HC Deb 14 June 1961 vol 642 cc398-401
3. Mr. Willis

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of his reference to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's conventional forces in his speech to Western European Union on 1st June, these forces will now be fully equipped with nuclear weapons of limited range.

Mr. Watkinson

N.A.T.O.'s forces are being armed and equipped to meet the present requirements laid down by SACEUR under current N.A.T.O. strategy with both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Mr. Willis

The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Question refers to his speech. Is he also aware that in that speech he practically reduced the term "conventional" to meaninglessness? Is he aware that this equipping of the conventional forces with nuclear weapons makes the danger of nuclear war much greater than before?

Mr. Watkinson

I do not think the hon. Member has read my speech.

Mr. Willis

I have done, very carefully.

Mr. Watkinson

I will send him a copy, because I made quite plain in it the careful balance that has to be drawn between the conventional and nuclear capabilities of a modern force. What I am anxious to make plain is that we are carrying out exactly N.A.T.O. policy as laid down by N.A.T.O. and by SACEUR. I do not see what more we can do than that.

Mr. Strachey

Is not the Minister aware that his speech was almost universally interpreted as being in direct contradiction, for example, to President Kennedy's views in his defence message to Congress, in which President Kennedy said that our objective now is to increase our ability to confine our response to non-nuclear weapons"? Is not that a much better doctrine?

Mr. Watkinson

How my speech was interpreted is hardly a matter for me. What I said was not at all out of line with recent statements made by defence spokesmen in the United States.

Mr. G. Brown

The Minister will not deny that he actually said: An aggressor cannot assume that we should be prepared to 'limit the war' to suit his own tactical plan… Was the Minister, therefore, saying that we should be prepared to make the war unlimited to suit our plan? Is not that a flat contradiction not only of President Kennedy but of what Admiral Brown said to the very same conference?

Mr. Watkinson

No, I do not agree. The position is quite plain and is set out plainly in other portions of my speech. In the Government's view, it is not in the interest of maintaining the deterrent to war to set out a clear list of rules or statements showing exactly the kind of reaction which one would make to any action by an aggressor. We have no intention of doing that.

Mr. Brown rose

—

Mr. Speaker

We must get on. We are making very small progress.

12. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the consent of all North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments would be required before nuclear weapons could be used by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces.

Mr. Watkinson

The Government's primary concern is to ensure that the arrangements for controlling the use of nuclear weapons in N.A.T.O. should be such that the credibility of the deterrent is not weakened. This is one of the problems now being studied in the North Atlantic Council as part of the review of N.A.T.O. strategy.

Mr. Henderson

Can we take it that Her Majesty's Government would agree that in no circumstances should nuclear weapons be used by N.A.T.O. forces except under the terms of the directive which has itself been approved by our own Government acting through the Cabinet?

Mr. Watkinson

Yes, I think that follows what I said earlier, that General Norstad must be subject to direct political control.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to his previous answer, the arrangements as understood certainly in Germany are that nuclear weapons will be ordered by the general on the spot, where it is necessary to hold conventional forces, without previous reference back for political authorisation at all? If the right hon. Gentleman's view is different from that, will he look into the matter and reassure the House about it?

Mr. Watkinson

I have been to Germany and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is not so. If he does not believe me, I will arrange for him to go to Germany and find out for himself.

Mr. Henderson

Will the right hon. Gentleman qualify the last part of his reply? When he talks about political control, can we take it that that political control is a control shared jointly by the various Governments of the N.A.T.O. alliance and certainly those who actually possess nuclear weapons themselves?

Mr. Watkinson

Yes, the position is, as General Norstad has stated, that he is subject to authorisation from the N.A.T.O. Political Council, which is representative of the Governments which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, before he could authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

13. Mr. M. Foot

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an undertaking that the British Government will always oppose the use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, first by member States of the Western Alliance.

Mr. Watkinson

Decisions about the use of nuclear weapons must be taken in the circumstances of the time.

Mr. Foot

That answer does not enlighten us very much. Would not the Minister agree that since the White Paper of 1958 there has been quite a lot of fresh thinking and discussion on this subject among many of the so-called experts on the subject; and since his speech of a few days ago has only added to the confusion on this matter, will he not consider issuing a statement of the whole arguments under which the Government are apparently upholding the doctrine that we should be prepared to use these weapons first?

Mr. Watkinson

I do not think my speech will be misread by any possible aggressor, and that was its purpose.

Mr. S. Silverman

If the right hon. Gentleman defends this policy of holding open the threat in some circumstances to use nuclear weapons first as a deterrent, will he explain how the deterrent works in order to frighten people from doing things which he does not specify?

Mr. Watkinson

If I went into details I should, no doubt, incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker. The simple answer is that it is part of the validity of the deterrent that an aggressor should not be certain what reaction is made to any aggression.