§ 3.38 p.m.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in answer to a Private Notice Question. If I might do so, I should like to apologise to noble Lords on the Opposition and Liberal Benches for the fact that they did not get copies of this Statement earlier than they did. The Statement is as follows:
"On Tuesday 3rd June and Friday 6th June a technical problem in a computer which is part of the North American Air Defence Command caused a false strategic alert. In both instances the error was detected very rapidly by the normal exhaustive checking and verification procedures. The United States authorities are investigating these incidents; and we are in consultation with them.">
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for giving me a copy of this Statement. It is a short one. Perhaps the Liberal Party will forgive me if I say that I do not think they have missed much, because this has all been in the Press. It has created considerable disquiet. A heading in one paper said: "A Second Computer War Alert" It went on: "Faulty Computer Again Puts United States at War" I should like to ask, first, what liaison we have with the United States in relation to the use of nuclear weapons. Is there a special arrangement? It would be a tragedy if a mistake were ever made. In fact, we have very nearly had a mistake here which would have caused repercussions right throughout the world, and a disaster. This is very important.
In the field of nuclear power—civil power—in our own country we have what is called a free system where two systems must be working at any time and 29 they must get two answers. This is the computer arrangement which we have for peaceful use of atomic power at power stations. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to make strong representations to the United States Government following the second military and nuclear alert within four days. I believe that people throughout the world will be very worried. This will, I hope, help to damp down some of the war hysteria we have seen developing elsewhere. I have always argued that now is the time for us to think in terms of SALT II and SALT III. Now is the time to open up peaceful negotiations instead of the warfare that has been going on at a verbal level. This is a serious matter and I hope we can get a serious answer.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, if I may, I should like to ask the noble Earl three questions. First, have the United States given us any valid explanation of why this computer failed on two occasions? Was it perhaps because faulty information was fed into it? Secondly, while deploring the highly dangerous failure which might well, as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said, have had appalling consequences, can we not derive some mild satisfaction from the fact that at least what I suppose might be called the "fail-safe" mechanism installed in the computer functioned within a few minutes, thus revealing the error? Thirdly, supposing the computer had persisted in its error, must we assume that the President would have been obliged to take such retaliatory action as seemed to him desirable—including, if necessary, ordering the use of American nuclear forces against selected targets? If so, is there not a strong case for installing a second computer which at least could be checked against the other?
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the way they have received this Statement, which I can well understand causes them and others concern because of what might have happened. Perhaps I can put your Lordships' anxieties at rest by saying that when the noble Lord, Lord Peart, says there is great disquiet over this sort of thing it is absolutely understandable; but in fact this was caused by a malfunction of the computer. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked whether the wrong information was put into the computer. The answer 30 to that is, as I understand it—and of course we are asking the United States authorities about it and they are making a thorough investigation—that it was the computer itself which malfunctioned and not the input to it. One of the encouraging things about the matter is that there was no input from the ballistic missiles early warning systems at all into the computer. Indeed, it did not even register at Fyling-dales, which is one of the cross-checks there would be.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, asked whether there were arrangements for discussing these matters with the United States, and I can tell him that there are very long-standing arrangements allowing for consultation over them. An immediate confidence check was carried out when the computer concerned indicated an alert and, as a result of that confidence check, it was concluded that there was no cause for anxiety.
May I also put your Lordships' anxieties at rest on one other matter: that is that the result of the alert is to show the effectiveness of the system, because in fact when an alert is first shown action is taken immediately to ensure that the appropriate movements are carried out. But it does not mean that any culminating action will be taken. That will be the result of discussions and a personal decision. All I would say to your Lordships is that what happened on this occasion was a mistake in the original alert, and it was found immediately that the alert was false.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked whether the United States would be asked to give an explanation of this fault. I can tell him that in fact there is going to be an investigation. We shall be consulted about it but, if I may, I would only repeat that this is merely a case of a fault in a machine, which fault was immediately discovered. It would not have led to the dire consequences of which people are naturally fearful.
§ Lord ELWYN-JONESMy Lords, has the noble Earl read the somewhat laconic account of this matter in The Times today, which says that on both occasions the mistake was spotted before any armed bombers or missiles had been launched into the air and a pronouncement made?— as though that was a matter for enormous 31 rejoicing. Are we to assume that, if the mistake had not been spotted, armed bombers or missiles would have been launched into the air? What is the nature of the intermediate steps that need to be taken? The noble Earl made a reference: was it directly to the need for presidential intervention before the fateful step would be taken?
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that there are in fact a number of steps which would verify the cause of any such decision. In fact, when an alert comes about certain automatic measures are taken, which may include aeroplanes going into the air. That does not mean they will be despatched to their targets. Any action of that nature will be taken only as a result of a final decision; but the immediate result of an alert like this is that immediate actions are taken, some of which may include aeroplanes being put into the air. However, that is a normal defensive action: it is not an offensive action.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one or two questions about this talk of "disquiet"? Are we to assume that there could be an outbreak of war—and not merely conventional war but a nuclear war—simply because of some defect in a computer? Surely the decision must be taken, if I may say so, at a much higher level than a computer. Are we not making rather heavy weather over this?
I agree that computers must be effective. They must be accurate, and we must ensure they make no mistakes of any kind. But to assume that bombers would immediately fly into the air, that missiles would be hurled by the United States of America and that we would merely have to follow because of a computer error is surely indulging in a bit of fantasy. I must confess, having some interest in matters of defence, that I had not the slightest feeling of disquiet about it. Indeed, I would say this. At the present time I think that international tension is much less than it has been for some considerable time.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, 32 for possibly putting better than I have the views which he has expressed. Clearly any thing, any person or any machine is capable of making a mistake. This applies to computers as much as it does to human beings, and I think that where a computer, in a situation like this, makes a mistake it is a matter for concern. Indeed, it is the concern of the United States as well that matters should be so organised that mistakes do not occur. But where such things do happen the noble Lord is quite correct in saying that it would not involve vast quantitites of missiles, and so forth, being directed against various targets simply because of a computer. The computer in this case gives the initial reaction, which thereafter is verified not only by other computers but also by human beings, and such action as he referred to would not be taken as a result of the computer but as the result of a human being. Therefore, the idea of a major nuclear war starting up as a result of a computer making a mistake is highly unlikely.