§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the words "strategic" and "theatre" used in the phrases "strategic ballistic missiles" and "theatre ballistic missiles" in practice indicate that a distinction between missiles capable of reaching the United States and missiles capable of reaching other NATO states.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the difference in the view of NATO between "strategic ballistic missiles" and "theatre ballistic missiles" and whether it is considered that nuclear weapons could fall on any part of the NATO area without being of strategic significance to the Alliance.
Earl HoweThere is no agreed definition of these terms. In the context of missile defence systems, however, the terms are usually understood to refer solely to the different technical characteristics of various types of missile. The use of the terms in this context has consequently no implications for the type of warhead that might be carried nor the purpose to which they might be put.
93WA
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
How the distinction between "theatre ballistic missiles" as referred to in the 8 June NATO meeting communiqué, where they are contrasted with "strategic ballistic missiles", differs from the distinction between "strategic roles" and "sub-strategic roles" for UK Trident ballistic missiles; what is "NATO's sub-strategic force posture"; and whether it consists of "theatre ballistic missiles".
Earl HoweDistinctions between strategic and theatre ballistic missiles are usually drawn on the basis of technical characteristics of different weapon systems. This is quite separate from the distinction between strategic and sub-strategic roles, which relates to the purpose of the action to which a weapon could contribute. NATO's sub strategic force posture comprises the forces committed to the sub-strategic role, which are at present dual capable aircraft equipped with nuclear bombs.