22 JANUARY 1983, Page 19

Nuclear hypocrisy

Sir: Colin Welch's outburst against the Peace Movement (1 January) is, sadly, typical of the way our debates about defence and security are conducted. His own words do not encourage rational argu- ment.

It is just nonsense to imply that the Peace Movement is managed by crypto- communists. Any mass movement has its lunatic fringe, but the Peace Movement is Made up of a range of individuals and groups, most of whom detest the Soviet regime and are as insistent as any that they, as well as the West, reduce armaments. It Just happens to be easier to address one's own government than the Kremlin. It is also nonsense to compare today's Peace Move- ment with the appeasers of the Thirties; Hiroshima showed the world that we can now destroy the planet — it is in our self- interest to limit the possession of these weapons. No such possibility existed in the Thirties. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented; we shall have to find ways of living with this knowledge and reducing the level of armaments — such is the price we Pay for man's pride and stupidity. Hence there is some logic in 'banning' nuclear Weapons.

It is hypocrisy, as advocates of the nuclear deterrent insist, that we need to

in-

tend nuclear weapons — but do not n- tend to use them. Who is being 'idealistic' and 'utopian' now? An appalling accident, or nuclear terrorism, would seem to be only a matter of time — and many nations will see that they can only protect themselves if they, like the super-powers, have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are intrinsically evil (unlike a pistol or knife); their posses- sion and use are therefore morally unaccep- table. Political considerations have to hold on to this fundamental moral position.

The point is that the multilateralists' own case is as vulnerable as any other: nothing significant has been achieved in the way of arms control or arms reduction in the last 20 Years; rather we have witnessed an ac- celerating arms trade and arms race.

Colin Welch is right to criticise the Peace Movement for the way it has taken 'peace' as its own property, but he is wrong to imp- ly that there is no strenuous, rigorous and sustained debate about new policies and alternative defence strategies — many of which pay attention to neglected dimen- sions of the security debate (other than just military ones). Mr Welch and your readers might like to know that part of the ministry at St James's Church, Piccadilly, is to pro- vide such a forum, through a variety of lec- tures, seminars and conversations.

Revd Donald Reeves St James's Rectory,

197 Piccadilly,

London WI