"American personalities cannot ignore that the Soviet Union is not only opposed to the use of the atomic weapon, but also in favor of its interdiction and the cessation of its production. As is well known, the Soviet Union has repeatedly asked for the banning of the atomic weapon, but each time it has met with the rejection of the powers of the Atlantic bloc. This means that in the event of a US attack on our country, US government circles will use the atomic bomb. It is precisely this circumstance that forced the Soviet Union to have the atomic weapon in order to face the attackers fully prepared.
Of course, the attackers want the Soviet Union to be disarmed in the event of their attack on it. The Soviet Union, however, does not agree on this point, and thinks that the aggressor must be faced fully prepared.
It follows that, if the United States has no intention of attacking the Soviet Union, the alarm of American personalities must be considered groundless and false, since the Soviet Union does not intend to attack either the United States or any other country.
American personalities are unhappy because the secret of the atomic bomb is possessed not only by the United States, but also by other countries, above all by the Soviet Union. They would like the United States to have a monopoly on the production of the atomic bomb, they would like the United States to have the unlimited possibility of intimidating and blackmailing other countries. But what foundation and what right do they have to think so? Does the interest of peacekeeping require such a monopoly? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that things are just the opposite and that the very interest of peacekeeping requires first of all the elimination of such a monopoly and, then, also the unconditional prohibition of the atomic weapon? I think that the proponents of the atomic bomb can accept the ban on the atomic weapon only if they see that they are no longer the monopolists ...
The Soviet Union is for the banning of the atomic weapon and for the cessation of production of this weapon. The Soviet Union is in favor of the establishment of international control, so that the decision to ban the atomic weapon, to cease its production and to use the atomic bombs already produced solely for civilian purposes, be rigorously and conscientiously implemented. The Soviet Union is precisely for this kind of control.
American personalities also speak of 'control', but their 'control' presupposes not the cessation of production of the atomic weapon, but the continuation of such production in proportion to the quantity of raw materials available to individual countries. Therefore, American 'control' presupposes not the interdiction of the atomic weapon, but the legalization and legitimation of it. Underlying it the right of war provocateurs to annihilate tens and hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens by means of nuclear weapons would be legalized. It is not difficult to understand that this is not a control, but a mockery of control, it is a deception of the peaceful aspirations of the peoples. It is clear that such control cannot satisfy the peace-loving peoples who demand the banning of the atomic weapon and the cessation of its production "
- J.V. Stalin, "Problems of Peace", "Pravda" 6 October 1951
