Neutron Bomb

HC Deb 25 April 1978 vol 948 cc1170-1

17. Dr. Glyn

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates have been made of the likely timescale of the production and deployment of the neutron bomb to fulfil the strategic and tactical requirements of NATO.

Mr. Mulley

As the hon. Member is aware, President Carter has deferred production of this warhead.

Dr. Glyn

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this weapon is essential to NATO, in view of the massive build-up of tanks and conventional forces in the Warsaw Pact? Is he also aware that it is probably one of the best weapons in the defence of Europe to prevent all-out nuclear attack, and that, whether or not the bomb has been delivered, we should be making plans as to how many are required?

Mr. Mulley

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. As I said earlier today, it was a very difficult decision for the President to make, balancing the military advantages, which I concede exist, and the arms control considerations. We feel that in the present circumstances President Carter's decision was right, and Her Majesty's Government fully support it.

Mr. Robert Hughes

Did my right hon. Friend see the Evening News of a couple of weeks ago in which there was a very strange cartoon called "The Wizard of Id", in which the principal character was asked what benefit there was in our having a bomb that killed people but did not destroy property, and received the answer "It prevents looting"? Is not that a rather sick answer to the ultimate capitalist weapon, and will my right hon. Friend have nothing whatsoever to do with it?

Mr. Mulley

I do not recall that cartoon. In any event, I should not be influenced by it. It is grossly inaccurate to describe the enhanced radiation warhead, popularly and inaccurately called the neutron bomb, as a weapon that destroys people but does not damage property. Of course, property would also be damaged by such a bomb. I thought that by now at least the facts of the matter had been established, although I understand that the arguments nevertheless still go on. Quite clearly, all the property in the immediate vicinity of such a bomb, if it were ever to be used, would be destroyed.

Mr. Mates

Why does the Secretary of State imagine that it should be only this one item in the entire nuclear armoury that causes such hysteria among many of his hon. Friends? Could it just be that it is the only item in that nuclear armoury with which Britain and the West are ahead of the world?

Mr. Mulley

I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair in his comment. As we on the Government Benches have frequently made clear, our concern is with the totality of nuclear weapons, and our desire is to have a reduction of that totality on both sides. It would be quite wrong to single out any one particular weapon for special treatment. What we want to do is to get a reduction right across the board.