Armageddon: US Leaders' Statements (Hansard, 21 October 1985)

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

§ The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, both President Reagan and his Defence Secretary, Mr. Weinberger, have made it clear on many occasions that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. They and we believe that a strong deterrent posture is the best guarantee of peace. The approach of Armageddon remains therefore a matter for scholarly speculation rather than reality.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
Yes, my Lords, but is it not somewhat disturbing that the man with his finger on the button seems to confuse the two issues and to mix up—as he has done five times during his presidency—the question of biblical possibilities with the actuality of the nuclear weapon on which his finger rests? Is that not somewhat alarming from our point of view?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I think that the best thing might be if I were to quote the relevant passage from the Book of Revelation: Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. I believe that says it all.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that he might well suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that he could allay his anxieties by the simple process of moving his dwelling to a nuclear-free zone, in which case he would be perfectly safe even if Armageddon came?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is a suggestion which I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will wish to consider, probably at the same time avoiding taking his holiday at a point 15 miles south-east of Haifa.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister, his party and this Government realise that the majority of ordinary British folk take Armageddon and thermo-nuclear war very seriously indeed. Is not the noble Lord the Minister to be congratulated in so far as he can find the whole matter of nuclear war a big joke—

Noble Lords
No!

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, that is how it seems to me, and Hansard will record it.
Is the Minister not aware that United States generals have decided that they cannot go along with the present attitude and have therefore resigned their positions? I do not find that a laughing matter: it is serious. Ought not the Government to take this matter seriously, and not do what the noble Lord the Minister is very able at doing, which is to provide a difficulty in the way of every possible examination?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I do not think I need any lessons in the need —

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, neither do we.

§ Lord Trefgarne
—to maintain the peace of the world. That is why we have the policies that we do; that is why we devote the resources that we do to our defence programme; and that is why we have been successful for more than 40 years.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, is the Minister of State aware that if he goes to the ruins of Armageddon in the modern State of Israel he will find that there are both hawks and doves nesting there?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am grateful for that advice.

Lord Morris
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord opposite can draw certain comfort from the support of generations of old men who tramped the streets of the capital bearing the yoke of a sandwich board?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am not quite sure as to which noble Lord my noble friend is referring, but I, too, have seen the boards to which he refers.

§ Lord Soper
My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the Book of Revelation is a very dangerous document for quotation because you can make up your mind what you intend to believe and then find the appropriate text? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is a radical difference between the concept of apocalypse and that of Armageddon, but that they have one thing in common? Does he agree that they both involve an element of inevitability, which I believe is the very worst aspect of the problem that faces us in the world today? Would it not be far better to recognise that we have the option now of resisting a process of inevitability in the interests of what we still have a capability to do if we are prepared to disarm and to look at the world with hopeful eyes?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am afraid I take the view that the one way to make nuclear war inevitable, or in any event more likely, would be for us to disarm unilaterally, and that is why we reject that policy.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, surely we are entitled to assume that every effort will be made to make the November summit as successful as possible. What comment do Her Majesty's Government have on, not the staggering statements but the swaggering statements that have been made recently by the President, by Robert McFarlane and by Richard Perle? Surely Her Majesty's Government should try to instil in them and in the United States Administration our desire to enhance and not to hinder the prospects of reaching a settlement in November.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the Government are of course wholly supportive of the efforts of the United States, not only at the talks that are to take place in November but in the other fora which are already in process to reach balanced and verifiable methods of arms control. That support will continue.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that some of the statements made by President Reagan which are quoted in this book on President Reagan would indeed be amusing but for the awesome power which rests in the President's hands? In these circumstances, does the noble Lord not consider that he has a responsibility to take the matter seriously and to do his best to ensure that American representation in Geneva takes the matter more seriously than the President sometimes seems to take it himself?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that both the United States and the other members of the Western Alliance take this matter most seriously. I would advise the noble Lord not to believe everything he reads as ascribed to the President.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is not underestimating the genuine apprehension that is growing in this country about 825 recent activities. Is he not aware that it is not simply the statements of President Reagan that cause this apprehension but his activities; for example, the ordering of planeloads of armed troops on the airfield of a friendly nation?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is referring to but the one thing that has been achieved under the Administration of the President of the United States is the making of the strength of the Western Alliance such that nobody will now attack us.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, do I gather from that answer that the noble Lord, a Minister of the Government, is not aware of what happened on an Italian airfield recently?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord did not describe in any detail the event to which he was referring. I can now understand the matter he had in mind.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the putting down of Questions with a high metaphorical content is bound to induce from the Government a comparable response? One might expect the Government to have said to a Question of that kind that the only thing to do was to wait for Providence to intervene, which is always, of course, a disastrous thing. Is it not a fact that the best thing for the Government to do is what they are doing at the moment, which is to advance step by step in trying to reduce nuclear armaments, as they have done in NATO, which has reduced the number of short-range nuclear weapons and replaced them by medium-range ones, thereby reducing just slightly the risk of a mistake being made in the front line?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his appreciation of the efforts that have been made in the areas to which he refers.