§ 6. Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will restate his definition of the concept of nuclear deterrence.
§ Mr. StanleyI refer the hon. Member to the section of the Defence Estimates 1981 headed "Nuclear Weapons and Preventing War."
§ Mr. BarronWhat does the Minister of State consider to be the chief deterrent nowadays? The arms race has changed. We have moved from mutual armed destruction to the use of inter-continental ballistic missiles, and it is predicted that technology will take us into the age of space-based war. What constitutes the deterrent now—nuclear weapons or the arms race itself?
§ Mr. StanleyThe essence of deterrence is to have sufficient capability to make it clear to any potential aggressor that it is not worth while attacking this or any other NATO country.
§ Mr. JohnstonThe Minister would presumably argue that we have effective influence over the United States through NATO. If so, is it necessary for us to duplicate the American nuclear deterrence system? Does not the insistence of Britain and France on maintaining an independent deterrent encourage other countries to do likewise?
§ Mr. StanleyI disagree. We have maintained our independent strategic capability because Britain is one of the very few countries, apart from the United States, which has that capability. That fact is welcomed by both the United States and our European NATO allies.