Living with the Bomb

New Zealand Listener, Volume 32, Issue 817, 25 March 1955, Page 4

Living with the Bomb

IR WINSTON CHURCHILL’S S "hydrogen bomb" speech to the House of Commons disappeared from the headlines a week or two ago, but its impact is still being felt in private discussion. The speech revealed little that was new, for it had long been evident that Britain’s experiments with nuclear weapons would run their course. It was, however, a ful and considered statement on a subject which towers above all others ‘in world affairs; and it came from a man who has never concealed his fears, Sir Winston explained that, according to his information, a major war is "most unlikely" in the next three or four years, because in that period the United States will be the only country able "to deliver a full-scale attack with hydrogen bombs on a few~hours’ notice." This does not mean that war is likely to occur as soon as Russia has the H-bomb. The Russians are as frightened as we are of the monstrous weapon. But equality in armaments will confirm and strengthen the present division between East and West. If the Hbomb is regarded as a deterrent, and both sides have it, the result is a stalemate;‘and a stalemate in these circumstances is simply the indefinite continuance of a nightmare. The source of our danger is not the existence of the bomb, but the so-called cold war. Nothing is more absurd than the distinction which is now carefully made between "conventional" and ‘nuclear armaments. While men are fighting, no matter what arms they are using, they are playing with ‘the fuse of an H-bomb. Sooner or later, if the Great Powers brandish their weapons at one another, and permit border warfare to continue, the fires will grow and spread until someone is mad enough to touch

off the final explosion. To speak of peace, while everywhere armaments are being piled up and new weapons tested, is to indulge again in our ancient and peculiar hypocrisy. Men have always been excited by war; and at last they have brought themselves to a point at which they must either go down towards barbarism and extinction, or learn slowly to be civilised. Tt is impossible in a few months to change habits of thought and action that are products of thou-' sands of years of violent living; but men have learnt to agree as well as to fight: they have the means, if they want to use them, for a saner approach to political problems. A profound shock will sometimes change the balance of the mind, and if the nations can really see the abyss before them they may yet feel the need of new ways of thinking. It may then become "politically expedient" for their leaders to realise that the strong can afford to be liberal, that toughness in negotiation can become a sort of timidity, and that it is better to take risks for peace than to be unshaken in purposes which can lead only to catastrophe. We should be able to see now that war itself is the enemy, as it always has been, and that agreement or compromise in the disputed areas, and through it a gradual easing of tension, should be the first protection against the bomb. Concessions must be made on both sides; and if the Great Powers can still be unwilling to make the first move, the initiative should be taken by neutral governments. Nations like India, occupying a middle position between East and West, may well have it in their power to save the human race: for they alone are able to stand outside the rivalries and disputes, and speak and act for peace with motives beyond suspicion. Let us hope they will do it.