A STATEMENT in the Defence White Paper about which several
journals, including the Spectator, expressed concern was the threat of retaliation with nuclear weapons if the Russians launched a major attack with conventional weapons only. The Prime Minister now states that this passage has been misunderstood; it is not to be taken to refer to a war which brews up out of, say, some frontier incident. 'But if 200 divisions are mobil- ised and are marching across Europe; if London is being bombed by bombers, with ordinary bombs; if the whole great battle has begun, we must retort; and what we must do now is to make it clear to Russia that we would retort in these circum- stances; otherwise you are merely inviting an attack.' At first sight this argument looks reason- able; but is it really relevant? So long as there ap- peared to be a serious risk that the Russians would launch a full-scale attack on or through Europe with conventional weapons, in the way Mr. Mac- millan describes, the mere possibility of retaliation with nuclear weapons was indeed a deterrent. But this risk has now diminished—simply because it was too great a risk. Stupid though Mr. Khrush- ehev can be, he is not now so foolish as to con- template launching a full-scale conventional campaign on the off-chance that there will be no nuclear retaliation. If he decides on global war It will be a nuclear war; that much is certain. Mr. Macmillan's 'saver,' therefore, does not apply.
*
Previous page
