HC Deb 22 May 1984 vol 60 cc819-20
10. Mr. Redmond

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers decided to adopt any new strategies for the deep counter-attack of Warsaw pact countries.

15. Mr. Cohen

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers decided to adopt any new strategies for the deep counter-attack of Warsaw pact countries.

Mr. Heseltine

No, Sir. NATO's strategy remains that of flexible response and forward defence against aggression. NATO Defence Ministers reaffirmed last week in Brussels that this is the only effective deterrent to Soviet military power.

Mr. Redmond

Will the Secretary of State ask the United States to withdraw its new airland battle strategy for the European forces, which is based on the idea that a nuclear war is winnable?

Mr. Heseltine

The airland battle strategy is a matter for the United States armed services. It is for them to determine the policies which they put forward within their own defence arrangements. It is not for me to claim that those policies are in some way a NATO doctrine.

Mr. Cohen

Is it not true that the idea of deep strike attacks, envisaging the use of nuclear and chemical weapons as well as conventional ones, is another dangerous escalation which increases the likelihood of a pre-emptive strike? Once those weapons are used, full-scale nuclear war will not be containable. Does the Secretary of State not understand that, especially as NATO has not approved the United States airland battle strategy?

Mr. Heseltine

I am aware that in the document about the airland battle strategy reference is made to the use of chemical warfare techniques. What is the United States supposed to do when the Soviety Union has a massive chemical capability? Should the United States ignore that capability?

Mr. Soames

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is now required from Her Majesty's Government is a more reflective statement on how they should seek to influence strategic thinking in NATO?

Mr. Heseltine

My hon. Friend asks a most important question, but he will also be aware that it is a prime purpose of the Government to seek to influence NATO strategy, and not to put forward a range of proposals in public which might have the effect of disrupting it.

Mr. Boyes

Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents want an answer to a simple question? Is he prepared to use nuclear weapons first?

Mr. Heseltine

The Government have made it absolutely clear that they will not use any weapons first.

Mr. Wilkinson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely foolish for NATO not to have an effective capability to interdict the battlefield and to prevent the follow-on forces that are available to the Soviet Union; as it and the Warsaw pact have massive reserves and interior lines of communication?

Mr. Heseltine

My hon. Friend is right. All Governments since the war have pursued precisely that policy.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Can the right hon. Gentleman make the matter absolutely clear? I thought he said that airland battle was not part of NATO strategy and that it might be a matter for the United States army and air force. In the event of a war breaking out in Europe, is he saying that there would be no airland battle strategy, or would the United States go its own way and use that strategy anyway?

Mr. Heseltine

No. I confirm that the airland battle document is not agreed NATO strategy. There are discussions in NATO about a range of options, but that document has not been agreed in NATO.