Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (Hansard, 29 March 1995)

§ 15. Mr. Frank Cook
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the nuclear weapon state signatories to the non-proliferation treaty define their nuclear strike capacity in terms of explosive firepower. [14956]

§ Mr. David Davis
The United Kingdom and the United States have released information on the total explosive yield of their nuclear weapon stockpiles. In May 1994, President Mitterrand gave figures for the numbers of French operational nuclear warheads. Neither Russia nor China has, to our knowledge, made official statements on the size of their stockpiles by any measure.

§ Mr. Cook
Is it true that the British Government have always justified their retention of the nuclear deterrent, despite the fact that they are a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, on the basis that they must retain a minimum nuclear deterrent? What is meant by minimum? Do we need to be able to obliterate a small country or to take out a medium-sized country? How much of the world do we need to be able to devastate in order to justify retention of such weapons?

§ Mr. Davis
It is interesting to see the resurrection of CND on the Labour Back Benches. Since 1990, we have reduced our nuclear weapons by some 25 per cent., to what we judge to be a minimal level. That has involved halving free-fall weapons, the complete non-deployment of surface maritime weapons, and a self-imposed restriction on the number of missile warheads used on Trident. That is a reduction of some 25 per cent. in explosive power, which is what we consider a minimum level of deterrence—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) does not believe in deterrence at all.

§ Mr. Gallie
Is it not true that the benefit of nuclear weapons is their deterrent effect not, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), their take-out effect?

§ Mr. Davis
My hon. Friend is right. The collapse of the Soviet Union has led to information being available that shows that our stance on cruise missiles and Trident, contrary to the Labour partys view throughout the 1980s, was one factor that led to the Soviet Unions collapse and the end of the cold war.