CO-OPERATION FOR PEACE.

HL Deb 16 October 1945 vol 137 cc273-316

2.55 p.m.

THE EARL OF DARNLEYhad the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the crisis in human affairs created by the atomic bomb and its future developments, and to consider the following ultimatums that it has presented:

1. That a third world war, or even an attempt to stop war by force, may disintegrate humanity beyond repair and possibly even the globe that it inhabits;

2. That it will be impracticable if not impossible to keep the secrets of this weapon and its successors, maintain adequate supervision of it; manufacture, or foresee or prevent its use;

3. Therefore every variation of the idea of force as a peacemaker has become obsolete and the only hope for continued existence in a tolerable form lies in the creation of a common front, composed of every nation based on the hope of abolition by general co-operation of past, present and future grievances, and adjustment by common consent of unfair variations in the necessities of life, undertaken on a basis of equality demanded by the situation and bereft of the recriminations, penalties and territorial changes such as have disfigured peace treaties in the past;

And to ask His Majesty's Government, if they will adopt this point of view and advance its urgency to United Nations in order that the co-operative and beneficial provisions outlined in the progressive sections of the charter may have a proper chance of success and not be annulled by the useless and out-of-date methods of "peace by force" now occupying such a prominent position in the mandate of the Security Council, or by punitive and provocative clauses in future peace treaties; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as on previous occasions when I have brought forward similar Motions for debate certain very distinguished noble Lords have professed their inability to understand what I was talking about—although I could not of course accept this evaluation of their own powers of intelligence—I think it might be convenient if I put this Motion, which is from its very nature somewhat verbose, into more colloquial form. I would do so somewhat as follows: It is perhaps not more than an even chance against the world being blown up in the next generation by some so-called patriotic scientist. What is the world going to do about it? I think that is plain enough. I hasten to say also that I have no illusions about my own suitability for bringing up this stupendous subject, but it is so urgent that I think I ought to go on with it until more able hands than mine take it over. As your Lordships know, for the last seven years I have brought forward Motions of various kinds in your Lordships' House in order to produce a new international machinery based on universal co-operation and collaboration. At the same time I have always urged that the uses of force as a creator of peace were quite useless and out of date. I believe that what I have said has been proved to the hilt.

The attitude of the late Government to this submission perhaps may be summed up in certain words which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, used to me on one occasion. He said: I cannot understand how a man who has lived for six years during a war of this kind can still inhabit such a world of illusion. The noble Viscount says "Hear, hear," but all the same I think he and his noble friends must now join me in my illusions if we want to save humanity and the globe it inhabits from complete destruc- tion. I give him that earnest but respectful invitation to-day. If I am using the basis of fear, it is certainly not of the craven variety. The fear of being blown up with the many and gratuitous gifts of creation is assuredly a wholesome and right one, although I myself may be unduly prejudiced against this kind of end through the experience of my original ancestral cousin in the Kirk of Field. I have spoken only once to the present Government on this subject, on August 23, and they did not even give me an acknowledgment, but I give them the same respectful invitation as I gave just now, and if there is any repetition they must regard it as being their doing.

It is, my Lords, a proven fact to-day that the world of force is doomed and recognition of that fact is the key to future existence. I believe that the statements I have made in my Motion are incontestible. You have heard from Lord Balfour of Inchyre of the possibilities of atomic disintegration of different and more common component parts of the globe. We have read already that the power of the atomic bomb has increased one hundredfold in America. We have read in many articles by experts that the secrets of atomic power will never be able to be kept as many scientists already know a large proportion of the secrets. This has been recently confirmed by Dr. A. V. Hill, a noted British scientist, and in The Times yesterday by a report of the Association of Los Alamos Scientists, which is a body of 400 men who helped to develop the atomic bomb in the Government laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The New York correspondent of The Times says: The Association of Los Alamos Scientists, which is composed of 400 of the men who helped to develop the atomic bomb in the Government's laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, asserted in a public statement yesterday that there could be no keeping the secrets of that weapon from the rest of the world, and that to try to do so would lead 'to an unending war more savage than the last'. "Countries other than the United States, Britain and Canada, the statement said, may also be manufacturing atomic bombs before many years—'bombs which may be tens, hundreds, or even thousands of times more powerful than those which caused such devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki'; and it pointed out that the United States, with its highly concentrated industrial centres, would be particularly vulnerable to such a weapon. Counter-measures, it continued, could be 'extremely difficult and uncertain ' because of ' the concentrated form of destructive energy' and 'the large number of possible methods of delivery'. Advantage would lie with the aggressor. 'A single heavy attack, lasting a matter of minutes, might destroy the ability of a nation to defend itself further.' 'The atomic bomb,' the statement added, 'is a deadly challenger to civilization itself.'

I see I am being followed by the noble and scientific Lord, Lord Cherwell. He will not be able to say this time that I am quoting from unscientific journals, nor will he be able to give the assurance that I presume he is here to give, that the world itself is fairly safe for a few more years. That assurance cannot be given in view of the developments forecast by these experts. I would like to hazard a guess, or even a bet, that five years ago the noble Lord would have said that the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an impossibility. It seems to me that the only rebuttal to the arguments I have put forward lies in a certainty of being able to control the manufacture of these implements in every country of the world, but a little truthful consideration would soon show this to be impossible. You cannot have a spy in every chemist's shop, in every scientist's laboratory or in every factory in the world. I know, of course, that the plant in America which made these first bombs cost 500,000,000—I am not sure whether pounds or dollars.

A NOBLE LORD

Pounds.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

Thank you. It covers several square miles of country. As is always the way with new inventions, familiarity, though it cannot in this case breed contempt, will soon breed a reduction in the size of the gear necessary to produce these bombs, and it may well be that in a few years' time the few bombs necessary for the world's destruction will be able to be made by a few uncontrolled scientists in some hidden cave or mine, as was suggested recently by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. That is a possibility that has to be absolutely prevented in order to avert the possible crowning tragedy of human dissolution.

My reaction to the Articles of the Security Council of the United Nations on this point is that whatever new weapons a potential aggressor may produce, the United Nations are always going to have as good or better and in far greater quantities. This would mean that every unit of the United Nations, which after all are all going to supply some portion of the force to be used, would have to be kept up to date with modern developments of atomic force and the products of this mad race for better and brighter weapons of world suicide. So, if ever it did come to a show-down, either between the United Nations and an outside aggressor, or even between a section of the United Nations themselves (who after all have not for so very long used that title)—and of course the outside aggressor would be atomically up to date or he would not dare to aggress —then the final catastrophe would be even more threatened. Even if it did not actually eventuate, civilization as we know it would come to an end in complete chaos and revolution. Human nature would not stand a repetition on a greatly increased scale of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think it needs very little imagination to see that to hold up the world's prosperity and peace in one hand and the atomic bomb in the other is surely the acme of paradox. You will not get reactionaries into the fold in that way.

Of course there is a much brighter side to the United Nations Charter. It contains many most excellent provisions for the betterment of the lot of humanity through co-operation, but I continue to assert, as I have always done, that they all risk failure so long as this old, faulty idea of compulsion for peace occupies such a prominent position in the mandate of the Security Council. This method of power grouping to enforce peace has been tried for thousands of years and it has always been a failure, and I venture to assert it always will be, for the simple reason that nations will never acknowledge the jurisdiction over them, especially by force, of any other nation or group of nations in any question in which they feel they have a right or grievance. Nations, in their own minds, are always right. When, in addition to force, the threat of destruction and dismemberment is offered as a deterrent, all it does is to bring their grievance to a boiling point and bring to the surface all the power for evil which is inherent in every human being.

In this last war countless horrors and atrocities have been committed. We all know that and nobody tries to deny it. But it is still a fact that all these atrocities have existed, to a greater or lesser extent, since wars began. It is the use of the selfsame force over centuries that has produced them. They are born of the desire for revenge and restitution. They are always clue to the operation of this selfsame precedent and to the fear of death, destruction and dismemberment which the adoption of this precedent, apparently justified by history, involves. So long as grievances exist and the methods of force increase in violence and horror, so long will these atrocities, I venture to say, increase at the same rate. The greater the desperation induced by the struggle for existence, the greater will be the descent from the standards of decency and morality.

At this moment nine-tenths of the nations of the world are occupying tentatively, and I might say almost gingerly, seats in the United Nations, and the recent aggressors and a few doubtful nations occupy but a very small place outside. If the nine-tenths in the orbit of the United Nations could ensure that the next war could be won or stopped even by the weapons used in 1914 or earlier, then the world at any rate would be safe. But now very different possibilities have arisen. A new aggressor will develop in secret somewhere, and make an improvement on the atomic bomb of which we can have no idea at the moment—not even the noble Lord opposite—and, as I say, he will develop it in secret. He will use one which he will dispatch by rocket, and the rocket will be accurate this time, to destroy the headquarters of United Nations and six more to destroy his adversaries. The war will be over in five minutes, and perhaps the whole world as well, if the scientists who made these bombs miscalculate. Can anyone deny this possibility? Even the nine-tenths of the world in the United Nations cannot be described as a perfect Agapemone, and they will use it again if circumstances arise in which they have used it before.

I do not think that in the minds of the common men of the world there is much confidence in the Security Council and its mandate. They say there is far too much of the old and disastrous methods charged, moreover, with priority and favouritism which are not based on need, but on force. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying—and in trying to prove later—it has begun at the wrong end. I believe that humanity now has its last chance, perhaps, to recognize the fact that its continuance in a tolerable form depends upon the complete reorientation of its international policies, and its acknowledgment of the fact that force has always been a complete failure, and now may be a fatal one. Surely, even without the menace of atomic warfare and its possibilities, there should not be much difficulty in coming to that conclusion. Six years of war have reduced the world to a complete mess, muddle, misery, destruction, destitution and starvation. Millions are dead, millions wounded, and millions, denied of everything with which to face the future, roam the streets without food, shelter and clothing. They will die in ever-increasing numbers when the winter overtakes them. Strikes, black market and blackmail are the dictators in the realm of trade nowadays. Wrangling and discord are omnipresent, both individually and internationally. Juvenile crime is greatly on the increase, and the motto now of humanity is "Every man for himself."

This is but a small part of the story, as your Lordships know. The daily Press is one continuous record of melancholy frustration, lightened only, perhaps, by the weather report and crossword puzzle, the comic strip and the satire of Beachcomber and Nathaniel Gubbins. Can there be any honest belief still left in the power of force to right international troubles, or any honest person that does not deplore his own personal failure in the finding of a solution, or view the future with even greater misgiving under the new terrifying variation of old methods?

If there is any naive question as to where Europe would have been to-day without force, the answer is still that if there had been a successful effort to abolish force a thousand years ago, there would have been no enemy class to deal with, and humanity would be improved in ratio to the vast sums of money wasted on gunpowder since that date. With regard to the question of force, I think I can properly say, as Euclid used to do, Q.E.D.

I suggest to your Lordships that the necessary reorientation in world politics must originate in a mental adjustment from the point of view of presupposing aggression and encouraging it by an even greater array of provocative force, to that of aiming at the establishment of a universal well-being under which no man could ever have any possible reason to become an aggressor and, therefore, could not possibly materialize as such. An aggressor is, apart from anything else, a fool, because he never realizes that anything he can do or gain for his country will be off-set by the misery and destruction caused by it, and he also forgets the future revenge of his victims. All the same, no aggressor has ever been without some kind of extant cause, which, though never justifying, is certainly causative.

It is the use of this same force over the centuries that has left most nations with grievances in the shape of dismemberment, poverty, overcrowding, destruction, or unfair competition, and it is in this inheritance that, I assert, lie the seeds of further aggression. This idea of the future is important at this moment, and far transcends the idea of the retention of greater force in order to keep down aggressors, especially as any future aggressor will give no time for countless books to be written and speeches made proving his aggressive character. Nor will denunciations and self-righteousness be of any avail, because those who would normally make them will be floating in the stratosphere in the form of dust long before they realize the war is on and who the aggressor is that they should denounce. If one might descend into the realms of fancy for one moment, astrologers, so far, have not been able to explain satisfactorily the Milky Way. Might I suggest to them that the coming of the atomic bomb suggests that it might be composed of particles of politicians of other worlds condemned to a permanent future of blinking and winking their vituperation of each other and their own lack of blame in the matter of their recently disintegrated spheres?

So the position is, without any possibility of doubt, that if there is any further fighting, or any form of force between nations, human existence in its present form will cease, and, possibly, the globe as well. That is a fact which we have to face and prevent. I can see no other way of preventing this—although I am very willingly open to suggestions—except by having, by enlisting, the willing co-operation of every nation in the world who must be induced to form a common front against their own destruction and their own annihilation. In order to produce this combination, however, there has to be, as in every valid contract, a quid pro quo, and therefore I suggest that the originators or sponsors of this scheme must offer this basis as an inducement that they will promise and guarantee to resolve, in the words of my, Motion "past, present and future grievances" by general co-operation and agree to the "adjustment by common consent of unfair variations in the necessities of life." I cannot believe that if the dangers of the position which exist to-day were properly represented, and these proposals were generously put forward and studiously maintained, without any threat or pressure, any unit would abstain from coming in, in view of the dangers that now threaten its future.

But, of course, this implies very far-reaching changes. It means the righting of wrongs done in past wars; it means the readjustment of boundaries to the old traditional occupations; it means the better distribution of land to those who are crowded and cramped. It means the granting of trade and currency facilities to those who are poor and in financial difficulties. It means a considerable surrender, therefore, of what we to-day call national sovereignty, and certainly the abolition of the supremacy which has been gained and maintained by force. It means much giving by the rich to those who are poor, and much taking, of course, by those who are poor, and even by those who have been the movers in the recent war. Such redistribution could not be taken in any sense as a condonation of their guilt. Very far from it; it could only be an acknowledgment that those who are the greatest liability, because of their proneness to aggression, are a first priority for treatment by a valid system.

That is what I mean by beginning at the right end. Conversely, if the old penalties and dismemberments which have disfigured peace treaties in the past are repeated the chances of re-aggression will be increased. In this connexion, the alterations which are now being carried out in Poland and East Prussia of boundaries, together with the movement of thousands of people in conditions of extreme suffering—suffering which will shortly become much greater still, when winter descends—can never bring these people into the common denominator of peace and prosperity necessary to form this world co-operative system, and can do nothing but sow the seeds of future bitterness and revenge.

Is there any alternative to the possibilities which now exist of world deterioration and destruction, besides forming this common front of all nations? If there is none, must it not be brought into being at the earliest possible moment, and cannot the foundation stone be laid to-day? I saw in the newspapers recently that President Truman had a scheme for the cooperation of all nations to deal with atomic energy only, as I read it. He seems to have changed his mind since. That would not have been any good. You cannot ration force; you cannot deal with it in any way of that kind. You cannot take it in sections. You cannot outlaw one method and keep another. It would be as impossible as trying to arrange for battleships on Mondays and bombers on Tuesdays. Force must either exist in toto or be abolished in toto. If you abolish or outlaw the use of atomic energy, the nations will probably agree, but in the first five minutes of the next dispute they will all be using it, because the rationing of coat sleeves will not go on much longer, and every nation will obviously keep a remedy which is the most up to date and efficient in defence and attack. It seems to me that the moment has arrived to take action. Perhaps it is the greatest moment in the history of humanity. It is here before us; it is now or never.

It has been frequently said to me by many people, including some of your Lordships individually, that the state of affairs which I always advocate is certainly eminently desirable, but that it is a completely unattainable ideal, because of the fallibility of human nature. It seems to me that to-day we have to be idealists whether we like it or not and whether we fear it or not. We are obliged now by circumstances to adopt a system which, although full of difficulties and liable to abuse, like every other system, at its commencement, does rest on the assumption, which is surely a rational and understandable one, that human nature desires peace and will in an atmosphere of organized neighbourliness maintain it. We have very high support for an assumption of this kind. A common front against world aggression may be partly based, as, I have said, on fear, though the fear of destroying the manifold gifts of creation is surely a wholesome one. But it is also based on the ethical commands of neighbourly conduct, and as such it can surely be trusted to replace at long last the sorry orders of instinct which are now crushing the world.

All the same, there should not be any divergence between ethics and practicability, and so I have suggested to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, some eminently practicable proposals for putting such a process into operation. I believe that if one of the great nations would only propose some such rational' scheme for the maintenance of peace and the betterment of the human lot, the rest of the world would not only greet it with acclaim, but would compel their Governments if necessary to take their share. The United Nations Charter does, I know, aim at the eventual inclusion of all nations within its orbit, but only after long periods of probation and education. General Eisenhower thought it would take fifty years in the case of Germany. The urgency of the moment requires the cutting out of this preamble. I should like in this connexion to read a few more words from our friends at Los Alamos: Effective action is impossible not only when other countries have atomic bombs, but even when programmes for their manufacture are under way. Lack of decision within even a few months will be preparing the world for unprecedented destruction not only of other countries but of our own as well. That refers to America.

I venture to say that the inauguration of a credible and rational process will do all that is necessary in education and beat all the ablest lecturers and teachers, who, of course, although their words might be excellent, could not carry very much weight, as they were recently enemies. The suggestions which I have made to the noble Viscount are as follows: Urgently to advance to the notice of the United Nations the extreme danger to world existence now in being from the coming of the atomic bomb and its future development, and the necessity for enlisting the co-operation of every nation on the basis of the removal of past, present and future grievances and the causes of war by mutual assistance; to propose, therefore, to the United Nations that a meeting of representatives from every nation should shortly be convened to seek primary agreement on these points and, if such primary agreement is arrived at, to continue the association until a stage is reached when the use of this now gravely perilous force can be replaced by generally-established and assured good will, in which the beneficial clauses of the Charter could have unfettered latitude and therefore success.

I know that talking is easy and that the difficulties are stupendous. I want therefore to clear the words of my Motion from any suggestion that there is an easy Utopia just round the corner, or even that the vast amount of money which is now expended on force and which therefore inhibits human betterment to a large extent can be reduced at a greater rate than the progress of international brotherhood allows. But I maintain steadfastly that if the seed is sown now, while the world is receptive and before it settles again into its old mistrustful ways, that seed will eventually become a large tree under which the nations will be able to find a greater measure of shelter and peace. Moreover, its growth might be surprisingly rapid, for if the vision of a cooperative world bereft of the menace of force and compulsion and its consequences were to appear even as a possibility, a new hope would be born in the human heart which would not only give strength and impetus to the rebuilding of the world, which is in such a sorry state, but would help to join the international hands so firmly that instead of destruction a continuance of a better and happier and surer existence could be assured and the development of atomic processes could be arrested or safeguarded and used for human betterment by universal consent and agreement. I, therefore, feel that I can confidently ask your Lordships to support me in praying His Majesty's Government to be the primary movers in what has got to be a new era in the world's history. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.31 p.m.

LORD CHERWELL

My Lords, some months ago the noble Earl intervened in a debate on, I think, a Motion by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, and on that occasion, as to-day, he painted a lurid picture culminating in the disintegration of the entire globe as a result of scientific experiments in nuclear disintegration. To-day he has added to the horror the possibility that politicians will be condemned to scintillate in the Milky Way instead of, at somewhat rare intervals, on the Front Bench. At that tin e I was unfortunately precluded by security considerations from discussing this question in any detail. I endeavoured to reassure my noble friend without revealing any secrets, but it is evident from the terms of to-day's Motion that my efforts were ineffective, Nobody should minimize the perils of the present situation, but harm rather than good is done, I think, by exaggerating them.

I will, therefore, address myself in the first instance to the particular point which, in view of the noble Earl's hereditary dislike of explosions, seems to cast a shadow over his mind. This is his anxiety lest experiments in nuclear fission may result in the detonation of the entire planet on which we live. Perhaps I should apologize for using the word "nuclear" instead of "atomic" Faulty though it is, I suppose I should endeavour to conform with the phraseology to which people have been accustomed. But all chemical reactions front the process of digestion to the explosion of gun cotton consist in redistributing or rearranging the electrons which form par of the atom. Every chemical process therefore is atomic. The big new step which has been taken is that we have now learnt to operate on and to exploit the heavy nucleus around which the electrons revolve. Just as the sun contains vastly more energy than the planets, the nucleus contains far more energy than the planetary electrons. And nuclear reactions are correspondingly more violent. Though the totally incorrect but unhappily familiar adjective "atomic" has, I fear, become ton universal to be, eradicated, I hope I may be excused if I use the correct word "nuclear."

Now, first of all, as to the question of the detonation of this planet. I have no wish to weary the House with what might almost develop into a lecture on nuclear physics, but to relieve the noble Lord's anxiety I must just say this. The most stable nuclei are those composed of about fifty to seventy units of mass; that is to say those in the iron, copper region in the periodic table of the elements. If the heaviest elements disintegrate, energy is set free. The lighter elements on disintegration would absorb energy. In order to cause a heavy atom to disintegrate, its initial energy must be raised to a definite threshold level; very much in the same way that a fire must be lighted by a match. If, and only if, the particles produced in such integration are of the right type and sufficiently numerous and have enough energy to start off more than one neighbouring nucleus, can detonation occur. For what we call an explosion only happens if one nucleus sets off two, these two set off four, four eight, and so on. The threshhold value of energy which has to be reached in order to cause disintegration is so high in all except the heaviest elements that the particles produced are not able to cause neighbouring nuclei to detonate. So, only the very heaviest elements are likely to be of use for this purpose.

Now the surface of the globe is composed as to 99 per cent. of light elements. Power cannot be produced by splitting these nuclei. On the contrary they must be made to combine if energy is to be set free. This is a much more difficult process than getting them to disintegrate. Even in the inanimate world it is much easier to create dissension than harmony. To overcome the strong mutual repulsion of nuclei and to force them into such close association that they coalesce requires pressures and temperatures which occur in the interior of stars but which could not be produced accidentally over a large region of the earth's surface. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord's apprehension lest this planet explode as a result of experiments in nuclear disintegration may really be dismissed. The noble Lord, of course, may retort that it is easy and safe for me to speak with such confidence since it is plain that there will be nobody to reproach me should my prophecy be disproved. But I can tell him that there is really more in it than that. When he says that five years ago no one ever envisaged this development I would point out that it is almost five years ago that I recommended that research into these matters should be accelerated.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? What I said was that five years ago he did not forecast such bombs as were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being something within the bounds of possibility.

LORD CHERWELL

I forecast nothing publicly. But I did recommend to the Government, even in the heat of war, when all scientists were engaged on matters of immediate and obvious importance, that we should devote a considerable amount of effort to work on these bombs because I thought that they would prove possible.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

My point is that one cannot say what is going to happen five years hence. The noble Lord could not forecast this five years ago and he cannot say that what I am suggesting cannot be done in five years time from now.

LORD CHERWELL

I do not set up in life as a prophet, least of all in my own country. But I do feel that there are certain facts known in science which will be true even five years hence. Now there is another point I would like to mention. Just as it is a mistake to exaggerate the dangers inherent in nuclear disintegration, it is, I submit, foolish to exaggerate the potential benefit. I have frequently seen it stated that thanks to the power which can be developed from nuclear energy the world will soon enter into a period of wealth and prosperity which will dwarf our wildest imaginings. Frankly, I hold this to be a complete misreading of the situation.

Nuclear fission so far shows no sign of producing any sort of energy in any immediately utilizable form, except heat, and not very high grade heat at that. Power no doubt can be produced from this and there are a number of special applications which can be imagined for which it might be very useful, despite the difficulties of shielding any living being which approaches these sources of energy from the very dangerous radiations inevitably given off in the process. But what seems to be forgotten is that the cost of power is merely a small item in the national budget sheet. Only in a very few industries does it form a major feature. In most processes affecting the comfort and happiness of humanity it plays but a negligible part.

The cost of coal to cook our food is trivial compared with the cost of the food itself, and nearly one-third—amongst poorer people one-half—of the nation's expenditure is on food. The quantity of electricity required to drive a sewing machine is negligible compared with the cost of a suit of clothes. One-eighth of the national expenditure goes on clothing. The actual power used in making bricks and mortar and putting them in position on houses is trivial in comparison with the cost of the house—nearly one-eighth of the ordinary man's budget. We must also not forget the cost of distributing power. The cost of coal needed to produce electricity is only a small part of the cost per unit to the consumer. If by some miracle it were possible to have a couple of electric terminals in the heart of England from which to draw unlimited supplies of electricity (power in its most convenient and flexible form) at no cost whatsoever, it would not make a great deal of difference to our well-being. At the very utmost, supposing we got nuclear energy for nothing at all, and so far there seems little prospect of this, we might save the value of the coal produced in this country and this, as everybody knows, is only a few per cent. of the national income.

I think there is some danger in people imagining that a new era of prosperity is round the corner, merely because a new source of power has been discovered. That, in my view, is false. The idea that nuclear energy will at once revolutionize society and enable us to live a freer and happier life is, in my view, just moonshine. I am far more impressed by the real dangers with which humanity is confronted as a result of the progress in exploiting these forces of nature, but it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that we are only at the beginning of the story and there is very little doubt that enormous improvements in the power and efficiency of the bombs to be used will be made. If we enter upon an arms race with the nuclear weapons culminating in a world war, the end of civilization as we know it is almost inevitable. I do not think that anyone will disagree with the thesis that the most important thing in the world to-clay is to find some way of preventing such a race. How are we to set about it? Here again it seems to me that we are confronted with a terrifying welter of loose thinking. I have seen it stated by one right reverend Prelate—I do not think that he is a member of this House—that "the formula should be burnt." This betrays a degree of misapprehension which renders discussion extremely difficult.

Any one who has followed the very ample publications on these things must know that there is no secret or formula to hand over. For the last six years every physicist in the world has realized that in principle nuclear energy could be released from some of the heavier elements and practically all of them knew, broadly, how to set about it. Equally, every physicist realized that this would be a gigantic undertaking, many thought too immense to be practicable; that there would be innumerable snags, difficulties and teething troubles to be overcome; that a host of makeshifts and compromises would be needed, and that a constant stream of improvements would emerge. Everybody realized that there were a number of ways in which the crucial materials could be made, each with its special difficulties, and that colossal efforts in man-power would be required to design, lay out and build up the plants necessary if success was to be achieved. But as to a formula or a secret which should, or should not, be divulged, it is just as nonsensical to talk about this as about the secret of making internal combustion engines. Everybody knows that a mixture of petrol and air explode if ignited and it is obvious that this phenomenon can be used to drive a piston and develop power. But it is a long step from there to making a Rolls Royce engine.

When this is realized, surely the absurdity of slogans like "Share the secret" must be obvious. Everybody know s that you cannot "hand over the secret" of making even relatively simple things like aero engines. Why, even if you hand over the engine complete the users have to be trained in manipulating and maintaining it. I do not know whether those who talk about sharing the secret really mean that a host of technicians and engineers from each of the various countries of the world should be entitled to come for a complete course of instruction and training, in all the complicated processes which it has taken hundreds of scientists and thousands of engineers years to develop. The whole thing is really meaningless.

LORD STRABOLGI

May I interrupt the noble Lord? In that case what is the meaning of the American policy enunciated by the President?

LORD CHERWELL

I do not claim to be here to expound American policy. I understand that the American President specifically stated the other day that they were not going to teach others the "know how." Anyone acquainted with the American language will realize that there is a difference between the two phrases. Surely we are all agreed that the thing we must strive to avoid is an armed race in making atomic bombs; but is the best way to prevent a race to get all the competitors lined up level behind the starting gate? Nothing I should have thought could be more calculated to produce the very thing we wish to avoid. I should have thought that that was the best way to start it and not stop it. I am often told that scientists are like people who have put a box of matches into the hands of a wilful and ignorant child. That may be, but is the remedy to make sure that every child in the party has just as good a box of matches as its neighbour? Nobody would desire to keep these weapons in the hands of one nation or a group of nations in order to dominate or dictate to the world. At least, I am sure very few people want to, because, quite apart from the moral aspect, such a plan would be utterly futile. As the noble Lord has said, it is plain that any nation with adequate industrial facilities could work out the technique.

I submit that what we must do is to strive to find some way of preventing an armed race developing and obviating conditions which will cause a war, with these terrible weapons, to break out. If and when this is done, then will come the time to hand over all the technique to the body which can be trusted to use it only in the interests of humanity. Some people say that this is quite simple; all we need do is to hand everything over to the United Nations. I do hope that members of this House will approach this question a little more realistically than that. Catchwords of that sort really lead nowhere. We must try to think out what such a slogan implies. Presumably the idea is that only the Security Council of the United Nations should be allowed to use or make nuclear explosives, that they alone should be allowed to have them so that they should have a weapon with which to enforce their decrees against recalcitrant nations. But where are the United Nations to set up their factories, and how are they to be sure that some recalcitrant nation is not secretly producing some more powerful nuclear explosives of its own? At the very least they will have to enforce complete and rigid inspection over every square mile of the globe. Otherwise there can be no certainty that this weapon is not being produced in secret somewhere.

Then they must have some region safe against a coup de main where they can make and store these super bombs. They must have some means, say an air force, with which they can project these missiles on to the sensitive points of any refractory nation. That implies air bases all over the world from which they can act and which are immune against sudden attack by any potential aggressor nation. Finally, perhaps most difficult of all, they must have the will power to put into force sanctions rapidly and indeed ruthlessly against any nation not complying with the rules. Whether or not something on these lines ever can be, or ever will be, worked out I cannot say, but unless some concrete scheme of this sort can be developed, it is worse than useless, it is positively mischievous, to talk as if there were some simple panacea, like handing over control to the United Nations, which would solve all our problems.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

You are not landing me with that accusation, I hope.

LORD CHERWELL

Not at all. I was hoping to address myself to a wider audience. It has been said, for instance, that we cannot exclude any nations from the advantage of making power by nuclear methods and that therefore we shall have to allow plants in all the countries of the world to be built, which can, of course, be turned over to making bombs. There is something in that, but as I pointed out just now cheap power is a small item in the cost of national production, even in highly industrialized countries. To forego this advantage may be a small premium to pay if this will prevent intensive bombing by nuclear bombs. Yet some people say that we must teach everybody how to make nuclear bombs as a sign of confidence. This is an argument I have always been taught to distrust. Supposing these developments had taken place ten years earlier, would anyone really have been prepared to teach Hitler all about how to make these dreadful weapons in order to show our confidence? And is the world really such a peaceful place to-day that we should hasten to multiply a hundredfold the sombre powers of destruction already available to everybody?

Some optimists believe that if we were to agree to outlaw atomic bombs that would be sufficient. They comfort themselves by pointing to the fact that gas was not used in this war. I submit that this is a false analogy. Does anybody really believe that Hitler refrained from using gas because he had promised not to? In no other case did he allow his solemn engagements to interfere with what he conceived to be his interests. The reason he did not use gas is simply that gas is an extremely ineffective weapon against civilians, who can walk away from the infected areas until the danger has blown over, and is not much use against soldiers unless they are confined to a very restricted space. In the early days of the Normandy beach-head it might have been useful, but by then the German bomber force had been reduced to such a degree that effective action was no longer possible, whereas retaliation might have been overwhelming. Do not, therefore, let us be deceived by the hope that some convention to outlaw atomic bombing is all that we need to save us.

I wish I could believe that the answer propounded by the noble Earl who opened this debate was practicable—that there was any hope of abolishing past, present and future grievances by general co-operation or adjusting unfair variations in the necessities of life by common consent bereft of recriminations, penalties, territorial changes and so on. Grievances arise just because nations, groups or even people differ about what is fair. If the world consisted of saints we might avoid recriminations and penalties, but I fear that catastrophe may overtake us before such a fundamental change in human nature has occurred. I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Earl's ideals, which have been preached throughout the ages by founders and protagonists of the great religions of the world, but great as is my respect for the lofty eloquence of many members of His Majesty's Government, I am a little anxious about the wisdom of putting our trust in their doing in five years what Confucius Buddha, Zoroaster, not to mention St. Paul and St. Francis, have failed to do in twenty centuries.

Do not let us be led astray by slogans and wishful thinking into believing there is an easy way out. We must face the difficulties and really try to find a genuine solution. But it must be a genuine plan worked out in detail, not just a vague idea which can only succeed if all the nations of the world always play the game. I do not pretend that I myself have been able to think out any scheme which could be regarded as practical and effective—and it must be both—but if any nation or body put forward such a proposal I feel sure that His Majesty's Government, and for that matter the American administration, Would be relieved and delighted. It is the difficulty of finding any even approximately watertight plan that makes the outlook seem so grim to anyone who thinks deeply about this question instead of skimming light-heartedly over the surface.

In learning how to manipulate nuclear energy man has taken the greatest step in the control of the forces of nature since his half-human ancestors learnt how to make and maintain fire. Just as fires can be, and in the early days often were, utterly destructive of life in the forests and on the prairies, so this new power may be utterly destructive of all that has been built up in a thousand generations. Man's moral stature has not grown with his intellectual stature, or rather perhaps it would be fairer to say man's institutions have not advanced as fast as his power to harness the forces of nature to his will. For I am convinced that if a vote could be taken the world over as to whether there was any object in the world for which it was worth while to start an aggressive war, not one man in a hundred would say "Yes." Unfortunately, as we have recently seen, modern developments make it so easy for a few vicious leaders to mislead, control and dominate great nations that the natural, decent human instincts of mankind are no adequate safeguard.

Man is indeed a strange mass of contradictions. Here we are, microscopic creatures scuttling about on the surface of a minor planet circling round a second-rate star in one of halt-a-million galaxies. In some ways our minds are so capacious and penetrating. We can judge the weight and composition of stars whose light started before man appeared on this earth. We can unveil the secrets of the nuclei which are so small that if we could put together as many of them as there are drops of water in the ocean they would together scarcely form a particle visible with a microscope. Yet we seem to be unable to order our own affairs so as to avoid exterminating one another. Perhaps the threat of this new weapon may in the end bring home to the various nations the overriding need of finding means, at no matter what cost and sacrifice, of reaching agreement without resort to force. We must pray that this will be achieved in time, for if it is not then the end of civilized life on this planet is at hand.

3.58 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHELMSFORD

My Lords, the two speeches to which we have listened this afternoon have presented entirely different points of view. I am encouraged, therefore, to put forward a third point of view. The atomic bomb and its use in the last war, as both speakers have said, was not merely an incident in the history of the war but a happening in human history of the greatest possible significance. From what we have heard this afternoon it is quite clear that a crisis has arisen in the history of humanity to which all thinking, sensible people must address themselves. The particular point of view I am going to advance though it may only very narrowly come within the limits of this debate is, I would submit, one which is very widely held by a very large number of people throughout the country. We ask ourselves what is to be done in view of this crisis, what is the remedy? Before the physician can arrive at a remedy, he must diagnose the disease. I venture, therefore, to say a few words with regard to the diagnosis.

There are two theories with regard to the conduct of war. The first you might describe as the practice of frightfulness, as it was called in the last war, in the four years' war. That meant that chivalry and humanity might be completely disregarded. Real mercy was to show no mercy. In fact, the kindest thing you could do would be to make war so brutal that people would end it as speedily as possible. It was consistent with this theory to do anything and everything. You could sink hospital ships; you could disregard the Red Cross; you could use the white flag as a decoy; you could poison wells; you could employ dum-dum bullets; you could slaughter non-combatant men, women and children—anything, in short, to end the war. That is a perfectly logical point of view. The other theory is entirely different. War is inevitable and those who wage it, if they are decent citizens, decent nations, should strive at least to mitigate its horrors in every possible way. The Hague and the Geneva Conventions, the provisions of International Law, have all helped to that end. Immunity, so far as possible, of the civilian population, was guaranteed by these measures, particularly the immunity of women and children from the hardships, brutalities and cruelties of war.

To this policy we as a nation have always adhered. I could give your Lordships one or two illustrations of our sincerity in this matter. Again and again when our bombing planes went over Germany they returned with their bombs undelivered because they were not sure that they could find the target. The captain of one of our submarines had a sitting shot at the "Bremen," but he refused to fire because it was not in accordance with International Law to do so. We honour these people and rightly so. It is not so long since the Bishop of Chichester in this place moved a resolution denouncing the night bombing of German cities, and he was answered, as some of your Lordships may recall and as I very clearly do, with the argument that it was incorrect to suggest that defenceless citizens were deliberately bombed; that the pin-pointing of our bombers was so accurate that the charge that we were indiscriminate in bombing the Germans could not be substantiated. I do not know whether that is so, but what I do know is that officially we, as a nation, took that stand, and the ordinary man in the street was told that that was our policy.

But now there has been a departure from that policy. The Allied nations, for the first time, deliberately and with premeditation, forsook the policy of humanitarianism and aligned themselves with the policy of frightfulness. I cannot see any escape from that conclusion, and if there is any noble Lord who can solve the problem and disperse my anxiety and uneasiness, he will relieve not only my mind but the minds of many thousands, if not millions, of people up and down this country. We are now, therefore, in this pitifully weak position. After having used this abomination to further our own ends, we are now casting round to devise some method which will prevent other nations doing the same thing to us as we did to the Japanese. What remedies are there to our hand? No one who grasps the full significance of the situation can build very much faith on the value of agreements, treaties and pacts to restrain nations when passions are roused. The world is in far too advanced a state of moral bankruptcy for those things to be of any great avail to-day. The mere mention of such words and phrases as "Kellogg," "Locarno," "Stresa," "Disarmament Conferences" and "Naval Limitations" are enough to dispel that illusion, if it still lingers in the minds of any one.

We must go very much deeper if we are to deal with the real roots of the trouble. There is one force, and only one force, which can control humanity, and that force is a moral imperative which is based upon religious conviction. The world has gone adrift and it is heading straight for the rocks. I can conceive something a great deal worse than the prospect which the mover of the Motion put before us when he spoke of the world possibly being destroyed by the disintegration of matter, or whatever the scientific description of this phenomenon is. The thing that I consider worse than the destruction of the world is that the world should not suffer material destruction but continue its moral deterioration until it becomes a hell upon earth. The remedy is to touch the well-springs of human action: that is to say, to reawaken the religious instinct of humanity. Then, and only then, have you a force that can control humanity.

So far as this nation is concerned, our interest is naturally concentrated there. What the religious outlook is of the people of this country, and how strong is their religious emotion, it would be difficult for me to describe. Opinions would differ very violently, It is certainly true that, like Horace long ago, you could say of the Englishman: "Paucus deorum cultor et infrequens," which, being interpreted, means that his appearances at church are rare and reluctant. But there may be deep down in his nature something very profound which could answer to an appeal of this kind; and if this nation could lead the way to the recognition of divine authority for human conduct, then, and only then, should we find the way out of the morass of human cruelty and wickedness which stares us in the face to-day. If England could take the lead in this matter there might then be a grand fulfilment of those prophetic words of William Pitt which he spoke in another place after the Battle of Trafalgar: "England has saved herself by her exertions; she will, by the help of God, save Europe by her example."

4.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I think your Lordships will have great sympathy with those very high ideals and ideas as to how the dangers arising from the atomic bomb can be avoided, and nothing I shall say will indicate anything but the greatest sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Earl who moved the Motion and by the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken. But I think it would be better if I deal with what Lord Darnley's Motion consists of, taking the three propositions which he has put on the paper.

I think there is no doubt, on the first proposition, that there are terrible possibilities arising from the invention of the atomic bomb, and the one instance of this, in support of what the noble Earl has said, is that Professor Oliphant, a member of the Technical Committee on the development of the bomb, stated, on the 17th of last month, that before long bombs of this character could be made with the explosive force of one million tons of T.N.T., and, a little later, he thought, with the force of ten million tons. Compared with such bombs, those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of course, were merely infants in the history of bombs. Nobody will doubt, therefore, that the first proposition of the noble Earl is well founded. I may add, to explain the sort of grounds on which these enormous figures in the power of the bomb are founded, that the energy released in the bombs, so far, is only .1 per cent. of the uranium mass converted into this power. Of course, when you come to 3 or 4 per cent. of the whole mass, the position would be much more terrible.

Now comes the second proposition, with regard to which my noble friend Lord Cherwell has made remarks which I con- sider of great value. He said it is impossible to keep, what is called in many places, the secret of the atomic bomb, but I am glad to note that the noble Earl has used the word "secrets", in the plural. I cannot help thinking that anybody who wants to deal with this matter has got to instruct himself as well as he can—and it is not very easy—on the real nature of the bomb, and the species of elaborate investigations, inquiries, experiments and other devices that were necessary before it could be brought into force.

You will remember it has taken some four and a half years from the time when the United States' scientists really got to work on this—and they had the advantage of a good deal of work already done in this country—before the experimental bomb could be released in New Mexico. The administrative history of the bomb is comprised in a document called "The Comprehensive Report on the Five Years of Scientific Research which resulted in the Development of the Atomic Bomb." This is a document signed by Mr. H. G. Smythe, Chairman of the Department of Physics of Princeton University, who was in charge of these examinations. That document is a most elaborate one—about 100 pages—a good deal of it very technical and a little difficult for a mere layman like myself to follow. I have contrived to have a sight of it by the courtesy of the United States Bureau of Information, who lent it to me for the purposes of reading, but I have not got it here. It will be published in about a month's time in this country by the Stationery Office, and I strongly recommend anybody who wants to have a really full and comprehensive idea of the nature of the bomb, and the work and experiments that were necessary before it could be made, to read that comprehensive report. It is true that on every third page or thereabouts, you will find that the learned writer observes that he cannot explain the whole of it for security reasons, and one can well understand that that was his position at the time when the report was being written. It really is amazing to follow down all the bypaths of investigation that were made, and to see how slow the initial steps were.

I do not know if I should be wearying your Lordships, but I should like to say that there are four different classes of investigation in regard to each of which there are secrets which may, or may not, be kept secret for a long period. I dare say I shall not be very accurate in stating my views in the way the investigation should be divided up, but my noble friend Lord Cherwell can correct me at some future date. The first thing was the production in the limited time of concentrated fissionable material—a horrible new word meaning material containing nuclei which can be split—required in an atomic bomb. The United States investigators, after numberless experiments, adopted an element, to which they gave the name of plutonium, as the best material for that purpose. Plutonium is a thing which took them two years to make, even in small quantities, and it is at present worth many times its weight in gold, maybe, fifty or more times its weight in gold. It is derived from a long and expensive process which you will read all about in the comprehensive report. It requires very highly purified uranium and very pure graphite for its production. That was the first thing to be done, and that took over two years.

Secondly, there were the ways and conditions under which a chain reaction may be obtained, which must not cause the material to blow up before an explosion is designed to take place. The third was the method of causing the constant and violent release of energy in a confined space in an efficient manner which depends on (a) the ratio of the speed with which the neutrons generated by the first fissions get into other nuclei and produce further fission, and (b) the speed with which the bomb flies apart. Fourthly, there is the development which took place at Los Alamos of the atomic bomb itself which, of course, was a very special bomb designed to take this highly explosive material and to explode at the right place in the air, from which the enormous air pressure would destroy the buildings underneath.

These things may be appreciated if I state just one or two facts, which will not take a minute, as to what the investigators found. The first was that by 1942 they found they had produced, after great efforts, plutonium by a chain of reactions. The House will be interested to hear that the amount produced by 1 lb. would only have brought into existence enough plutonium for the purpose of an atomic bomb in 70,000 years, and you will not be surprised to hear that they decided they must discover another method of producing plutonium. Another thing is that they made an enormous number of experiments on the subject of plutonium but until the year 1943 they had not got enough plutonium to weigh one milligram, and they had to make their experiments with that. We have heard before that they spent £500,000,000 in their various proceedings, that they bought land extending over seventy square miles for their various works, and that they had to erect there a village and schools and other buildings which were required for the thousands and thousands of people who were engaged in this experiment, and they had to construct roads and so on. Incidentally, they discovered a great number of things with regard to the fission of nuclei. They made, amongst other things, the largest magnet in existence, and they produced all sorts of other machines and devices which had never been dreamt of before.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has asked—perhaps I may echo his phrase—what is meant by "the atomic bomb secret"? There are a thousand secrets involved. They are not all necessarily to be kept secret, and so I will not use that word, but will say that a thousand new discoveries have been made. According to the comprehensive report which has been made on this matter, a full statement of the work done by the various scientists engaged would occupy thirty volumes of closely-written matter. Anybody who thinks that the "bomb secret" can be put into a formula on the back of a sheet of note-paper must be regarded as among the dreamers. Merely to state the propositions would take very many pages.

Is it practicable to keep secret the whole or some part of what has been discovered? I think it is quite likely, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has suggested, that the first utterances of President Truman are not utterances which he would be able to support. What President Truman said on October 8 at a Press conference was in effect this—I do not know that I am quoting his exact words, but I think that I quote the substance of them. He said that the United States of America was the only country with the resources, raw materials, engineering genius and productive ability to make an atomic bomb. You will observe that this is largely concerned with resources, raw materials and engineering genius. That means, as I read it, that there is not another country in the world which could spend £500,000,000 on the job. It is true, as the noble Earl has pointed out, that the cost of making such a bomb would now be very much less than the cost of all the various inventions which resulted in the first making of the bomb. President Truman went on to say that he was sure that Great Britain and Canada would agree that the secret should never be disclosed, and he hoped it would be kept for all time. I do not quite know what he meant by "the secret." He also said that foreign scientists were certain to fathom the secrets of atomic energy, but that the engineering "know how" was something else, and that this the United States would not give away to anybody.

That, of course, requires expansion, and perhaps some correction. It is true that in America itself some people have objected to the statement, and that the scientific bodies who were concerned with the creation of the bomb have recently described as moonshine the idea that most of the details can be kept secret. I should think that that is probably correct, and that a great many of the things which have been discovered about the way to make an atomic bomb are to be found in the published document from which I have been reading certain extracts to your Lordships, so that we are in doubt as to what is the real meaning of the "secret" which President Truman does not wish to disclose.

But President Truman has initiated something else, which has not yet been mentioned to your Lordships but which from my point of view is of very great importance. There is a Bill actually before the Senate Committee now which has the warm support of President Truman, and which takes the first vital step in solving the future problem of the control of the atomic bomb and of atomic energy used for that purpose, and I suppose for civil purposes also. My information about that comes from a statement made by the United States Secretary for War, Mr. Robert Patterson, before the Military Affairs Committee of the Senate on October 9. His statement is too long for me to read in full, but perhaps I may trouble your Lordships with one or two extracts. He said: The Bill … reflects the views of the men who were most responsible for the wartime development of atomic energy as to the most effective method for controlling and carrying forward development in this field within the United States. It embodies all the points on domestic policy recommended by the President in his message to the Congress last week. Then he says that it is the fruit of an interim committee consisting of a number of people of great importance who were concerned in the invention of the atomic bomb, including Mr. Byrnes, Mr. Ralph Bard, Mr. Clayton, Dr. Bush, Dr. Conant, Dr. Compton and General Groves. They drafted the Bill, and the President approved it.

This is in substance what the Bill does. First of all, I should point out that it deals only with matters within the area of the United States; it is a domestic Bill relating to powers and rights and prohibitions within that area. It begins by declaring that all activities connected with the release of atomic energy shall be conducted in the interests of the nation and world peace, so as to promote the national defence, protect the safety of our inhabitants, safeguard world peace, and further the acquisition of knowledge in this field. This applies, as I have said, to the United States. Mr. Patterson goes on to say: Jurisdiction is vested in an Atomic Energy Commission of nine members appointed by the President…to serve for nine years. Members of the Commission are not expected to devote their full time to the work of the Commission, but…there is provided a full-time administrator and deputy administrator. The next passage which I should like to read is this: All items of Government-owned property relating to the production of atomic energy, including the plants and other property of the Manhattan Engineer District, are transferred to the Commission. All rights in substances found in Government-owned lands which are directly connected with the release of atomic power are for ever vested in the United States, and such lands or deposits are to be turned over to the Commission at its request. With the property thus coming into its custody, the Commission is empowered, to put it very shortly, to conduct all necessary research and experimentation in this field, to develop processes for the release of atomic energy, and for its use for mili- tary, industrial, scientific or medical purposes. And then there are passages which show that the intention is that the Commission shall grant licences, with very little interference, to people for the encouragement of private research and the maximum employment of other Government agencies for what I may call civil purposes. The question of international control is not determined by legislation; it has got to be dealt with in another way. I think the fact that this Bill is before Congress and that, in the circumstances, there is high probability that it will pass is of very great importance. It means that if and when the measure goes through, the whole of the industrial power of America will be focused on the question of the making of atomic energy, and the construction of the bomb will be vested in this Commission.

Now I will just refer for the moment to something which is a little bit off that line—though I am coming back to it in a moment. Remedies for the great dangers mentioned in paragraph 3 of the noble Earl's Motion have been suggested. What is needed, it is said, is world control of all sources of uranium, the control of all methods of producing fissionable substances from uranium, and the vesting of these powers in the Council of the United Nations. Professor Langmuir, the very able gentleman largely responsible for helping in dealing with this very complex matter in the United States, in a recent speech there approved of the idea, but said it was impossible at the present time for this reason—that he did not believe that the other nations of the world would consent to have foreigners going in and examining works all over their countries, probing into what the countries were engaged in, and, it might be, so far as atomic energy was concerned, prohibiting further research on certain lines and ordering machinery and so forth to be destroyed.

What occurs to me as a suggestion for the consideration of the Government is no more than this—and I would like to say that I am not vain enough to think that it is anything more than a suggestion or that there may not be some much better way of dealing with the terrible problem that is before us. I would suggest that nations, beginning with ourselves, should follow the example of the United States in this matter, and that all the similar rights and powers and privileges in connexion with atomic energy which are vested in the United States and in this country should in each case be put in the hands of such a body as a commission or a committee, or whatever you choose to call it—a body which would be in a like position to the American Commission. All the great countries in the world, I suggest, should be invited to follow suit. Thus, instead of having to deal with an enormous number of different individuals and different countries, it would be for each of those separate countries by the body concerned—the body vested with the powers in relation to atomic energy —to look after their country, and to watch the various works concerned in making, or helping to make, atomic energy or atomic bombs. There would then be no such difficulty, as that which Professor Langmuir thought so serious, which would prevent a world-wide agreement, the agreement being made not between the big nations of the world directly but between the various commissions in charge of all atomic energy investigation and industries in their particular countries.

That, I venture to think, is something which is, at any rate, worth discussing. I am far from suggesting that it is a complete answer to all the difficulties, but I think that there is some possibility of it being able to bear fruit. Ultimately, of course, the final remedy of countries which are attacked by the atomic bomb will, I am afraid, be the answer of reprisal. If there are four big countries, A., B., C. and D., and A. attacks B., C. or D., then B., C. and D. will have to answer—and will have to announce that they will answer—such an attack by reprisal with bombs of their own. And if the condition of things is known before any actual attack is launched I think it is very likely that the country A. will never launch it. If all the countries which might be thinking of making atomic bomb attacks were aware that their own countries would very likely be subjected to reprisals of a similar kind I do not think their peoples would take the risk of becoming aggressors.

With regard to the points which are being raised as to the advantages of peace between nations and the methods which have been suggested by the noble Earl in that connexion, I see all the advantages of those methods, but I an afraid they are impracticable, I will not say for all time, but at the present time, because such an enormous amount of education is needed before nations are ripe for that measure of agreement which will prevent future wars. I would ask the noble Earl—and this is my main argument on this part of his case—whether he thinks that human beings have grown very much wiser since the days of Locarno, or the Kellogg Pact or the original League of Nations. I am afraid that I, personally, see no signs of greater wisdom in the accounts that I read of the behaviour of all these countries. Therefore, pending the time when the lion is willing to lie down with the lamb, I am afraid that we must be content with some much more simple methods such as those which I have just endeavoured to put before the House.

4.40 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

My Lords, it gives me much pleasure to be able to say something in support of what I feel to be the extremely fine and statesmanlike speech of my noble friend the Earl of Darnley. It is indeed true that the invention and the use of the atomic bomb has brought us to a point at which mankind will definitely have to choose between the total abandonment of war as a means of settling international disputes and the annihilation of the greater part of the population of the belligerent countries. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that it is absolute nonsense to talk about the outlawry of the atomic bomb. It is far too useful a military weapon for any country to refrain from using it.

Consider, for example, the case of Soviet Russia if in the future, when her scientists had achieved the secrets of the three volumes of which we have heard this afternoon, she felt she had a serious grievance. Would she refrain from using the bomb, when by reason of the vast size of her territories and her scattered cities she would have a geographical advantage in such a terrible kind of warfare? It is also very important to realize that the bomb has brought to an end any advantage which Armies, Navies and Air Forces, even large conscripted forces, may be supposed to have possessed either for deterring a nation from making war by a process of intimidation during the years of peace, or for providing protection in time of war. Again, it is fantastic to think of Soviet Russia being intimidated, if she felt she had a real grievance, by the conscript forces we could raise. It is obvious that in future wars, Armies, Navies and Air Forces, far from being able to afford protection, can at the very most, only play an increasingly minor part in the general destruction. Most of the destruction will be effected by a handful of technicians operating these terrible instruments of modern science.

This, of course, is not the mere opinion of a pacifist. Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, some of whose war-time utterances, I must say, have led me to think that he deserved to share with M. Clemenceau the title of "The Tiger," has said: War in the future is in the hands of the scientists. Just as you had the old knight in armour levelled by the first man who got hold of a gun, now you have got to a stage where a country could win a war in spite of its size. It could win, however small it was, provided it had the scientific resources and brains to obtain mastery of the new weapons. If you couple the atomic bomb with the projected missile—for example buzz-bombs or rocket-bombs—you have something with possibilities that hardly bear contemplation. The whole world is now in the range of this weapon. War will go on until there is a change in the human heart. General Marshall, the American Army Chief of Staff, has also said: With the continued development of weapons and techniques now known to us, New York, Chicago and San Francisco may be subject to annihilation from other continents in a matter of hours. It seems to me that tremendous as are the difficulties of any course of action, one possible avenue of profitable exploration lies along the line of total world disarmament, including, of course, disarmament in respect of the atomic bomb, rendered safe by adequate rights of inspection granted and received, so that all countries would be safe. That means to say that those who hitherto have sought to protect their country by advocating strength of armaments, should, in future, seek to do so by devising the most thorough rights of inspection that the human mind can devise in order to make sure, as far as is humanly possible, that there is no secret arming or aggression by other nations.

Of course, if our Government were to make such a proposal, no matter how drastic the rights of inspection they de- manded, they should in turn be prepared to grant to other countries the same rights. Such a plan would make every country the watchdog of the arming activities of other nations. I am well aware of the difficulty of such a system of inspection and I freely admit it, but when people are animated by a noble ideal, or, alternatively, when they are in deadly fear of their lives, it is wonderful what difficulties they can overcome when they are put to it. If it were the case, as I fear might well happen, that certain nations were unsympathetic with this proposal, I think that our Government, if they felt able to do so, should leave it on permanent offer, and as time went on should try to get more and more nations to promise to come in under the scheme, and declare that they, too, would be prepared for total disarmament with adequate rights of inspection.

They might also make use of the channels of propaganda for approaching the peoples of those nations whose Governments proved recalcitrant. It is impossible in the modern world for any Government entirely to isolate its people from what is being said and done outside and even the most ruthless totalitarian Government fears public opinion, as is shown by the amount of energy which it devotes to propaganda among its own citizens. As my noble friend rightly said, an even more important part of the question is the development of a new spirit and, although it may be true that sometimes human beings seem strangely stupid and unprogressive in achieving a new spirit, at the present moment the terrible sufferings of war have created in the minds of hundreds of thousands of people in every country a fervent desire to avoid more wars in future and that is a tremendous asset if it is wisely handled.

Real justice between all nations would, I am afraid, involve a reversal of many of the policies we are at present pursuing. It would have to include economic justice. That means a fairer distribution of the world's economic resources. Wealthy nations would have to be prepared to assist poorer nations either by gifts of territory or by gifts of goods, or by allowing free rights of emigration; and such a development and sharing of the world's economic resources would involve those financial reforms which I have often advocated and which are essential to the full development of the productive capacity of every country. In the case of Germany the fatal and foolish policy of unconditional surrender, against which in the past I have strongly protested, has landed us with a most appalling problem. Either we have got to allow millions of unhappy people, many of whom were anti-Nazi, and most of whom had very little control over Hitler's aims, to die of starvation or disease, or we and the Americans must make ourselves permanently responsible for maintaining them in the cage into which the policy of the Communist and semi-Communist Governments is driving them, for it is quite certain that even under the most favourable conditions they can never support themselves in that restricted area. Or we shall have to help them to migrate either to the empty areas of our Dominions, or the United States or South America, where in time they can maintain themselves. The third alternative would make the war look even more foolish than it does at present, but it would have at least the merit of being less barbarous than the first and less burdensome than the second. If there is a fourth and better solution I have yet to hear of it.

Finally, if we are to approach the problems of the world at the present time with a realist's mentality and outlook, we have to use our imaginations and we have got to be careful to avoid resting in a fool's paradise or a hypocrite's hidey-hole. A great many people, I am afraid, put their imaginations into cold storage for the duration of the war. It is high time, if they did so, to take their imaginations out. If, as I am afraid some are tempted to do, people soak their minds in stories of the maltreatment of prisoners by individual Japanese, they would do well to remember that if the Chinese and even the Gurkhas had been fighting on the opposite side in this war some very unfortunate incidents would have been likely to occur with them also. Again, if they feel tempted to dwell too much on the atrocities committed by Axis soldiers generally, they should remember that the killing of prisoners, rape and looting have unfortunately been practised by Russian soldiers, and I am sorry to say to some extent by American and British soldiers also. If they are tempted to soak their minds too much in tales of what has happened in German concentration camps, they should remember the political murders and the concentration camps and the slaughter of thousands of people in Eastern European countries, and just because they cannot hold Belsen inquiries into the conditions there they should not deceive themselves, in view of some of the reports which reach us, into thinking conditions are very much better.

Here there is a very special need to avoid inconsistency and hypocrisy. I was rather struck a little time ago in hearing the word "realism" employed in this House in a rather original sense. "Realism" apparently meant giving way to an Allied dictator when he chose to ignore the principles of the Atlantic Charter. The same policy when employed towards Axis dictators was termed appeasement and regarded with great contempt. I am myself all in favour of realism, but it has got to be realism all round. Making the best of a powerful dictator because oil do not dare to go to war with him, or consider war very inexpedient, and not dreaming of holding his people responsible, for any of his mistakes, while at the same time you adopt the attitude of the stern judge and unrelenting critic toward; people who are defeated and defeaceless, is, as I have already suggested, nothing more than abominable hypocrisy.

Again I must say I am gravely disturbed by some of the trials of war criminals or of collaborators on the Continent. It is only too obvious in many cases that people have been punished or put to death whose only offence has been that they have been the political rivals of the ruthless new Government which has seized power. I am also not a little disturbed by some of the names which I see appearing on the list of war criminals which our Government have apparently sanctioned. Some of these people are no more war criminals than certain individuals on the Allied side. If we include on the list of war crimes, as I think we have done, the needless destruction of civilian life, how do we stand when we used the atomic bomb, not in a desperate effort to avoid defeat, but at a time when we well knew that the Japanese were willing to conclude a negotiated peace on terms very fair to all countries, including China; when we insisted on going on with the war simply and solely to obtain the Dead Sea fruits of unconditional surrender which has caused so much mischief on the Continent?

We should, I think, do well to bear in mind the wise words of Dr. van Nierop, a member of the South African Parliament, who said recently: There has been a war and we have won. Let us forget and forgive and not execute people merely because they have been leaders of countries that have fought against us. He went on to add that he did not doubt atrocities had been committed during the war, as in war atrocities were inevitable, but that there were people who believed atrocities were committed in the South African War and if the policy of executing leaders at the end of a war had been followed after the South African war there would have been repercussions that would never have been forgotten. What we need to realize at present is that all nations, in varying measures perhaps, have sinned and need common repentance. There is a need for a new outlook and for a trial of Christian principles if we are to survive. It is a common thing—it was rather hinted at this afternoon—for Christian principles to be described as unpracticable idealism, but I put it to your Lordships that it is just because right clown the ages we and other people have persistently neglected to give a fair trial to Christian principles because they seemed so difficult and dangerous, and have tried other principles on a lower plane which seemed to provide an easier short cut, that we now find ourselves brought hard up against the situation in which the further trial of short cuts and easy ways may involve the world, or at any rate its human inhabitants, in destruction.

4.58 p.m.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

My Lords, I feel sure that those of your Lordships who have listened to this debate and those of the wider public who will, I hope, read the report of our proceedings will have been impressed by the thoughtful and, notwithstanding the use of the word suggested by the noble Duke, the realistic sense which has pervaded our discussion. I do riot think there is any one of us—indeed, I cannot think of any sensible person in the world who would quarrel with the statement of the noble Earl who initiated this debate that a third world war or even an attempt to stop war by force may have disastrous results. That, I think, was the effect of his words. We know that only too well. I am sure there is not one of us who disputes that to destroy the cities of another nation is almost an act of insanity. Yet we accepted these things, and now we still ask ourselves what we are going to do about it.

The noble Duke who spoke last said that there was a need for the adoption of Christian principles, and they are embodied in several of the sentences in the Motion before the House. I think we should all agree with them. For nearly 2,000 years the world has been trying to secure the adoption of Christian principles. If we could get the people of the world to love their brothers as themselves, we should not have any more war and nobody would dream of manufacturing an atomic bomb to drop on other people. But when the noble Duke went on to suggest that we needed this, and not a short cut, I could not help asking myself, "Is this a short cut" We have been struggling to get there all these centuries, and we are still in this miserable position. So whatever else it is, it is not a short cut. I wish I could think otherwise.

It is true that the utilization of nuclear energy (as we are told by the noble Lord opposite we should describe it), and the destruction of these Japanese cities, has arrested the attention of the whole world and spread fear throughout the globe. I hope noble Lords in every part of this House will take note of the last sentence which was used by Lord Cherwell in concluding his speech. I have not got his actual words, but they were to the effect that, unless somehow or another humanity can control or direct science in these matters, it will mean the end of our civilization. I do not think any of us can question that that is true. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary, in another place on August 23, said this: The advent of the atomic bomb and other forms of explosive makes it apparent, to my mind, that in future statesmen will have to be more conscious of the necessity for making the World Organization operate than of merely formulating rules … It is not merely the atomic bomb, however, but the whole advance of science in the field of war, which must be controlled. That is a task for the World Organization. There is one thing clear about this, and that is that there is no particular secret in this business. I myself well remember, quite thirty years ago, being sought to be instructed by a learned friend of mine who had read a paper at the Royal Society on vortex motion as elaborating a theory on the structure of the atom. I confess I was no wiser after he had tried to explain to me for twenty minutes what it was about, and I have not realized it any better since then. The point is, however, that that was thirty years ago, and, as we well know, scientists have been working on this problem and have carried their researches very far in many parts of the world during recent years. Lord Rutherford, in his famous experiments, was seeking to apply the theories which had been more or less established and accepted. So there is nothing particularly secret about it. So far as I understand it, the method of its development involved large industrial apparatus and vast expenditure which is not necessarily, or at all events will not necessarily be, the monopoly of any one nation. So that to think that we can control the use of this indescribable force by adopting a method of secrecy is just to bury our heads in the sand. That is no use—that much at least is perfectly clear.

The Foreign Secretary went on to say: It is the aim of His Majesty's Government that under the Word Organization we should eliminate the desire to exploit the discoveries of science for the purposes of war, and turn them into channels where they can serve the advancement of humanity and human wellbeing. There he got to the heart of the matter, it seems to me. I am sorry I was not able to be in the House, but my noble friend Lord Winster has given me a note of the suggestion that was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, as to the kind of machinery that might be adopted by ourselves in common with the United States for remitting all research and powers of development of atomic energy to a special body of persons. Of course it could not be confined to any two States. After all, what is at the back of it and what use we make of it all depends upon our mind and our disposition, and on the motives which control or direct nations.

I suggest that by no apparatus for devising secrecy will humanity be able to safeguard itself against this peril. Our first effort, therefore, must be directed to increasing the international machinery which more and more puts a value on cooperation between nations, and which more and more helps to remove the causes of distrust between nations. I do not know how noble Lords are impressed by the current of events, but the one thing that impresses me almost more deeply than anything else is how widespread distrust is in the world. Nations do not trust ore another. If, by international cooperation, by keeping their bargains fairly, squarely and honestly, and by making righteous undertakings, nations can begin gradually to trust one another better, they would be less likely to devote their energies to manufacturing these machines of destruction. But I do not see any short cut to that. This distrust which has grown up between nations makes for supemationalism—the excess of nationalism, that is—and is the result of centuries of isolation and of influences of one kind or another. It will take long patience and many years of straightforward dealing to dispel a sufficient measure of that distrust between nations which seems to me to prevail too largely in the world at the moment.

But I do not think we need be too dismal, even about that. I am glad know that even in prospect we are building up a better machine for promoting international co-operation for good purposes. There is the gathering at Quebec meeting this very day, which arises out of the Hot Springs Conference and which is trying to create a machine. It will be imperfect, it will be only partial at the beginning. But it is the beginning of an agency which will help to direct nations towards improving the standard of living of their own peoples, and the production and consumption of more food. As you know, we are to have in London in a short time, the opening of the Preparatory Commission for the new Assembly of the United Nations—all as yet imperfect, all still easy to find fault with; but at least the beginnings of a greater measure of international co-operation. I see no hope of this coming to the full, however, until we have accustomed the lives of the peoples to the value of cooperation, as distinct from isolation, and until we have got people and nations to realize, more and more, that there is much more to be gained by working together than by working in isolation.

The various agencies which will spring into existence round the world Security Council will, one can hope, if properly directed, build up a greater measure of confidence between the nations.

The noble Earl who put the Motion on the Paper—and, I rather gather, the noble Duke behind me, but I am not quite sure as to that—criticized the power which the Security Council proposes to have to make it difficult for wrong-doers to prepare for war. I confess I cannot hide from myself—and I do not think any of us ought to—the fact that there are a lot of wicked people in the world, and it is no good pretending there are not. Devices, as good as they possibly can be, will have to be created for hampering their operations; for persuasion and good will, as the noble Earl suggests in his Motion, I am sorry to say I am convinced, are not, sufficient.

I recall, as we all do, that when Christ found the money-changers in the temple turning what should be a house of prayer into a den of thieves, he drove them out. He did not seek to persuade them. I do not think, for instance, that when Mussolini found that the so-called League of Nations had not the machinery to make it difficult—or was not prepared to use it—for him to pursue his campaign in Abyssinia, there was any good nature to appeal to. He instructed his generals to use poison gas on the Abyssinians. It would have been no use appealing to Hitler, and I am still very doubtful—I do not think any of us are very confident yet—as to how far the military gospel and the military machine are being extinguished in Japan. I think that the appeals of the noble Earl, even if they move some of us, would be addressed in vain to people of this kind. I do not think von can deal with these things by appeals of that sort, and I agree that: the United Nations Council must necessarily have a certain force at its disposal to make aggression difficult.

It might be easier if we could carry into a higher sphere the kind of suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, but, even then, I do not think it is possible to circumscribe the activities of scientific research. It might, however, be possible, in a matter of this kind, to make it difficult for such research to be carried to the end where these terrible missiles could be manufactured.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

If the noble Viscount will permit me to interrupt him, I would say that in America they seem to think it is quite possible. The most eminent committees have recommended it, and, speaking as a lawyer, I see no earthly reason why there should not be, respecting the use of atomic energy, some such arrangement.

LORD ADDISON

I am not differing from the noble Viscount; all I am suggesting is that to make this thing effective it would have to be world-wide.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

If the noble Viscount will forgive me for one moment, I should like him to observe that that is the very thing I said, but instead of the nations being concerned by their Government heads to make a great agreement, the world-wide agreement would be made with the bodies, the monopolies, in their own countries; and that, it seems to me, would be a great deal easier because each country would look after its own monopoly.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am rather afraid of the use of the word "monopoly" in this respect. At all events, however far the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount be adopted, in God's name let something of the kind be adopted. But I am full of misgivings that any control of that kind will not limit the activities of the scientists somewhere or other. The more difficult it can be made, the better it will be.

Finally, I come back to the point which I mentioned at the beginning. Let us do everything we can, through international co-operation, to make wrong-doing difficult and to make the manufacture of these terrible things as well nigh impossible as we can. We shall not, I am sure, get humanity where we must try to get it unless, at the same time, we use, increasingly, international co-operation to remove distrust, to remove the causes of misery among the nations, and to seek more and more to use international efforts to promote useful ends in the world. I believe that the world is only just at the beginning of international co-operation. We shall make many mistakes, I do not doubt, but I can see no hope at all in this matter unless the nations are resolved to work together more and more for the common betterment of the world. I have no doubt myself that this dreadful event has made that conviction much more widespread than it has ever been before. We have got to work with one another and, unless we do, we are doomed. We cannot afford to fail.

5.19 p.m.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

My Lords, I should like, briefly, to thank the noble Lords who have spoken to-day, and I feel I can justly say they have all supported me, by assent or dissent. Especially, perhaps, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for his speech, and to congratulate him on having spoken for the first time in your Lordships' House. I must say that I am not very reassured by your Lordships' expert. I do not believe he can possibly tell what is going to happen in five years' time, and I shall be inclined to refer to it at that date. What I mean by saying that you have all supported me to-day is that you have all encouraged me in the idea that absolute unanimity among the nations is the only thing that will stop atomic warfare and the possible dissolution of the world. I think that you have all said that in one way or another. I was encouraged by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in one respect only: he said that the primary object was to get together and co-operate, or we should perish. That is true, but I think that he, like many others, is afraid to start a new procedure. I asked him whether the Government would recommend the holding of a meeting of all the nations, which I think is necessary. He did not answer, and I assume that he is not prepared to take that action.

I am still convinced of the rightness of my ideas, and I shall presume to bring this matter before your Lordships again in a short time, but when I do so I shall try my best to put it in some form which will be more generally agreeable to the various Parties in your Lordships' House, and in perhaps a less idealistic and more practical shape. As the hour is late, and as I am obviously not a believer in force, even when I am in a minority, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.