Nuclear Capability of USA and USSR (Hansard, 18 January 1983)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the Soviet Union and the United States could in theory destroy each other with nuclear weapons. But the whole purpose of NATO's deterrence policy is to safeguard peace between East and West, and to ensure that the Russians are not tempted to initiate any hostilities and that a nuclear catastrophe could never occur. The Americans, with the full support of their allies, continue the search for radical reductions in nuclear armaments which are balanced and verifiable and thus maintain and enhance the security of both sides.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask him whether he agrees that in spite of peaceful declarations on both sides the practical consequence of ineffective attempts to reach multilateral agreement has been a constant escalation of nuclear arms on both sides? In this connection, has he received the recent declaration of the Warsaw Pact states, which I understand to be an attempt to arrest this situation; and if the Government have received the full text of the declaration, are they now in a position to say what is their response to it?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I personally have not seen the full text; but I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the proposal for a non-aggression pact. In that case, we are always willing to study any serious proposal; but such pacts have been proposed before and, of course, they flow from the charter of the United Nations. To show our good intentions in this respect so far as Britain is concerned, I can say that we believe in the non-use of force in international affairs. Look what this country did last year to uphold that principle.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, on the question of weapons reductions, were the Government given any notice of the dismissal of Mr. Rostow and Mr. Starr, and of the appointment of Mr. Adelman? Are the Government acquainted with Mr. Adelman? Indeed, is he acquainted with Western Europe?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, such appointments are a matter for the Government concerned.

Lord Clewdwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, while accepting the need for verification and proper consultation, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be quite wrong for the Government to resist any initiative in view of the undoubted danger of the escalation of nuclear weapons throughout the world? Is the Minister able to say what steps the Government are taking to move towards negotiation; that is to say, to test the offer which has been made by the new Soviet leader, rather than leave it in cold storage in the hope that somehow or other something may emerge in due course? What specific steps are Her Majesty's Government proposing to take?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. As I endeavoured to say in answer to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, we are always willing to look at any serious proposal. A proposal of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned could undoubtedly be looked at closely in one of the arms reduction talks which are going ahead at the present time in Geneva.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of the strongest supporters of NATO in this country have become thoroughly dissatisfied with the handling of disarmament questions by the United States Government? Will he draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the possibility that she might summon a meeting of the NATO Foreign Ministers to review the Geneva negotiations?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord on this matter, but I made it crystal clear on behalf of the Government when we debated the Motion of the noble Lord on arms control, that Her Majesty's Government in this country were very satisfied with the way in which they had been able to keep in contact with the United States on the arms control negotiations. I would simply remind the House that so far as intermediate nuclear force weapons are concerned in Europe, there is an enormous preponderance on the Soviet side threatening every country in Western Europe, and there is on the table a genuine offer from the United States on behalf of NATO which would remove this threat entirely. So far as strategic arms reduction talks are concerned, there is again reckoned to be a two-to-one advantage to Soviet Russia in terms of throw-weight of ballistic missiles; and, once again, there is a genuine and radical offer on the table from the United States for deep cuts in strategic weapons.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that there was a time in 1914 when the Russians and ourselves were allies? My family lost three cousins.
1281 I lost three cousins fighting on our side, not on the Russian side. Now that the balance of terror, the balance of nuclear weapons, is so equal, surely we ought to have a different strategy and try to make some sense, away from the lunatic path that we are pursuing?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble Baroness's question takes the whole House back to 1945, when we were allies at the end of a terrible war. Since then, as my noble friend Lord Beloff made clear in his speech on a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, a few weeks ago in this House, there has been a continual escalation in the build-up of nuclear weapons on the Russian side, so that there is a vast preponderance in Soviet superiority. It is that which we want to try to put right so that there can be real security on both sides of the world.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, is the Russian offer now still regarded as on the table?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord refer to the offer which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, as being from the Warsaw Pact last week?

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, I am referring to the last offer in regard to the SS20s.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, perhaps I may repeat that any serious offer is an offer which I know the NATO countries would be ready to consider.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, if, as the noble Lord the Minister has said, the Soviet Union have a massive preponderance of nuclear weapons over the West, one could understand it if they did not wish to enter into any form of negotiation to reduce what they have got—

A noble Lord
Question!

§ Lord Molloy
Or is it that they are such very good sports that they are going to wait until the massive preponderance they have has withered away? Is the noble Lord also aware that in very recent times there has been evidence produced by very experienced people that the monitoring of reductions of nuclear weapons is now almost a firm possibility? Bearing all that in mind, ought not we in this country to do our best to influence both the Americans and the Russians to talk seriously and to start implementing a reduction in these horrible and fearful weapons?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble Lord in essence asks me, if the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact has an advantage in nuclear weapons, is it not unsurprising that they would be reluctant to give that up? My answer to that question is that we will not be threatened by anyone but we will not deploy our own INF weapons, provided the Russians will abandon their SS20s, which undoubtedly threaten the whole of Western Europe today. I repeat that we will of course seriously consider any proposals, but we will not be deflected by threats which are uttered from time to 1282 time, and are reported in the newspapers today as having been made by Mr. Gromyko.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister confirm that as yet he has received no offer which contains verification proposals?

§ Lord Belstead
That is my understanding, my Lords.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I am much obliged.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is it not the case that there has been quite a firm indication on the Warsaw Pact side that verification is now a possibility? Also, is it not unrealistic to exclude British and French nuclear weapons when estimating the balance of terror between the Warsaw Pact and the NATO powers? Having regard to all this, would not the noble Lord agree that some pressure should be put upon the United States to cease adopting so totally intransigent an attitude on these matters?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, it really is absurd to put to Her Majesty's Government a suggestion that we should put pressure upon our greatest ally in order to study the absolutely fundamental question of verification which the Western countries have been putting upon the table for the Warsaw Pact to consider for years and years. If verification is a possibility, as the noble Lord says to the Goverment, then I would assure him that it will be considered seriously in the INF or the START talks taking place in Geneva. So far as the question of the British and French deterrents are concerned, a durable agreement has to be based upon the principle of parity between the two major nuclear weapons states.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, would not the Government agree that a lot of this talk about nuclear preponderance is irrelevant and even absurd? All that is necessary for an effective nuclear deterrent is the capacity for a second strike to be able to inflict unacceptable damage on the adversary.

§ Lord Belstead
And that, my Lords, is precisely why the Western powers, on behalf of their peoples and on behalf of our future, are so worried that there is a monopoly in Europe of land-based intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Soviet hands.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords—

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, with respect, having spent 11 minutes on one Question, I think we really should move on.