§ 2. Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has made to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council to alter the forward defence strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
§ Mr. KershawDoes not the Secretary of State realise that if he intends to reduce the number of troops much more than at present this means a trip-wire strategy, meaning nuclear war or nothing 396 in Europe? Does he think this is sensible? Why has he changed his mind so much from when he was in opposition?
§ Mr. HealeyThe hon. Member is wrong on all three points. There has never been any question that N.A.T.O. would be able to defend Western Europe purely with conventional weapons against all the forces which the Soviet Union could launch against it. The question is: what is the best balance of risk compatible with the military needs, the political intentions of a possible aggressor, and the economic resources of the Western side?
§ Mr. PowellWill not the Secretary of State realise in time that by pressing, against the advice and views of all his allies, for a reduction in the assumed length of a conventional conflict in Europe, he is virtually committing this country to instantaneous nuclear reaction?
§ Mr. HealeyThat remark is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman in its extravagance and irrelevance.
§ Mr. SandysWill the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he recognises that we have a treaty obligation not to reduce our forces without the approval of our partners in Western European Union, not merely after consultation with them?
§ Mr. HealeyYes; I certainly recognise that, as did the previous Government when they reduced their commitment from 80,000 to 58,000.