Nuclear Weapons

HC Deb 14 April 1981 vol 3 cc139-40

4. Mr. Gwilym Roberts

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures available for the proportion of the defence budget spent on nuclear weapons; if he will seek to reduce this proportion; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nott

Our nuclear forces have made and are continuing to make an essential contribution to deterrence and, therefore, to peace in Europe. Over the last decade, these forces have taken up, on average, under 5 per cent. of the defence budget.

Mr. Roberts

Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever the arguments about defence expenditure, expenditure on nuclear weapons is wasteful and dangerous, as he admitted in reply to the previous question when he said that they were unusable? Because of the Polaris replacement programme and cruise missiles, does he agree that over the next few years the proportion of the budget used for nuclear weapons will rapidly increase?

Mr. Nott

That is not the case. In the peak spending period for Trident in the late 1980s it is likely to take rather more, as Trident will take about 5 per cent. of the total defence budget, but that is not greatly different from the proportion that nuclear capacity has taken in the past. I do not agree that such expenditure is wasteful or dangerous. Anything that maintains peace is welcome, and nuclear deterrence has helped to maintain peace.

Mr. Onslow

When my right hon. Friend was in Washington did he find that Americans of all parties unanimously agreed that if we went back on our decisions to acquire Trident or to allow cruise missiles to be stationed here it would be regarded as a virtually fatal blow to the Atlantic Alliance? Does he draw any conclusions from the fact that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches seem anxious that we should do just that?

Mr. Nott

The widespread view in the United States and among our European allies is that when the Soviet Union is deploying one new SS20 missile per week and is far ahead of us in the modernisation of its long-range theatre nuclear weapons, to abandon the strategic independent nuclear deterrent that we have had for many years would unsettle the entire Alliance.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

Will the Secretary of State again confirm that he believes that a localised tactical nuclear war is an absurd concept? As peace depends on a balance of nuclear weapons, does he believe that peace is in the balance?

Mr. Nott

A localised tactical nuclear war is absurd. Any nuclear exchange would be madness. The purpose of nuclear deterrence is to prevent a war and not to fight one. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends below the Gangway cannot understand that simple point. The policy has succeeded under all previous Governments. Why should we abandon it now?

Mr. Mellor

With the Labour Party's enthusiasm to reduce expenditure on atomic weapons and to increase education expenditure, does my right hon. Friend believe that it expects the Russians merely to challenge us to a game of general knowledge?

Mr. Nott

I do not know that I can entirely follow my hon. Friend on that point, but, if it is any consolation to the Opposition, let me say that had nuclear weapons never been invented we might—I emphasise "might"—be living in a safer world. However, they cannot be disinvented, and we have to deal with the situation as it exists.