H-Bomb Diplomacy

Well, it had to happen. Of course, on all sides there was dismay, or fear, or anger, when first Russia and then the United States announced that they were going to resume testing nuclear bombs. And who wouldn’t feel like that. Ever since the atom bomb came mushrooming onto the world scene, there has been no lack of scientists to tell us how bad it is for our health to have the things tested. True, there is disagreement on the extent of the danger from the tests (the testing governments, as we may expect, like to play it down), but nobody has yet been able to say that they are anything but dangerous. But now the big tests have started again, and the fact is—it had to happen.

Because, as now seems fairly obvious, the nuclear powers agreed to stop tests in 1958 only after they had completed a significant stage in their nuclear weapon build up. At the time, we remember, the United States and the Soviet Union packed in a lot of tests, pushing themselves hard to beat the deadline. (Russia just failed to make it). These tests, with their predecessors, must have yielded enough knowledge for the nuclear powers to mull over whilst they were busily developing other aspects of their weapons. We all know that they have been polishing up on rocketry, perfecting their accuracy and boosting their range. Now, they are at the stage which demands further bomb tests, if the work of the last three years is not to be wasted.

The big snag is that, for political reasons, neither side wanted to be labelled as the one which started it all again. Over recent years, Russian foreign policy has often shown itself sensitive to such things. Perhaps Khruschev did not want Russia to be the country to break the test ban. Perhaps he held off as long as he could, until his hand was forced. There certainly seems to be in Moscow a belligerent, military pressure group which regards Khruschev’s policy as too conciliatory to the West, just as America and this country have their hotheads who are all for a showdown. We saw some of the work of the Moscow group when Khruschev was forced to break up the last Summit meeting in Paris. If these people have had their way again, that would explain the brusque manner in which the Kremlin announced the resumption of tests.

So it might have been a clever waiting game, with each side needing to test but reluctant to make the first move for fear of the political repercussions in countries like India and on the African continent. There is no reason to blame the U.S.S.R. for losing the game, nor to suppose that the Americans held out for humanitarian reasons. For when it came to it, they were just about as ready to let off their bombs again as were the Russians. We know that all capitalist countries like to describe their policies as being inspired by zeal for human benefits. But that simply does not even start to wash as far as nuclear weapons go. There is one certain way in which Russia, America and the rest could serve human interests, and solve the problem of nuclear warfare at the same time. They could destroy all their weapons and refuse to make any more.

That sounds like a pipe dream. In fact, it is a pipe dream. Capitalist nations build up their armouries because they must always strive for military supremacy, to defend the economic and commercial interests of their ruling class. Britain wants a base in Cyprus so that she can keep troops and weapons there, handy to move into Kuwait or any other trouble spot in the oil rich, economically vital Middle East. The United States wants its missile bases on the Continent, its Polaris ships in Holy Loch, because they cannot allow Russian capitalism to expand freely into Europe. Now these competing economic interests are an essential part of capitalism; if Russia and America were to settle their differences tomorrow, the day after we would have some other powers at loggerheads. Once you have such competition, you have armed forces. Once you have armed forces you have weapons, with each force trying for the weapon which will make it the most powerful of the lot. That sounds too simple for words, but it is in fact the reason behind the horror story of the development of weapons. That is the story to tell the unilateral nuclear disarmers, because it is the hundred per cent, reason for not being one of them.

Perhaps without realising it, Khruschev and Kennedy have punched a big hole in the case of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Let us suppose that the C.N.D. had its way, and that the governments of the world agreed to renounce the use and manufacture of nuclear weapons. All the diplomats would gather at Geneva, or some other equally pleasant place, to sign the instrument of renunciation. There would be moving speeches about a new era of human welfare, a better chance for children yet unborn: we all know what to expect on such occasions.

But the sombre fact is that, after the fine words have evaporated, treaties and agreements are worthless to the governments of capitalism. Germany’s signature to the 1919 treaty which disarmed her was worthless. The powers which signed the Locarno Treaty of friendship in 1924 were very soon at war with each other. The post war problem of Berlin is chock full of agreements which have been broken or ignored. And in the same way, now that it suits their purpose to do so, the nuclear powers have ignored their 1958 agreement to ban tests. There is no evidence to suggest that they would behave any differently about an agreement to renounce nuclear bombs completely.

There is nothing necessarily dishonourable in this. The diplomats in themselves might be men of sensitive’ integrity. It is the disputing nature of capitalist society which forces them to make, and break, their pledges. However deep in the mud they may lie, or however thick on the pavement they may sit, the unilateralists will never get around that problem.

In fundamentals, the policies of capitalist governments never change, al¬ though in more superficial matters there are opportunities to alter their immediate policy, and they often do so. For example, there is a lot of evidence that since Stalin’s death the Russian ruling class has tended to adopt a less belligerent attitude towards their opponents. Stalin, whatever else can be said of him, was one of capitalism’s strong men; his successors have shown a more subtle touch. That is what has made Moscow’s tough attitude on the tests that little bit more chilling.

How serious is it, then? Travellers from the United States and from Eastern Europe tell the same story — of people all in a panic about war. But we should keep the bomb tests in their perspective, and remember that weapons are not in themselves the cause of war. The next conflict will spring from the disputes of capitalism — from the Koreas, the Kuwaits, the Berlins. In the meantime, with their bomb tests, space shots, sub-Arctic submarines and the rest, the powers are only taking the normal capitalist precaution of arming themselves as destructively as they can.

Yes, the tests had to happen again. That may sound crazy, but that’s the way it is. Because for the majority of people, happy to keep capitalism going, that is the way they want it.
IVAN.