Do the frightening facts about the arms race, which show that we are
rushing headlong towards a precipice, make any of those responsible for
this disastrous course pull themselves together and reach for the
brakes?
The answer is "no" and I only wish that I could be the bearer of glad
tidings
that there has been a change of attitude and we are beginning to see a
steady rate of disarmament. Alas, that is not the case. I am deeply
saddened
when I reflect on how little has been achieved in spite of all the talk
there has been particularly about nuclear disarmament. There have been
numerous international conferences and negotiations on the subject and
we have all nursed dreams of a world at peace but to no avail. Since
the
end of the Second World War 34 years ago, we have had war after war.
There
is still armed conflict going on in several parts of the world. We live
in an age of extreme peril because every war today carries the danger
that
it could spread and involve the super powers. And here lies the
greatest
danger of all. A military confrontation between the nuclear powers
could
entail the horrifying risk of nuclear warfare. The Western powers and
the
USSR started by producing and stockpiling nuclear weapons as a
deterrent
to general war. The idea seemed simple enough. Because of the enormous
amount of destruction that could be wreaked by a single nuclear
explosion,
the idea was that both sides in what we still see as an East-West
conflict
would be deterred from taking any aggressive action which might
endanger
the vital interests of the other. It was not long, however, before
smaller
nuclear weapons of various designs were produced and deployed for use
in
what was assumed to be a tactical or theatre war. The belief was that
were
hostilities ever to break out in Western Europe, such weapons could be
used in field warfare without triggering an-all out nuclear exchange
leading
to final holocaust. I have never found this idea credible. I have never
been able to accept the reasons for the belief that any class of
nuclear
weapons can be categorised in terms of their tactical or strategic
purposes.
Next month I enter my eightieth year. I am one of the few survivors of
the First World War who rose to high command in the Second, and I know
how impossible it is to pursue military operations in accordance with
fixed
plans and agreements. In warfare the unexpected is the rule and no one
can anticipate what an opponents reaction will be to the unexpected. As
a sailor I saw enough death and destruction at sea, but I also had the
opportunity of seeing the absolute destruction of the war zone of the
western
front in the First World War, where those who fought in the trenches
had
an average expectation of life of only a few weeks. Then in 1943 I
became
Supreme Allied Commander in South East Asia, and I saw death and
destruction
on an even greater scale. But that was all conventional warfare and,
horrible
as it was, we all felt we had a "fighting chance" of survival. In the
event
of a nuclear war there will be no chance, there will be no survivors -
all will be obliterated. I am not asserting this without having deeply
thought about the matter. When I was Chief of the British Defence Staff
I made my views known. I have heard the arguments against this view but
I have never found them convincing. So I repeat in all sincerity as a
military
man I can see no use for any nuclear weapons which would not end in
escalation,
with consequences that no one can conceive. And nuclear devastation is
not science fiction - it is a matter of fact. Thirty - four years ago
there
was the terrifying experience of two atomic bombs that effaced the
cities
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki off the map. In describing the nightmare a
Japanese
journalist wrote as follows: "Suddenly a glaring whitish, pinkish light
appeared in the sky accompanied by an unnatural tremor which was
followed
almost immediately by a wave of suffocating heat and a wind which swept
away everything in its path. Within a few seconds the thousands of
people
in the streets in the centre of the town were scorched by a wave of
searing
heat. Many were killed instantly, others lay writhing on the ground
screaming
in agony from the intolerable pain of their burns. Everything standing
upright in the way of the blast - walls, houses, factories and other
buildings,
were annihilated... Hiroshima had ceased to exist." But that is not the
end of the story. We remember the tens of thousands who were killed
instantly
or worse still those who suffered a slow painful death from the effect
of the burns - we forget that many are still dying horribly from the
delayed
effects of radiation. To this knowledge must be added the fact that we
now have missiles a thousand times as dreadful; I repeat, a thousand
times
as terrible. One of the two nuclear strikes on this great city of
Strasbourg
with what today would be regarded as relatively low yield weapons would
utterly destroy all that we see around us and immediately kill probably
half its population. Imagine what the picture would be if larger
nuclear
strikes were to be levelled against not just Strasbourg but ten other
cities
in, say, a 200 mile radius. Or even worse, imagine what the picture
would
be if there was an unrestrained exchange of nuclear weapons - and this
is the most appalling risk of all since, as I have already said, I
cannot
imagine a situation in which nuclear weapons would be used as a
battlefield
weapons without the conflagration spreading. Could we not take steps to
make sure that these things never come about? A new war can hardly fail
to involve the all - out use of nuclear weapons. Such a war would not
drag
on for years, It could all be over in a matter of days. And when it is
all over what will the world be like? Our fine great buildings, our
homes
will exist no more. The thousands of years it took to develop our
civilisation
will have been in vain. Our works of art will be lost. Radio,
television,
newspapers will disappear. There will be no means of transport. There
will
be no hospitals. No help can be expected for the few mutilated
survivors
in any town to be sent from a neighbouring town - there will be no
neighbouring
towns left, no neighbours, there will be no help, there will be no
hope.
How can we just stand by and do nothing to prevent the destruction of
our
world? Einstein, whose centenary we celebrate this year, was asked to
prophecy
what weapons could be used in the Third World War. I am told he replied
to the following effect: "On the assumption that a Third World War must
escalate to nuclear destruction, I can tell you what the Fourth World
War
will be fought with - bows and arrows." The facts about the global
nuclear
arms race are well known and as I have already said SIPRI has played
its
part in disseminating authoritative material on world armaments and the
need for international efforts to reduce them. But how do we set about
achieving practical measures of nuclear arms control and disarmament?
To
begin with we are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a
military
balance of strength between East and West. The real need is for both
sides
to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever - increasing
and more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual
restraint.
Better still, by reduction of nuclear armaments I believe it should be
possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military
confrontation.
I regret enormously the delays which the Americans and Russians have
experienced
in reaching a SALT II agreement for the limitation of even one major
class
of nuclear weapons with which it deals. I regret even more the fact
that
opposition to reaching any agreement which will bring about a restraint
in the production and deployment of nuclear weapons is becoming so
powerful
in the United States. What can their motives be? As a military man who
has given half a century of active service I say in all sincerity that
the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Their existence only
adds
to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated. There
are powerful voices around the world who still give credence to the old
Roman precept - if you desire peace, prepare for war. This is absolute
nuclear nonsense and I repeat - it is a disastrous misconception to
believe
that by increasing the total uncertainty one increases ones own
certainty.
This year we have already seen the beginnings of a miracle. Through the
courageous determination of Presidents Carter and Sadat and Prime
Minister
Begin we have seen the first real move towards what we all hope will be
a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. Their journey has only just
begun
and the path they have chosen will be long and fraught with
disappointments
and obstacles. But these bold leaders have realised the alternative and
have faced up to their duty in a way which those of us who hunger for
the
peace of the world applaud. Is it possible that this will lead to the
start
of yet another even more vital miracle and someone somewhere will take
that first step along the stony road which will lead us to an effective
form of nuclear arms limitation, including the banning of Tactical
Nuclear
Weapons? After all, it is true that science offers us almost unlimited
opportunities but it is up to us, the people, to make the moral and
philosophical
choice and since the threat to humanity is the work of human beings, it
is up to man to save himself from himself. The world now stands on the
brink of final abyss. Let us all resolve to take all possible practical
steps to ensure that we do not, through our own folly, go over the edge.
Last changed; 14/09/09, 12/08/09