ATOMIC RESPONSIBILITIES
SIR,—You take me heavily to task in yo leading article this week for postulatin hypothetical circumstances in which tb United States might employ atomic weapo Beyond the fact that the Prime Minister his reply showed that he had himself ccato sidered the same kind of proposition yet strictures indicate very clearly indeed typical preference for your usual we° modulated and ' nuanced' commentary on 80 aspects of American policy. One wonders whether, at a time when public men in the United States, including the Chiefs of Staff, do not hesitate to utter opinions on the use of the atomic bomb in the most robust and pointed terms, allY, language or imagery other than that natural to, and appreciated by, the great majority 01 Americans can explain or uphold the Britisb point of view at all. I have no doubt that your judicious and diplomatic pages often flutter the heart of 00 more Europeanised American and secure many triumphs for British policy. Congrat0; lations to you, Sir, on that 1 But I should be surprised if they so much as fan a snect of dust in the corridors of the Pentagon of in the plains of the Middle West. It is the tragedy of the times, much 10 with Germany before the war, that the quality of our international voices so one! misses its mark on either side.—YoU0 faithfully, House of Commons, S.W.1 [The particular hypothesis which Lord Hinchingbrooke postulated was that of o Communist insurrection of insignificant portions resulting in an atomic riposte by til" United States which would be quite unwal, rantable." The Prime Minister's reply tli°: he had considered " all that aspect " did 0°' imply that he thought this particular hyl)°,:, thesis a reasonable one. The hypothesis b' as insulting to British intelligence as it isle sanity—in the Pentagon, in 1-1`.: Middle West or anywhere else.—Edit°" Spectator.]
Previous page
