined the scientific brain drain from Britain. That film was never completed because our enquiries led us into some strange and unexpected byways. And they, in their turn, led uniformly to a blank wall. A blank wall below where I'm standing now at the car park of Terminal 3 of London's Heathrow Airport. We begin this special report with part of that uncompleted film from our reporter Colin Benson. Dr Anne Clark, who works in this building, is one of Britain's younger generation of research scientists. Her specialty is solar energy. Like many others in her position, Anne Clark is contemplating joining the brain drain and leaving the country. Well, it's entirely a question of facilities. I mean, look, look at the mess I'm supposed to work out of. Look at this building. If I and people like me are going to do the job we've been trained to do and are capable of doing, then we must be given the means of doing it. It's thinking far better today. After this film was taken, Anne Clark made a decision. It was not, however, a decision she felt able to talk about. They won't let us into the building. They say they've had orders not to. Yes, I know. I'm sorry. Well, can you tell us exactly what's going on? No, I'm sorry. I can't go on with this film. I'm going away. What exactly is happening? I can't say anything. That is the last piece of film we have of Dr Anne Clark. Anne Clark here to the car park of number three terminal Heathrow Airport. She told friends she was going to New York. Base two of New York, flight 501. Passengers should go through... And yet there's no record of Anne Clark leaving this airport on that or any other day. The only evidence she was here at all is her abandoned car. Beyond that, nothing. I've done everything I can to try to get some kind of answer. But there's nothing. They just say, we're sorry, but we don't know anything about your brother. Robert Patterson is, or rather was, a senior lecturer in mathematics at St Andrews University. These photos were taken by his sister when he, with his wife Eileen and two children, left this house on the morning of November the 9th, 1975 and set out by car to London's Heathrow Airport. What happened after that? We don't know. On leaving the Royal Air Force, where he worked in special projects, Brian Pendelbury had told his parents that he was going to work for an electronics firm in Sydney, Australia. He sent photographs of his life out there. And for a time kept in touch by letter. Then there was this friend of ours who was going out there and we said, why don't you look up our violin and give him a surprise? Well, he got there, the address we'd given him. They never heard of Brian. Despite the letters and photographs, which remain unexplained, there's no further evidence about Brian Pendelbury other than the fact that his name appears to have been checked in at London's Heathrow Airport for a flight to Sydney. That, so far as we can discover, is the last anyone ever saw of him. Ann Clark, Robert Patterson, and Brian Pendelbury. Just three of the 400 names compiled for our projected science report, Brain Drain from Britain. From this office, our researchers began checking through every one of them. We were looking for patterns. Who were the people leaving this country? What were their reasons? And what were their feelings about it afterwards? But out of those 400 names, it became apparent that 24 had disappeared without trace, some alone, others with their families. Where did they go? And why? And indeed, how? What, if anything, was the common factor? Bank radio telescope, where, although no one realized it at the time, the second part of our complex story was beginning to unfold. Sir William Valentine, a distinguished radio astronomer, was setting out on a journey he was never to complete. Valentine was a worried man. That much we know from a phone call he made from this isolated box, not far from the main London motorway. News agency manager and editor, John Hendry. And how did he seem to you? He sounded agitated, which was unusual, because he was a car self-possessed man, normally. He said he was driving up to London and wanted to see me later. I said, fine. And he also asked if I'd received a package, which he'd posted the day before. I said I had. It contained this spool of tape, which he told me to keep under lock and key till he arrived. And I waited. And of course, next morning I heard about the accident. These photographs of the crash were taken by an agency cameraman. Despite considerable news coverage, only one photo was made available to the national press and television. Independent experts examined those photographs and the site of the accident itself, where I'm standing now. They drew no firm conclusions, except to say that the cause of the accident remained, to them at least, peculiarly unclear. But what of the videotape, which Valentine had been so anxious to get safely to his friend, John Hendry? Apparently nothing. No picture, just the ceaseless noise of space. No different from countless other tapes in the archives of radio astronomy. There was, we were assured, no solution here to the mysteriously violent death of Sir William Valentine. But what it meant? What was the piece of vital information Sir William Valentine had deciphered from this apparently random cacophony? That was something we'd have to wait much longer to find out. In the meantime, however, something happened which, at least at first, seemed to offer us some sort of a clue. An outside telephone call was put through to the science report office. I found myself talking to a man with an American accent who refused to give his name or any other details of himself over the phone. He told me only that he had met Sir William Valentine on a visit the British astronomer had made shortly before his death to NASA Space Headquarters in Houston, Texas. We arranged to meet not far from here in one hour's time. OK, I'm ready. What you are about to see may be considered by many of you unethical. However, we believe that in the light of subsequent developments, our action was justified. Benson was equipped with a miniaturized transmitter so that we could record the conversation between them. And a hidden camera was positioned near the market where the meeting had been arranged. Paul and Benson. Yes, hello. Can we just clear it? We do like to go back to the office. No, no, no. We're all right here. This is something I have to know. How far are you going to go on this thing? I mean all the way. That's what I'm here for. Can you help? Oh, I can help. But we do this thing my way, OK? OK, fine. Let's, uh, let's walk on a little bit, OK? I'm sorry if I seem a little bit nervous. It's mainly because I am nervous of what? Contrary to your fatal case of measles, you know what I mean? Like Valentine. You, uh, you know what happened to him? I know why it happened. And I've got to get it on record before they find out I'm over here. Hey, who are they?  OK, fine. This address tomorrow morning 10 30. Bring everything you've got. Cameras, tape machines, witnesses. That's the kind of protection I need. I'll have everything for you there. Lynn Benson arrived at the address he was given shortly before 10 30 the next day. That's it. Together with a full camera crew. OK, drive in. The door was open. We show you the next part of the film, uncut, and exactly as we shot it on that day. Report, television, take one. Englir television. Science report. Who? This is number 88, isn't it? Yeah, 88. We're here with the television crew to see a missed, uh, who is there in America. I don't mean Harry. That's it. Can we come in, please? Look, is he on acid or something? I'll just get out of here, will you? Answer our questions. We saw of the mysterious young American. Despite returning with the police barely half an hour later, we kept watch on this house for several days. We found no one. Elsewhere, however, more pieces of this strange pattern continued to fit into place. The great world drought of that summer was unequaled in recorded history. Europe's normally green dairy country was reduced to a dustblow. Cattle, finding no moisture in the grass, had to be provided with increasingly scarce water and fed next winter's fodder. In Britain, it was the same story of parched fields and poor crops. In France, forest fires out of control devastated huge areas of woodland. Vast reservoirs dried up, and standpipes were brought into the worst-hit areas, some of which had barely 20 days' supply of water left. The river Thames was reduced to its lowest level in living memory. There was no panic. Only a growing sense of unease that what we were experiencing was unnatural and that the Earth's climate was moving towards a radical change. Melbourne, Australia, where the Yarrow River was reduced to a polluted trickle in which fish and water life were almost completely destroyed. Before water restrictions tightened, desperate efforts were made to save the rare and valuable trees in Melbourne's famous botanical gardens. Northern India was in the grip of the worst heat wave for over 50 years. In Bihar, the temperature reached 48 degrees centigrade, 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Thousands died, and the hardship to animals and crops was unimaginable. The African desert continued its encroachment on fertile land, destroying all in its wake. In the late 1970s, the UK's Anglia Television ran a weekly science series called Science Report. The very final episode of this series was the alternative three show. It retained the normal format and the presenter. It was written by a guy named Chris Myle and David Ambrose. Music on the show was by Brian Eno. And a portion of it was released on a 1978 album, Music for Films. The episode began by detailing the so-called Brain Drain, which was a number of supposedly mysterious disappearances and deaths of physicists, engineers, astronomers, and others related to the space field. Among the strange deaths reported was that of one Professor Ballantyne of Jodrel Bank. Before his death, Ballantyne delivers a videotape to an academic friend, and when viewed on an ordinary videotape machine, the only result is radio static. According to the research presented in this episode about alternative three, it was hypothesized that the missing scientists were involved in a secret American-Soviet plan in outer space. And it further suggested that space travel had been possible for much longer than was commonly accepted. The episode featured an Apollo astronaut, a fictional Bob Groden who claims to have stumbled on a mysterious lunar base during his moonwalk. It was claimed that scientists had determined that the Earth's surface would be unable to support life for much longer due to pollution leading to catastrophic climatic change. It was proposed that there were three alternatives to this problem. The first involved the detonation of nuclear bombs in the stratosphere in order to allow the pollution on Earth to escape. The second alternative was the construction of an elaborate underground city, a solution reminiscent of the finale of Dr. Strangelove. The third alternative, the so-called alternative three, was to populate Mars via a station on the moon. The alternative three program ends with some detective work acting on information by Groden. And the report determines that Valentine's videotape requires a special decoding device. After locating such a device, the resulting video turns out to depict a landing on the Martian surface in 1962. As Russian and American voices excitedly celebrate their achievement, something stirs beneath the Martian soil. What was going on in the show? Were the Russians and Americans actually working together? Is there a secret space program that already has created bases on the moon and even Mars? Let's look again at some of alternative three. Meanwhile, in China and the Middle East, unparalleled earthquakes killed millions, far more than might have been expected from a nuclear attack. On the far side of the Pacific, the whole of the Caribbean seemed on the point of eruption. Volcanoes thought to be extinct for thousands of years were suddenly erupting into dreadful life. Scientists from shifting land masses in central Europe destroyed centuries of history. In parts of Italy and Yugoslavia, many ancient towns were reduced to rubble. International rescue teams evacuated thousands from the threatened area, but many others were too broken by the experience to leave. Scientists began to suspect that the balance of the earth's ecology was far more delicately poised than they'd yet realized. At the height of the drought, we interviewed at Cambridge University someone prepared to offer the beginnings of an answer. That's something you'd expect in this country. Heat, of course. Gerstein's theories, when he first put them forward over 20 years ago, had been almost universally dismissed. He was called an alarmist and a pessimist. Events proved him, on the contrary, to be something of an optimist. By the late 60s, the earth was already so trapped within an envelope of its own pollution that heat from the sun and the earth's industrial processes was having increasing difficulty in escaping. Ten years earlier than Gerstein's prediction, the notorious greenhouse effect, a thickening of the outer atmosphere due to the eight-fold increase in the carbon dioxide levels, had become a reality. As the atmosphere became more dense, extreme variations of temperature were experienced, from intense heat to equally unprecedented cold. North America suffered the worst winter on record. Rivers froze solid, and even the Great Niagara Falls was halted. In many areas, a state of emergency was ordered by the newly elected President Carter. But the most frightening discovery which scientists made was that last year's un-melted snow line is the next step to a future and unavoidable ice age. With the Huntsville Halledrama Conference of 1957, my ideas were at last being taken seriously by a small group of senior physicists and government advisors. But by then, of course, it was too late. What was this with those people? Can you tell me what happened at Huntsville? The usual thing. The politicians come running to us as though we can reverse the course of nature. When we tell them we can't, they say, why didn't we do something earlier? When we tell them they prevented us, they start squabbling among themselves. Was anything achieved by the conference? There was some discussion. Secret. Can you tell me anything about that? Jean, on the very same vertical. Well, look, I can understand you over and over. Look. All I'm prepared to say is there were three alternatives to discussion. The first two were crazy. Forget about them. The third alternative. Maybe not so crazy. But I don't know if anything was ever done of us. Can you tell me what it was? At the time that interview was filmed, Carl Gerstein refused to say anything further about alternative three. In the second part of this special program, we shall show you how we uncovered that information for ourselves. We'll also be bringing you a remarkable interview with former astronaut Bob Groden, filmed in secret at his hideaway in New England. Stay with us then. Even though Anglia TV had to announce that the alternative three TV show was a hoax, the interest in it was tremendous. In 1978, a book was written about alternative three based on the screenplay of the episode by a writer named Leslie Watkins. Watkins had previously written a few moderately suspenseful thriller novels and his alternative three novelization detailed many of the claims presented in the television episode. This book was published in the late 70s in both the UK and in America. Then, in 1990, Jim Keith began work on his book, Mind Control and UFOs, casebook on alternative three. In this book, he argued that many of the elements of the 1977 broadcast were in fact true. This is astronaut Bob Groden before his first moonwalk. More than one of the men who were part of that first Apollo program found it difficult to readjust a life back on Earth, but no one more so than this man. Here he is as he is today. Five years on, psychological factors it seemed which on the surface could explain away the changes in personality, the instability, the breakdown of former relationships. But what exactly were those psychological factors? Jezebel, a form of code, but meaning what? Certainly nothing to the 600 million people listening on Earth below. From Boston, Massachusetts, we arranged for ex-astronaut Bob Groden to talk to us. The interview was filmed to be edited later. Can you hear me all right? Can you hear me in Boston? Groden showed no reluctance to discuss the breakdown he'd suffered after his return from space. But nothing remarkable seemed likely to come from the interview until I asked this question. It's been suggested, among others, by some very responsible people that you, all of you on the Apollo program, saw far more out there than you've been allowed to admit publicly. Would you like to comment on that suggestion? Well, I was only trying to... Are you trying to screw me? Are you trying to screw me? Well, why me? I'm up there to do a job, man. That's all I was up there to do. I don't have to answer that. Oh, hell, what's the matter with this thing now? It's not this, then. Somebody's called a switch somewhere. That somewhere, so far as we could discover, was neither in London nor in Boston. But in the satellite connecting the two, the incident has never been explained. Nevertheless, that one word, Valentine, was enough to send Colin Benson and a camera operator with some very innocent-looking home movie equipment across the Atlantic posing as tourists. This is what they brought back on 8mm film. I would never have found Bob Groden unless he had been willing that I should. But starting with the few leads I had, I was brought eventually to the remote bungalow where he now lives. Do you want a beer? Mm-hmm. This one. Oh, would you? Hank, we have a couple of cold beers. Well, what do you want to do? Do you want to do it out here or in there? It doesn't make any difference. I don't think we're going to have a private conversation. What's on here? There. Michael, baby. I'll meet the professor. All right. Thank you. You want to reveal all? Why, sir Annie? She's not my daughter, right? You put that on the record. All right? You got it, Bob. She's a great kid. Well, without her, I, uh, I'm pretty lucky. We talked for an hour before Groden became willing to discuss our previous and abortive satellite interview. You try that. What exactly can you tell us about Valentine? Well, I don't remember Valentine. He showed up at, um, at NASA with some, uh, some tape he made. And he got pretty damn excited when they put it back in that jukebox. Jukebox? Well, it decoded.  Without NASA's equipment? That's right. And, uh, some young guy. Help him do it. He should have known better than that. Was it this man? Yeah, it could be. Yeah, it looks like him. Well, are you sure you don't want Berber? No, no, no, this one. What you're saying is that, uh, Valentine was killed because of what he discovered on that tape. Well, I'm saying nothing, um, I just saw the way that they, uh, those guys looked at him, and, uh, I know those looks, because they looked at me the same way. Those guys? Look, come on, get a real drink, will you? Come on. The moon landing. Well, we had, um, a big disappointment. We didn't get there first. What do you mean? There are polos. There's a smoke screen. The cover-up was really going on out there.  They didn't even tell us. Nothing. Well, what is going on?   After all, they were pushed out of the space. I mean, you don't think they just gave up? Do you? Give up? You want a drink? No, I don't. You, uh, you got to tell me, what is going on? I mean, what did you see? Well, we came down the wrong place. And it was crawling. I remember we were on the ground in the middle of nowhere. Is it you talking about men from Earth?  Now, hell, they do. You know, you know why we're there? To give them a good PR story for all the hardware that's you and I in this space. Nothing, that would, Christ, were nothing. To keep you bums happy, to stop you from asking questions about what, what the hell is really going on out there. Look, that's it, that, that's it. And this story, that's a finish. That's a lot, that's a lot. Fear, suspicion, unanswered questions, possibly murder. What were we dealing with? Back in London, we did what we could to investigate the claims made by ex-Astronaut Bob Grodin. Catherine White reports. The Institute of International Political Studies is a non-government organization based in London, Sir James's. It was Grodin's linking of the Pentagon with the Kremlin and the implications behind it that brought me here to talk to Professor G. Gordon Broadbent, author of a major study of U.S. Soviet diplomacy since the 1950s. The short answer is that I know nothing of U.S.-Soviet relations beyond what has already been made public. We had the celebrated docking space some time ago. This was presented as an isolated exercise, and as far as I know, it was exactly that. Maybe paving the way for more to come. Order issues of Soviet U.S. cooperation there is an element of mystery which puzzles many people in my field. To put it it is simplest. None of us can understand how it is that the peace has been maintained for the past 25 years. You mean the experts have baffled? But also, for once, in agreement. The popular myth that it's been improved for the balance of nuclear power frankly held up entirely. And the more you look at it, the less sense it makes. There are too many imbalances, especially when you put it in the perspective of history. So what is your explanation? Essentially what we're suggesting is that at the very highest level of East-West diplomacy there is operating a factor of which we know nothing. Now, it could just be, could, that this unknown factor is a massive but covered operation in space. As for the reason behind it, well, we're not in the business of speculation. Interest in Alternative 3 continued throughout the 1980s and even the magazine Omni started to pick up on Alternative 3. Then a letter that was reportedly written by Watkins said that, so summing up, he said, the book is fiction based on fact. But I now feel that I inadvertently got very close to a secret truth. Watkins, in fact, moved to Australia, felt he was being followed, and he disappeared for about ten years. Interest is internal. Nine. Ignition sequence starts. Six. Five. Is the colossal power needed to pull clear from the Earth's gravitational field and put, in Grodin's words, two men on a bicycle on the surface of the moon? But suppose such immense power did not have to be chiefly consumed in merely getting into space, but could start from space. What kind of travel would that bring within our grasp? Obviously, we could go further with less power or send a much larger craft. In fact, the only way we're going to see space travel on any scale is by this kind of extraterrestrial launching. For instance, from a space platform orbiting the Earth. Or the moon. Sure, if we could get the material there to build the craft, it would make real good sense. Could we transport the materials there? Did it take one hell of a shuttle, but yeah. We have the machines now. In theory, we could do it. Especially if we had some sort of international cooperation. International cooperation. In space. A space shuttle. But shuttling what? To where? We also hear talk of Russian and American sky labs and the men who live and work in them for several months at a time. But what are they all doing up there in space? We tend to think of the arms race as a space race as practically the same thing. Visits by one side to the other. Here, Soviet technicians and astronauts are greeted by their American counterparts have been dismissed as diplomatic courtesies. We have a working relationship that's quite good with the Soviet Union. I'm sure it's going to continue. But the Russians were the first in space with their Sputnik in 1957. And later the same year, the first were the living creature, Leica, the dog. Then they made three years later the gigantic step with the first man in space, Yorega Garin. And later on the first woman, Valentina. The drive to make the first man on the moon an American was launched by President Kennedy. The first wave of modern invention and the first wave of nuclear power. And this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it. We mean to lead it. By the late 60s, the Russians it seemed had simply dropped out and stopped trying. And yet today, Cape Canaveral is virtually abandoned, a desert of reinforced concrete and steel. The most ambitious project in the history of mankind seemed to be over. Are we to believe that this is where it all ends? Of the estimated 2,000 launchings from Earth to space, at least 60% have been by the Russians. The near side of the moon's surface, the side visible to us here on Earth. The flags indicate acknowledged landings of American and Soviet craft. Among the spaceships the Russians sent up was the Vostok, supposedly not intended to reach the moon's surface. But in 1972, this sighting was recorded, Russian Vostok flights took place in the early 60s. They were, as we've said, Earth-orbiting spaceships, not designed to reach the moon. We're going to make of this casual suggestion by Houston Mission Control and an equally casual acceptance by the lunar module pilot that in 1972, an obsolete Russian spaceship is orbiting the moon flashing its lights. Russians were the first on the moon with their unmanned rocket which landed here in 1959. Here, exactly ten years later, Neil Armstrong landed. But our researches show another pattern of landings on the far side of the moon, the dark side, the side hidden from us here on Earth. Are we to assume that this remarkable grouping of American and Soviet landings is mere coincidence? When we returned to Cambridge and presented Dr. Carl Gerstein with the information we'd so far acquired, he finally agreed to speak on record about alternative three. We had agreed at the Huntsville Conference that there was nothing we could do to cut either world population or the consumption of resources essential for survival on Earth. Alternative three was a much more limited option. It was an attempt to ensure that at least some of the human race survived the consequences. We were theorists, not technicians, but we realized we were talking about a kind of space travel appeared in scientific fiction so far. What? You mean go to some other planet? I mean get the hell off this one whilst there's still time. Dr. Carl Gerstein then went on to discuss the kind of cross-section they would like to see get away, a balance of the sciences and the arts. In fact, all aspects as far as possible of human culture. He said that the list would never be complete, but it would be better than nothing. These are the cards you saw earlier. All of them people who disappeared without trace or explanation during the last 18 months. In other countries, they have similar lists. All people forming that same kind of cross-section that Carl Gerstein described. All were in good health and all under the age 55. But where have they gone? Here is a picture of a supposedly dead planet, the nearest one to Earth. Mars would appear to offer an aspect of survival if these photographs from Viking tour were to be believed. But are they? Charles Wellborn himself seemed surprised that the Americans, after spending so much money and putting the probe on the surface of Mars, should then equip it with a camera that only focused up to 100 meters. Or, as Colin Benson suggested, the average size of a large film studio. What's your answer? Well, you've got to remember that from NASA and then they're given to the rest of us. If they say it's Mars, we have to believe them. It's the same thing with audio. I mean, we don't hear everything that's said between mission control and the spacecraft. There's a second channel. They call it the biological channel. Officially, it's just for reporting on medical details. And in fact, it's the one they switched to when they have something to say they don't want the whole world to listen in on. Sure. That could be a studio in Burbank. But I mean... for God's sake. Mariner 4 asked close enough to Mars to send back the best photographs of its surface we'd had so far. But was it all just like this? Mars has always been a source of fascination to mankind. And a mystery. In the early days of astronomy, Mars was believed to have artificially constructed canals which was taken as evidence of intelligent life on the planet. But later, this theory was discredited. In its place, we had a picture of barren, inhospitable planet inimical to the survival of any form of life. Then more recently, an interesting idea was put forward. Suppose life had existed on Mars as the climate and other conditions worsened. Any surviving life would have formed into a state of hibernation awaiting the return of more favorable conditions. It was even suggested that the atmosphere which had sustained life may have become entrapped in the surface soil of the planet. There was an occurrence several years ago which made this theory very persuasive. Mars has always had a covering of cloud varying in density at different times until the time of which Dr. Gerstein spoke when the cloud thickened to a degree never previously observed. This happened and was scientifically recorded in 1961. It was obvious that storms of colossal proportions were taking place on Mars. When the clouds eventually cleared, some remarkable changes were seen. The polar ice caps had substantially decreased in size and around the equatorial regions a broad band of darker coloring had appeared. This, it has been suggested, was vegetation. Carl Gerstein's theory was that these storms could have been caused by a nuclear explosion delivered from Earth. The same year the Russians had a great space disaster, only the various facts are recorded, the rest was kept secret. A rocket blew up at launching. Numbers of people were killed. Large area devastated. What were the Russians trying to launch and did they succeed? Was the rocket carrying a nuclear device which would account for the devastation cause? A nuclear device which at a second attempt was delivered to the surface of Mars causing the dynamic changes recorded in 1961. 48 hours ago, Catherine White was at her desk in the production office. As a matter of course by now all incoming phone calls were recorded. Hello, science report from Brinton or Colin Benson. I'm afraid they're not here just now. Who is it, please? Can you get a message to them? Yes, I can. Just tell them the record, okay? What happened to Harry? No. They promised me that if I throw you off the track. What are they? I wanted you to have this. I have no idea what it is. Please, you've got to get me somewhere to hide. Don't worry, we'll do that. No idea what it is, I don't know what it does. It's a printed circuit. He said that you had to fit it to an I-C something 40. And you get a jukebox. Does that mean anything? We've heard of it.  That's all. We connected up the printed circuit and played once again the videotape that Sir William Valentine before his death had sent to his friend John Hendry. This time we obtained an acceptable picture which are now about to see as we saw it be an authentic record of the first and secret landing on Mars by an unmanned space probe from Earth. We also believe the date given, May the 22nd, 1962, to be accurate. The blanket of total security by which this information has been covered could only have been maintained by the active cooperation of governments at very high level. Equally clearly, there must have been powerful reasons why the true conditions on Mars, suitable as they appear to be for human habitat, have been kept secret. Indeed, the effort which has gone into persuading the rest of the world that the opposite is true, argues that some operation of supreme importance has been going on beneath the security cover. We believe that that operation is Dr. Carl Gerstein's alternative three. Whether a human survival colony has already been established on Mars or whether plans are still in preparation for its transportation from the moon to Mars, we don't know. But we put out this program tonight as a challenge to those who do now to tell us the truth. We regret if the implications of what you've seen are less than optimistic for the future of life on this planet. It has been our task, however, to present the facts as we understand them and to await the response. Good night. On February 25th, 2008, the Pentagon confirmed that they had used a missile to shoot down a spy satellite. The Pentagon confirmed that it was able to destroy and disable a spy satellite with a missile fired from the Earth. Now, what's interesting about this is that back in the late 1980s, the Americans announced briefly that they were putting a web of killer satellites into orbit, a literal death star in space. These killer satellites could have actually taken out other satellites from space-based weapons rather than from the Earth. Does the Pentagon actually have a space-based weapons system already in orbit around our planet? So now we see the U.S. Navy shooting a satellite out of the sky. Yet when we watch these Pentagon videos from the 1980s that claim that the Navy has already developed a network of killer satellites in space, we have to wonder if this is all part of the secret space program. Originally, they claimed that this killer satellite network was for the protection of America from communist intercontinental ballistic missiles coming from the former Soviet Union. With the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, there was apparently no further need for this space-based maser weapons system. Or was there? Did the military continue to develop these weapons systems in space? And meanwhile, what about alternative 3's other claims? One interesting claim that was made in alternative 3 was that the Cold War was a hoax, and the Russians and Americans were secretly working together. Another claim was that the current NASA space program was largely a hoax itself, and that what was seen on television, such as the Apollo mission, was some sort of deception. Much as the popular belief that these Apollo moon mission photos were also hoped and contained obvious mistakes, other errors and giveaways, still, the NASA deception was one of having a secret space program with the Russians, and that it all started at the end of World War II. Alternative 3 may have been a hoax, but were parts of it true? Had the writers accidentally stumbled onto something real? But, were the Soviets and Americans really working together in the 1960s, 70s and 80s as they claimed? What about the Cold War? Weren't the Soviets our enemy? Similarly, the Americans of the Soviets shared an actual space station called Skylab in the 1970s during the height of the Cold War. Did this make sense? The Alternative 3 scenario was saying that the space race and the arms race between the Soviets and the Americans was a cover for something bigger, a secret space program that included missing scientists going to secret bases on the moon and Mars. In this scenario, flying saucers weren't extraterrestrials, but being piloted by a secret government that controlled both the Russians and the Americans. Jim Keith called them the Illuminati, and one of his books was called Saucers of the Illuminati. So what is really going on in space? Is there already a Death Star Mazer network in orbit above us? Have there been man bases on our moon since the 1950s? Were the Apollo missions a cover for the secret space program and their photos cleverly hoaxed? What about the missions to Mars and beyond? If the secret government has electro-gravitic space ships that are capable of traveling through space more efficiently than a rocket, could they have already established these bases on other planets? It seems incredible. This is David Hatcher Childress saying goodbye and good night. We're going at alarm. Good radar data. We're now in the approach phase. Everything looking good. Altitude 4200. Roger understand, go for landing. 3,000 feet. Altitude 1,600. 1,400 feet, still looking very good. 7,000 feet, 21,000. 33 degrees. 100 feet, down to 19. 12,01. Rocket 12,01 alarm. Same time, we're going. Altitude, velocity light. 1,500, there's 20 feet. 13 forward. We're going down nicely, 200 feet. 4,500, 5,500. Lights on, down to 1,500. We're picking up some dust before we're drifting to the right level. Yes. Okay, engine stopped. We copy it down, Eagle. Stand quality base here, the Eagle has landed. The unseen grips the populace as a human being made invisible and insane by a potent drug. Praise on the citizenry. Intent conventions. Prison walls cannot hold him. Scotland yard cannot stop him. And while science works practically while a loved one waits and hopes the invisible hands of a condemned murderer deal out death and destruction. I don't understand. Japanese invisible. Why can't I see him? Oh, he's here isn't he? I just catch him and expect he wants to kill me. I think I could leave any moment I like that. I'll be all right. Helen, don't look at me like that. He didn't kill Michael. Oh, didn't he?  To cheer up a lot of bedclothes? Come clean about how this machine works. Make me invisible. I did not invent that machine to make killers like you invisible. Oh, this has got to be good. You will be of great help to us. Is his amazing mission. See the invisible agent suggested by H.G. Wells' Invisible Man. Starring Elona Massey and John Hall. With Peter Lorre, Sir Cedric Hardwick, J. Edward Bromberg, Albert Wasserman, in the most amazing story of our time. Frank, how can you talk like that? You'll be caught here and electrically transferred to the projector in my laboratory. What am I? A million light years distant. I leave my secret with you. It is all there.  Power to destroy.  If your men fail to capture him at the gate, then at midnight we bolt all doors in Darden's entire house. His face in hands will appear like phosphorus.


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 Lisser from the CBS television news staff, and August Heckscher, chief editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Ernest A. Gross, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations and Assistant Secretary of State. For now on until next fall, when the United Nations Assembly meets and the Congressional elections take place, this country will be faced by a continuing question. Can we keep Red China out of the United Nations? Now our guest tonight has probably had more experience in fighting the battle of and against Red China's entry, and successfully I may say, than any other man. Mr. Gross, we'd like to ask you, as our former Ambassador to the United Nations, what do you think our present chances of keeping China out are at the moment? I feel very confident that the Communist Chinese government will not win its seat in the United Nations, either in the General Assembly when it reconvenes or in the Security Council. And I believe that will be impossible because the great majority of the countries in the world, I think this applies to the Western European countries, to all of Latin America, and now with perhaps no exceptions, the British Commonwealth and several countries in Asia and several countries in the Middle East will oppose the Chinese Communist representation in the United Nations. But Mr. Gross, for example, in 1950 before Korea, was there any comparable United sentiment against the admission? It was not nearly as strong. In the Security Council in 1950 before Korea, the Chinese Communists came very, very close indeed to winning a seat on the Security Council. There is no doubt that in the General Assembly there was strong sentiment in favor of seating the Chinese Communists. Mr. Gross, are we against the Red China's entry in the UN because she's an aggressor now or because we hope someday to overthrow her revolutionary government? The problem of representation of a member state such as China is a different problem than the one of admitting a state into membership in the United Nations. It seems like a technical difference, but under the charter of the United Nations it's a very important distinction. You mean China is already a member of the United Nations? China is already a member of the United Nations. The question is, who is to represent China? Now China now has a representative. In the Security Council, the representative is Dr. TF Jiang, who is a very able and distinguished one of the leaders of the free world cause in the United Nations. He remains the representative of China until he's replaced. In the General Assembly, the delegations of the Nationalist Chinese Government have been very distinguished. They would be replaced by the Communist Chinese if they won their seat. Mr. Gross, when you were our ambassador to the United Nations, you said that the admission of Red China to the United Nations or the ousting of Nationalist China was not subject to the veto, but the present Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, says it is subject to the veto. How do you explain that? In January of 1950, on instructions from the government, I did announce that the position of the United States government was that we were opposed to the admission of Red China to the Security Council, but that we would accept a majority decision. You didn't say there that a veto was impossible. You said you didn't want to use the veto. Well, we said that we would accept the decision. Actually, our position was based upon a very simple and logical point. The fact of the matter is that the charter of the United Nations provides that procedural questions in the Security Council are not subject to the veto. The question of who represents a member state has been regarded as a procedural question. There is a very simple common sense reason why, because if a permanent member of the Security Council, one of the so-called big five, had the right to veto in the case of who represented a government who was on the Security Council, then my good friend Dr. TF Xiang, I hope he stays on the Council for a long, long time. But Dr. Xiang, the nationalist Chinese representative, could veto his own replacement because he represents China. China is a permanent member of the Security Council, and therefore there would be no chance of his being replaced. The question of the United States using its veto would never arise. The Chinese would probably use it themselves. Does this mean, Mr. Gross, that if Guatemala's new government were on the Security Council, that Russia would veto it? Well, that's an interesting point because if Guatemala were a member of the Security Council and the communists, the Soviets, did not like the new government, they would veto the replacement of the representative of the former government of Guatemala. So, there are very practical reasons, therefore, why we should rely upon the straight majority principle and not get into the complications which would be caused by the application of the veto, which I think is unnecessary in any event. Well, nevertheless, in the Assembly, what sort of a vote will be needed there to keep Red China out? Well, under the majority of 31, the simple majority or two- Well, under the shorter of the United Nations, it provides that in the General Assembly votes on important questions have to be taken by a two-thirds majority. So, how do you decide, yes, what is an important question? Well, the procedure is that the majority of the members of the Assembly decide whether or not it is important. If the majority decides it is an important question, then it requires a two-thirds vote to carry a proposition. I have no doubt that the problem of the representation of China would be regarded by a majority of the members as an important question and therefore would be subject to the two-thirds vote. Well, isn't all this discussion rather backwards? Wouldn't the vote come up on the ousting of Formosa of the Nationalist Chinese Government before Red China could be seated? Well, what happens in the General Assembly is that each time there is a session of the Assembly, both rival candidates present their credentials, you see, so that the Credentials Committee, which is appointed each time the Assembly begins its session once a year, has to pass upon which contestant, which competitor is entitled to the seat for that government. Has Red China actually been doing that? Red China has been sending telegraphic communication. They have not been given visas to appear in person at the UN headquarters, but they have been sending a cable regularly and dutifully each time the General Assembly convenes and claiming the seat. Would you actually feel or did you feel during your representation at the United Nations that a communist Russia actually wanted Red China to be a member of the UN? Well, I felt that while I was in the UN, I could never read the mind of the Kremlin. I believe that they have acted consistently as if they wanted the Red Chinese alongside them in the Security Council. And I believe that that's the case. I think it's kind of subtle to look for reasons. Mr. Gross, are there conditions which can be laid down and made clear to the world on which we would admit Red China at some future time? Is there some pattern of behavior to which it would have to conform? Well, it's important to try to define the reasoning there. Of course, our basic point must be that we should not support the admission of Red China to the UN unless and until we consider it to be on our national entries to do so. Now, in the future, in the indefinite future, if we say that we shall never under any circumstances support Red China's admission to the UN, we are trying to out-guess our own national interest. My own conviction is that we should not support the admission of Red China to the United Nations until and unless we decide that our support of their admission to the UN is more likely to induce them to change their course of conduct and to compliance with the standards of civilized behavior. Mr. Dulles has said that the UN is not a reformatory, so letting them into the UN would not reform them. They have to purge themselves first. The UN is not a reformatory. I quite agree. I think it's more like a hospital. It's supposed to reflect the state of the world, as Mr. Dulles pointed out in his very excellent book, Retina 1950, War or Peace. And it is, of course, supposed to be, by design, a fair reflection of the divisions and tensions of the world. I do not myself draw much of a distinction between communist China and communist Russia so far as bad behavior is concerned. Do you think, Mr. Gross, that if some sort of agreement is reached in Indochina as seems possible from the news we've had recently, that the chances of Red China's entry into the United Nations will be better? Well, I think that there will be more pressure on the part of countries, some of whom are now, of course, teetering on the edge of supporting communist China. Those countries which have recognized communist China, there are some 14 to 16, I don't recall the exact number, have not, by and large, voted to admit Red China to the UN, to seat Red China. But it is true that the closer the Chinese communists come in the future, if they come to compliance with the standards of international behavior, there will be pressures to seat them. Well, actually, if this pressure gets very strong and it appears as though Red China will become a member of the United Nations, do you think we should withdraw or what would happen if the United States actually walked out of it? I just don't believe we will walk out of the United Nations. That would lead to a fragmentation of not of the United Nations, but of our national policy of slendifying the free world. We cannot possibly break up the United Nations without reverting to the age-old balance of power of principle and practice, which has inevitably led to war. We have to do what has been called develop a community of power. I don't think the United Nations is really working as well as it should. I think that the Russians have obstructed it from the beginning, but we must, it seems to me, persevere in the effort to solidify the free world, and we can only do it through collective action. Thank you very much, Mr. Gross. We appreciate having you here tonight. The opinions expressed on the Launcine Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the Launcine Chronoscope was Larina Sir and August Hector. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Ernest A. Gross, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations and Assistant Secretary of State. Big League Baseball is one of the many sports timed by Launcine, the world's most honored watch. All umpires of both national and American leagues use Launcine watches for timing all games, including the All-Star Game and the World Series. The fact is that Launcine is official for timing championship sports events throughout the world. Official watch for the contest board is the American Automobile Association, the National Aeronautics Association, the American Power Boat Association, and many, many other leading sports and contest associations. Now why is this so? The answer is, Launcine's great accuracy and complete dependability. The fact is that in some 75 years of accuracy competitions at government observatories, Launcine watches have consistently maintained a place of honor, established many records, won countless prizes and awards. These are but some of the reasons why Launcine is deservedly known as the world's most honored watch, the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches of the world, and why discriminating people in 100 countries have found the name Launcine the first word in buying a fine watch, the last word in accuracy, dependability and complete satisfaction. And yet you may buy and own or proudly give a Launcine watch for as little as 7150. Launcine the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Launcine Witner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Launcine and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Launcine Witner watches. At Launcine Witner Jewelers, see Atmos, the perpetual motion clock created by Lecoultre. Atmos runs without winding, without electricity, powered only by variations in the temperature of the atmosphere. Atmos, product of Lecoultre, division of Launcine Witner.