ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR (Hansard, 28 February 1963)

§ Q8. Mr. P. Noel-Baker
asked the Prime Minister what scientific advice he has received about the danger of accidental nuclear war.

§ The Prime Minister
This is not primarily a matter for scientific advice although of course technical factors are involved. Any Government, particularly in these days when total war would have such terrible consequences, will take the most stringent precautions that are possible against war breaking out by accident. To this extent the very existence of nuclear weapons deters war by accident as much as war by deliberate intent or miscalculation. In fact the procedures on the Western side, and I have little doubt elsewhere, would be most effective against hazards from the breakdown of equipment or human mistakes.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
I am obliged to the Prime Minister for that Answer, which is rather different from what he said last week. Has his attention been drawn to a declaration by many scientists who have worked on weapon production that the danger of accidental war is now serious, and to the recent statement by Mr. Dean Rusk that as weapons grow more complex the danger of accidental war grows much greater?

§ The Prime Minister
Perhaps I was misunderstanding what was meant by the words "accidental war". They might mean one of two things, and perhaps I read 1447 both meanings into them. One is that because of a stage of negotiations and tension and bluff and counter-bluff, war could come about without that being the real intention of the Governments concerned. That is one sense. The other sense, which I thought the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, was that by some human error, by some mistake, some of these weapons might be exploded contrary to the wishes of the Government. With regard to the second part, the measures taken—and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have further information, I shall be glad to give it to him personally—are of a kind which, I think, prevent that from happening.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
As the Prime Minister invites me, I will submit further evidence to him if I may. What he is now saying is rather different from what he said last week when he endorsed the view that the risk of accidental war was infinitesimal.

§ The Prime Minister
I meant by the second of the two meanings, by mistake in the sense of a mistake not of the Government but some human mistake by some minor officer.

Mr. Ballenger
Does the Prime Minister think that he can distinguish between accidental nuclear warfare mentioned in the Question and threats of wilful nuclear warfare emanating from certain quarters?

§ The Prime Minister
Perhaps that is where the misunderstanding has occurred. There is a very great distinction if by "accidental war" is meant war coming about without it having been the full intention of the Governments concerned to bring about war. I have always thought that the war of 1914 almost fell into that category, and that it might not have happened if there had been modern methods of communication and flight, and so on. We then had mobilisation and counter-mobilisation, but it was not in that sense the wish of the Governments concerned to have war, and it was accidental in that sense. That is another and separate question. I am afraid that I became confused about which was meant. I thought that it was being suggested that because of the technical character of the weapons today, by some 1448 man who was mad, or through some mistake made by an officer or man, a chain of events would be set off. We have provided for the prevention of that by every human means possible.

§ Sir C. Osborne
As my Question of last week has been mentioned, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the House can be assured that in the second category, that is, the category of human mistake with machinery, there is no risk of accidental war? It is that of which we wish to be assured.

§ The Prime Minister
As I said, training procedures and procedures laid down —and this is a safeguard—are such that it would not be within the power of a single man who went mad or who made some idotic mistake to set off any weapon of this kind.

§ Mr. Driberg
When the Prime Minister says that the existence of nuclear weapons is itself a deterrent against accidental nuclear war, can he explain how nuclear war could happen, by accident or otherwise, if there were not any nuclear weapons?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that I would like notice of that question so that I could study exactly how it was framed before I answered it.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
I am much obliged to the Prime Minister for his answers. Will he study carefully what Mr. Dean Rusk said about the present great complications, not only of the weapons themselves but of the chain of command and the fact that that might lead to war by accident, unintended war by accident, of a kind of which, he said, there is now not a serious risk?

§ The Prime Minister
I will study that. Perhaps the chain of command is a third category. What I think the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is that some order might be given for which the officer concerned had no authority. That is not an accident but a mistake of orders, but I will study that. I thought that what was mainly in the minds of hon. Members was some accident caused by an officer or man, in a moment of madness almost, setting off a weapon by his own power. That is well provided against.