Nuclear Deterrence and the Preservation of Peace

Abstract

There can be no doubt that the 1980s have witnessed a great deal of intense debate in Britain and throughout Western Europe about the role of nuclear weapons in Western strategy. The outcome of the 1987 British election has taken some of the steam out of the debate but the role of nuclear weapons remains a lively political issue. Such debates are not new of course. Throughout its history the North Atlantic Alliance has faced periodic waves of criticism of its strategy. What does seem new about the contemporary debate is that coherent alternative strategies have been proposed in recent years and the political consensus on defence in many Western European countries has begun to break down. Such a debate on issues of vital import­ance, after a period of neglect, is to be welcomed. Although some of the debate has often been overly emotional and sometimes ill-informed it has nevertheless produced important critiques of contem­porary strategy and forced defence planners to think through the justi­fications for their policies. ¹ In particular, when such eminent figures as the former American Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, and the former British Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Carver, produce studies taking issue with many of the conventional wisdoms and orthodoxies of current Western strategic planning, it is clear that a major and important debate is underway not only in the public domain but in the defence establishment itself.²

Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.

Winston Churchill, Address to a Joint Session of the US Congress, January 1952