Here, then, is the problem which I (present) to you, stark and dreadful and (inescapable): Shall we put an end to the human race1 or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to (abolish) war. The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term 'mankind' feels (vague) and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity' And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern (weapons) are prohibited. I am afraid this hope is (illusory). Whatever agreements not to use hydrogen bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to (manufacture) hydrogen bombs as soon as war broke out, for if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious...
这里,我要向你提起一个直率的、令人不快而又无法回避的问题:我们该消灭人类,还是人类该抛弃战争?人们不愿面对这个抉择,因为消灭战争太难了。消灭战争要求限制国家主权,这令人反感。然而“人类”这个专门名词给人们的感觉是模糊、抽象的,它可能比任何其他东西都更容易妨碍认识这种形势。人们几乎没有用自己的想象力去认识这种危险不仅指向他们所模模糊糊理解的人类,而且指向他们自己和他们的子子孙孙。于是他们相信只要禁止使用现代武器,也许可以允许战争继续下去。恐怕这个愿望只是幻想。任何不使用氢弹的协定是在和平时期达成的,在战争时期这种协定就被认为是没有约束力的,一旦战争爆发,双方就会着手制造氢弹,因为如果一方制造氢弹而另一方不造的话,造氢弹的一方必然会取胜……