The bomb has kept peace for 40 years
In this column earlier this year CND vice-chairman Bruce Kent wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister and MP for Finchley asking: what are nuclear weapons for?
Now Mrs Margaret Thatcher, in her first newspaper article on the subject, gives her reply.
What are our nuclear weapons for? CND vice-chairman Bruce Kent asked the question in an open letter to the Prime Minister in this column in January.
Apart from being immoral weapons of mass murder, they were useless against non-nuclear enemies and firing them at the Soviet Union would mean committing national suicide, he argued.
Margaret Thatcher now gives her reply—in her first newspaper article on the subject.
In your open letter published on 30 January you asked me: what is our nuclear deterrent for?
Our nuclear deterrent guarantees the defence of the United Kingdom, and it has done so successfully for more than half of my life and yours.
Every government of this country since 1945 has—once faced with responsibility for Britain's security—seen the need for Britain to have an independent nuclear deterrent. It is a key part of our contributior to collective defence through the Atlantic Alliance. It also provides Britain's defence of last resort. The Soviet Union might in certain circumstances doubt the commitment of the United States to the defence of Western Europe and miscalculate the consequences of aggressive action against the United Kingdom and other democracies in Western Europe. Our deterrent would guarantee our security in that situation. The Soviet Union has to recognise that we can inflict unacceptable damage on them were they to attack or threaten us.
Wars are caused when an aggressor believes he can achieve his objectives at an acceptable price. Possession of our independent nuclear deterrent makes plain to potential aggressors that the price they would pay would be intolerable.
That is deterrence. And it has worked. Nuclear weapons have kept the peace for over forty years. Winston Churchill recognised the role of nuclear weapons in deterring war when he said, over thirty years ago: “Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.”
To be effective, our deterrent has to be adequate to overcome the defences ranged against it. The Soviet Union has invested hugely in defence against ballistic missiles. It is now upgrading these defences further. If we are to retain the ability to penetrate them, we have to modernise our weapons systems. That was why we chose Trident. It will ensure that our deterrent remains effective well into the next century. And the cost will not be high for what we shall get: on average 3 per cent of the annual defence budget during the period of procurement.
Of course, in an ideal world there would be no weapons of mass destruction. But they exist, and they cannot be disinvented. Your solution of unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain would expose us to blackmail by potential aggressors.
The British nuclear deterrent is not an obstacle to arms control negotiation. We have always made clear that we are ready to see balanced reductions in nuclear weapons which can be properly verified.
But the fact is that our nuclear weapons are a tiny proportion of those of the Soviet Union. They are the minimum needed to deter an attack. Only if very substantial reductions in the arsenals of the Soviet Union and the United States were negotiated would our deterrent be a significant factor in the balance.
On one point I agree with you: the need to create a new atmosphere in East/West relations. But that has to come before we can contemplate reductions in nuclear weapons. We cannot take our security on trust.
If Britain were to abandon its nuclear deterrent, it would be a reckless gamble with the peace and security of future generations. That is a risk which this Government will never take.