§ 18. Mr. David Walderasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the eventual replacement of the Polaris submarines and their present missiles.
§ Mr. MasonI have nothing to add to the various statements that I have made on this subject in the past.
§ Mr. WalderIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that next year is really a crisis year, as it is then that the last United States Polaris submarines go out of service? Will he be content with the situation thereafter, in which the only credible modern deterrent in the Western Alliance will be in the possession of France or the United States?
§ Mr. MasonI would not be perturbed about that, even if the Americans phase out their Polaris submarines. The 1958 Defence Agreement with the United States will continue in force, especially the exchange of information.
§ Mr. Hugh FraserSurely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that although the Americans will be phasing out they will still have a penetration of nuclear strategic weapons, whereas we have none. Does he agree that it is an extremely grave situation?
§ Mr. MasonNo, I do not think it is grave. The hon. Gentleman is not reading the situation aright. The Polaris fleet has many years of life left in it. We are maintaining the effectiveness of the Polaris system. We still have the means to inflict an unacceptable amount of damage upon the Soviet Union, even in a second strike, if we wish to do so.
§ Mr. MacFarquharI ask my right hon. Friend to clarify his last remark. Is he saying that the present Polaris fleet will be able to inflict unacceptable damage upon Soviet Union right into the 1980s? Is that a realistic assessment of the present Polaris fleet? If it is not, is it worth while basing our future strategy upon it?
§ Mr. MasonMaintaining the effectiveness of our strategic nuclear deterrent is designed to do exactly what I suggested in my reply.