This statement, taken by itself, would suggest that Russia could
send half a squadron of bombers to carry out a surprise attack with H-bombs, and in a few minutes eliminate this country as a military power. If this view were to be accepted without qualifications, it might well give rise to the idea that we now exist as a nation on sufferance, and that we could not take the risk of opposing the Russians to the point at which they might be tempted to seek our destruction. Is this a true reflection of our position in the world today? First of all let us consider the potentialities of the most modern type of H-bomb. Not a great deal has yet been released about the effects of these weapons, but from various pub- lished sources here and in the United States it is possible to piece together a fairly reliable picture.
According to the report of a Civil Defence Study, published in the United States on November 29, 1954, the H-bomb, if it is detonated at the optimum height above the target, would cause complete annihilation within a circle of five miles radius from the point immediately beneath the explosion. In the area included in a further five miles radius, most of the buildings would be destroyed and 50 per cent. of the inhabi- tants would be killed outright. In the next five miles there would be 15 per cent. dead and heavy material damage. In the final five miles—between fifteen and twenty miles from the centre of the explosion—there would be 2 per cent. dead and a good deal of minor damage. In the areas'surrounding the zone of complete obliteration there would, of course, be a large number of injured people. In addition, the explosion would produce an immense cloud of iacandescent gas rising rapidly into the upper air, carrying with it a large quantity of particles—mainly the products of the explosion itself and the pulverising effect of the blast on whatever happens to be beneath it This cloud would drift downwind, and from it would fall a lethal rain of radioactive dust. This 'fall-out,' as it is called, has extremely dangerous properties, and people exposed to it are likely to die or be severely injured:. It was this, it will be remembered, that caused the casualties to the Japanese fishermen, in the US Pacific trials, in an area which was judged to be, safe by the American scientists.
If the bomb is detonated in contact with the ground, the damage and loss of life caused by the blast and heat would be considerably less than that caused by an air burst. The bomb, according to a Home Office Paper published on August 20, 1954, would cause a crater one mile in diameter and 170 feet deep. Although the areas of complete annihila- tion and serious damage would be less, the residual cloud would suck up a vast quantity of pulverised material, and the fall-out would be much more serious than that caused by an air burst. It might cover a very large area downwind of the target, and its incidence would be largely unpredictable.
In addition, according to Dr. Adrian, formerly Presi- dent of the British Association, there is a real danger that a number of H-bombs exploding—no one knows how many— would set up weak, widely distributed and persistent radio- activity, which would be intolerable to human or any other form of life. Every living thing on earth would wither and die.
And this appalling engine of violence does not represent the maximum development of weapons of mass destruction. We have been told, on the highest authority, that there is no theoretical limit to the size of the H-bomb, though, of course, there are obviously some practical limiting factors, such as portability. The weapon must be capable of being transported and released at the chosen point.
So far as the actual power of the bomb is concerned, it might be argued- that five bombs, placed in the optimum positions in accordance with a carefully worked out plan, would suffice to knock out this country as an organised mili- tary power. But that is a very different thing from saying that an enemy could achieve this result by dispatching against us five, ten or even fifteen bombers carrying H-bombs. A trained engineer, understanding his subject, might destroy a great steel bridge by placing a few small explosive charges in precisely the right positions and detonating them. But would anyone suppose that a bomb carrying the same weight could, if dropped on the bridge, achieve the same result? The weight of explosive heeded in terms of bombs, under operational conditions, might be of the order of a score, or even a hundred, times as great. And the same laws will no doubt apply, mutaiis mutandis, to the H-bomb, though it is true that the vast area of destruction achieved by a single bomb would make the task of aiming the bomb somewhat easier, and permit the bombers to fly at high speed at great altitudes. What are, the chances of a successful air defence? It is sometimes argued that scientific progress will enable the air defence to keep the scale of attack within bounds and prevent it from achieving a decisive result. I am afraid that there is not much evidence to support this view. The most important factor in its favour is that we now have an integrated air defence zone covering North-West Europe, including Britain, giving us a radar coverage extending many hundreds of miles east of our coast-line. And we are developing. guided missiles which will replace the obsolete AA gun, and possibly also the defensive fighter. We can perhaps hope to reach a stage at which a large percentage of enemy, bombers could be destroyed, but some would always get through. And some of those that get through would succeed in dropping their H-bombs on or near their targets. No air defence would prevent damage on a vast scale, but we might hope that it would increase very substantially the number of bombers and it-bombs that would have to be expended to achieve a given result.
It is, of course, impossible to estimate how many H-bombs would be needed to knock this country out. So much depends on bombing accuracy and the ability to penetrate the defences. These, in turn, depend upon many factors, such as the standard of training of the bomber crews and the efficiency of their equipment, the degree of success attained by our air defences, and upon weather and even luck. But if I were responsible for planning such an attack, I would not think it reasonable to start with less than fifty H-bombs in hand, and I should prefer to: have one hundred. It may be asked whether the Russians, within any foreseeable time, are likely to have fifty or one hundred H-bombs at their disposal. One can only guess the answer to this, but it must be remembered that modern A-bombs can be converted to H-bombs at no great cost. And it is certain that a time will come, sooner or later, when the Russians will possess a large stock of H-bombs.
So ffir we have been considering this country alone, and from that point of view our situation . does indeed appear desperate. But, in fact, thanks to the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, it is no more, and no less, desperate than that of any other great power. If a surprise air attack were to be made on this country, within a few hours the whole air power of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation would be hurled against the aggressor. From hundreds of bases the bombers would rise, loaded with H-bombs, and in a short while the main centres of administration, production and communi- cation in the enemy country would have been similarly pulverised. Provided that everybody knows this, and that no shadow of doubt exists as to the determination of the Western World to retaliate in overwhelming strength, or our ability to do so, then the surprise attack will never come.
As Sir Winston ChurchilLhas said, the awful power of these weapons of mass destruction carries for mankind a message not of despair, but of hope. For even the most megalomaniac of dictators could hardly persuade himself or his colleagues that the best way—or even a possible way—of settling a dis- pute with another great power would be to resort to full-scale war. At best, it would involve general suicide and the loss of most of the work of man's hands for the last thousand years, and, at worst, the cessation of all life on earth.
We have at last reached the point, which many people have thought we had reached before, when full-scale global war has 'become unthinkable, so long as both West and East have the power simultaneously to destroy each other. And the more clearly the peoples of the world understand the nature of thermo-nuclear warfare, the more quickly shall we reach the stage at'which all nations will realise that they must renounce war as an instrument of policy, or accept the proba- bility of the extinction of the human race.
Previous page
