§ Q3. Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister, in view of the deterrent effect of existing nuclear weapons and the fact that nuclear warfare would involve all belligerents and non-belligerents in nuclear destruction, if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not support a policy of indefinitely seeking parity between Communist and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers in the accumulation, improvement and testing of nuclear weapons since even possibly inferior nuclear weapons possessed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are sufficiently deterrent because of their vast explosive potential.
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government's policy is, pending any agreement on properly controlled disarmament, to do whatever is necessary to maintain the effectiveness as a deterrent of the forces of this country and her allies. I accept that "enough is enough", but there are many divergent opinions as to what level of nuclear and other armaments might constitute an effective deterrent. What is certain is that we and our allies could not accept a position in which a series of Russian tests might put us in a dangerously backward position. In the present state of the world therefore 1581 we are compelled in our own interests and those of our allies and friends to watch very carefully all scientific and technical developments to ensure that our forces can really deter.
§ Mr. SorensenWhile accepting the Prime Minister's statement that enough is enough, and, indeed, not attempting to refute his arguments, may I ask whether he would not at least agree in principle that if sufficient nuclear power already exists to destroy the world there cannot be any point in trying to obtain more nuclear power to destroy the rubble? Surely, in those circumstances, it could be affirmed by Her Majesty's Government that a point might be reached when for no reason of prestige would the Government proceed still to support a policy of indefinitely increasing nuclear power?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir; but the object of the tests is really to secure the quality of the deterrent rather than its total quantity, to make sure that anti-missiles and other things cannot be worked out to our detriment.
§ Mr. WarbeyDoes the Prime Minister agree that there can be no hope of achieving a disarmament agreement so long as one side or the other insists upon maintaining its military superiority until the last bayonet is destroyed?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is really the point. For three years we maintained a moratorium. It was then broken. The problem was what we should do. We have tried hard to get an agreement, but we have so far failed. I believe that the House and the country as a whole recognise, however reluctantly, that the only course is to support what the American Government and we decided upon.