THE TABLET April 6th, 1957. VOL. 209, No. 6098

TH E TABL A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER & REVIEW

Published as a Newspaper

Pro Ecclesia Dei, Pro Regina et Patria

FOUNDED IN 1840

APRIL 6th, 1957

NINEPENCE

Re-opening the Cclllcil: The American Role Religion under the Kadar Regim e: oppression Continues Christian Democracy! Professor Fogarty’s Study of the Roots in Western Europe Scandinavian Lessons! The State and Social Democracy. By Colin Clark .Look Rack in Regret; One Man’s Journey. By Arthur Barton The Bible in Lent: V : God’s Poor. By Leonard Johnston Critics’ Columns : Notebook : Book Reviews : Letters : Chess

THE LIMITS OF DETERRENTS

U'OR the time being, at any rate, the moderates have won A the day, 'by about two to one, over the extremists, and both the ship-building and engineering strikes have been called off. But the danger of a renewal remains if the awards now being considered are not thought sufficient, although it will not in fact be so easy to call the men out again. But it is much to the good that in the meantime production is to go on. The White Paper on the Balance of Payments shows, a week before the Budget, how little scope there is for more expenditure in the home market; how the precarious balance of the economy needs yet more exports, and how the wrong direction, which could lead in the end to another devaluation, would be to consume more of the things that require imported materials or that could themselves be exported; which is, unfortunately, just what people want more higher wages or tax remissions to enable them to do. This consideration need not preclude Mr. Thorneycroft from carrying a stage further the good development in last year's Budget of making savings easier, particularly for the professional man and his family; for money saved is removed from the immediate market, and has a good and not a harmful effect on the balance of payments. The Government’s chief expectation of saving comes from the defence expenditure; but here very grave issues of a non-monetary kind come into play.

The Russians repeat their views that the H-bomb and other nuclear weapons should be banned by universal agreement. But they have not taken the first step towards this banning, which is to refrain from threatening to use such weapons. They threatened to use them last November, in order to put a stop to quite conventional and small-scale military operations: and by doing so they very much strengthened the British Government's determination to continue to make its own H-bomb.

The psychology of threats is becoming very important in international diplomacy. Threats are a deplorable development, and we very much hope they will be dropped. They are a form of cold warfare where the Russians have the advantages of a docile and insulated public opinion, of dispersal, and of a greater indifference to the idea of casualties by the million. As long as there are political oppositions in Western countries it will be tempting for the Russians to play this kind of poker. But they ought to recognise that, in proportion as they do this, they bring nearer the final catastrophe which they profess to dread, and they render much more difficult the creation of that minimum sense of confidence which a disarmament agreement requires.

If Britain has the H-bomb, we trust it will be recognised as quite sufficient that it is known to exist. No British statesman could threaten to use it in the first place, or against conventional weapons, or in isolation from the Atlantic alliance. The Russians are always harping on the congested character of this island by contrast with Russia, and the point is a perfectly valid one. It is the Atlantic Community as a whole, with all its bases on each side of the Atlantic, that has the strategic advantage over Soviet Russia. We need the bomb in order not to be blackmailed or threatened, but no people has more to gain than the British from any progress in disarmament. The great danger is that, just as America is promising us atomic warheads until we make our own, so similar weapons will be given to client States by the Soviet Union, and then, sooner or later, in countries ruled by excitable individuals who will not appreciate what they are doing, with inflammable public opinion cheering them on, they will be used: and then countered with something bigger.

Nuclear weapons as instruments of diplomacy have this great disadvantage compared with conventional weapons, that there is nothing between threatening to use them and actually using them. The partial demonstrations of frontier mobilisations, and limited military operations, which have played a great part in international history, are precluded. A rocket is either discharged or it is not discharged, and once it is, it cannot be recalled.

It follows that this country will drift into a very difficult position if it economises so much on lesser and more conventional armaments that it cannot meet like with like, but must either remain passive or embark on nuclear hostilities which it is worse placed for defending itself against than almost any other country, though its Western European allies live under much the same geographical disadvantages.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has promised that the