On June 1, 1983, well-experienced English readers were surprised to read the statement of the Prime Minister of England, M. Thatcher, in the newspapers. It formulated the policy of the British Government in the field of nuclear armaments1 . This statement makes it very relevant to study the policy of the current British conservative government in the field of nuclear weapons. Such research is especially important today, when the primary task of states and peoples is to avert the threat of nuclear war from humanity, which is growing due to the aggressive policies of the governments of the United States and some other NATO countries, when the issue of nuclear weapons is the subject of important international negotiations. Based on this, the author made an attempt to consider in this article the British policy in the field of nuclear weapons in 1979-1984.

In an effort to save humanity from nuclear catastrophe, the Soviet Union proposed that relations between the nuclear Powers should be subject to certain binding norms agreed between them, the purpose of which would be to prevent nuclear war, such as the refusal to propagate it, the obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, to prevent their proliferation in any form, and to promote the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones, a course to reduce nuclear weapons up to their elimination. This is a constructive program for preventing nuclear war that meets the requirements of the current world conditions. It is addressed to all the nuclear Powers together and to each of them separately; hence, to England.

London and its NATO allies have remained silent on this crucial Soviet proposal. To understand their silence, a review of the conservative government's nuclear policy helps.

Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party of England in 1975. By that time, she had already established herself as a figure of extreme right-wing views in the field of domestic and foreign policy. She spoke out as a hardliner in domestic affairs and foreign policy, and publicly lamented that Britain had lost its colonial possessions and its former position as a world power.

As the leader of the party, Thatcher made a number of trips to other countries, in particular to the United States, Germany and Canada. In her speeches during these trips, she consistently demonstrated her "British ultra-patriotism" and "hard line" in the field of foreign policy. M. Thatcher already at that time opposed defusing international tensions, she was not satisfied with the results of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Her displeasure

1 Guardian, 1.VI.19S3.

page 22

even the Soviet-American negotiations on the limitation of strategic nuclear weapons were provoked. All this was accompanied by propaganda of the myth of the" military superiority "of the Soviet Union, of the "Soviet threat", and a falsifying interpretation of Soviet domestic and foreign policy. Similar attacks were also made in other socialist countries. Reactionary circles in the United States, Germany and some other countries applauded the leader of the British Conservatives, who also expressed their views. Glib correspondents from the bourgeois press began to call M. Thatcher "the iron lady". The first significant political successes came to her not in her homeland, but during this foreign tour. In England, her autocracy as leader of the Conservative Party was established more slowly, but it became a fact in 1977.

General parliamentary elections were held in England on May 3, 1979. During the election campaign, the Conservatives led by Thatcher widely used the false thesis about the "Soviet military threat". They stated that they intend to take a position of active confrontation, tough confrontation with the Soviet Union, and for this purpose they will deploy new weapons programs and increase military spending. The 1979 Conservative Manifesto called for " strengthening the defence of Britain and working with the Allies to protect our interests in the world in the face of a growing threat."2 Both verbally and in writing, it was explained that the threat allegedly comes from the Soviet Union, socialism, and progressive movements.

The election was won by the Conservatives, who won a stable majority in parliament, which allowed them to start implementing their political line. Anti-Sovietism was central to the conservative Government's foreign policy activities. One of the examples of hostility towards the USSR was an interview with British Defense Minister F. Pym, given on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II. The Minister went so far as to say that the Soviet Union now poses the same threat to peace as fascism did in the 1930s. The Soviet press regarded this statement as blasphemous, as a manifestation of the obsession with anti-Sovietism .3
This position of the Conservatives predetermined their policy towards British nuclear weapons during the time of the Thatcher government in power.

The first nuclear problem that the new government faced was the Shevalin program. It was adopted in 1973 by the then Conservative Government of E. Heath and was implemented for a number of years by both the Heath Government and the succeeding Labour Government of G. Wilson. Both governments kept the program very secret, hiding its implementation from the people, Parliament, and the entire government; only a narrow group of senior Conservative and then Labour ministers knew about it.

For the Thatcher government, "Chevalin" was not a difficult problem. The program was in its final stages, and its results needed to be implemented on nuclear-powered submarines. Modernization and increasing the power of nuclear weapons stemmed from the foreign policy line of the conservatives.

For the first time, the official mention of the "Shevalin" project was made by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation. In a speech to Parliament in January 1980. He said that this is "a very significant and complex improvement of the rocket's head, which also includes the modification of the main part of the rocket."-

2 Novoe vremya, 1981, N 10, p. 18.

3 Pravda, 19. IX. 1979.

page 23

control of the startup system. This will not be a system with a multi - charge individual guidance warhead-MIRV. But it includes advanced devices for penetrating enemy missile defenses and maneuvering warheads in space. " 4 Pym announced that the project was "nearing completion" and would cost £ 1bn. 5 . Improvements to the Chevalin program were primarily intended to provide the best opportunity for British missiles to penetrate Soviet defenses. Hence, giving missiles the ability to change the course of flight, the angle of entry into the atmosphere, the increased speed of descent - all this to mislead the enemy's defense. The warhead was supposed to be separated in advance, before arriving in the zone of operation of the means of defense. Along with the warheads, the missile carried distractions - false warheads - that could be mistaken for real ones by the enemy. The protection of the internal electronic system of the rocket from the effects of nuclear explosions that could occur nearby was strengthened.6

The number of warheads on each missile doubled from three to six. Each of them was a thermonuclear charge with a capacity of 40 klt. 7 The increase in the number of nuclear warheads in England significantly changed the balance of nuclear forces in Europe, making it less stable, which, in turn, made it difficult to negotiate a reduction in the nuclear confrontation in Europe. At the same time, the Chevalin program encouraged other powers, such as France, to follow the British example, which intensified the nuclear arms race.

The government's 1982 White Paper on Military Spending stated that " the Chevalin program will ensure the effectiveness of the British nuclear submarine fleet armed with Polaris missiles until they are replaced by Trident missiles. Currently, the Shevalin program has been completed. The new system will soon be operational. " 8 Indeed, the upgraded missiles began service in the summer of 1982. F. Pim. believed that the Shevalin system would keep the Polaris missiles at the required level "for 10 years or so." 9
The British authorities strongly emphasized the independence of the Chevalin program, its independence from the United States. However, the aforementioned White Paper reports that test launches of missiles with the Chevalin system were made from the Rinaun submarine in early 1982 off Cape Canaveral (USA), "which represents an important final stage in the implementation of this program"10 . All tests of warheads and missiles with the new system were carried out at American test sites - at Cape Canaveral in Florida and in Nevada.

The conservative government did not limit itself to completing the Shevalin program. It began equipping existing Polaris missiles with new engines at the end of 1981, which, according to the Ministry of Defense, "will ensure the continued effectiveness of our current strategic deterrent forces until Trident missiles enter service in the 1990s. "11
As for the Tridents, the conservative government immediately advocated the adoption of a program to create a new fleet of nuclear submarines that would be equipped with these missiles.-

4 Parliamentary Debates House of Commons (далее -PDHC). Vol. 977, col. 681.

5 Ibid.

6 Freedman L. Britain and Nuclear Weapons. Lnd. 1980, p. 49.

7 Ibid.

8 Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1982 - 1. Lnd. 1982. Cmnd. 8529 - 1, p. 7.

9 PDHC. Vol. 988, col. 1244.

10 Ibid.

11 Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1983 - 1. Lnd. 1983. Cmnd. 8951 - 1.

page 24

tami and would have come in the 90s to replace the current submarines with "Polaris". Deliberately inflated by the proponents of the arms race, the noisy discussion of the 70s about whether to create a new generation of nuclear weapons prepared the propaganda and psychological decision to start a new round in the British nuclear arms race.

The conservatives came to power having decided in advance that they would seek to preserve nuclear forces and organize their replacement with more modern systems. One of the first sub-committees created by the Thatcher government was the Misk-7 sub-committee, which dealt with the problem of nuclear rearmament. According to a tradition adopted by both Labour and Conservative governments, this body consisted of a very narrow circle of high-ranking ministers-Prime Minister Thatcher, Home Secretary W. Bush. Whitelaw, Treasury Secretary J. Howe, Defense Secretary F. Pym, and Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington. It is significant that other ministers, as well as the military, were suspended from the work of the subcommittee.

The Misc-7 Sub-committee made rapid progress in studying the problem because the previous Labour government had already prepared a lot in this regard, and the line on nuclear policy was essentially the same for both Conservatives and Labour ministers. On October 26, 1979, Pym publicly announced that the government "will continue to improve the Polaris fleet so that it remains a deterrent in the 1990s." "Moreover, the question of what measures should be taken to ensure the operation of British nuclear capabilities beyond this deadline, for as long as this proves necessary, is already being studied."12
In January 1980, F. Pim presented the Government's position on this issue in detail in Parliament. This was the first discussion of the nuclear issue in Parliament in 15 years. He reported on the government's determination to replace Polaris with another system in due time, but did not say what the replacement will be, they say, it has not yet been decided, but said that the replacement cost will be 4-5 billion pounds. st. It looks strange in the minister's statement "ambiguity" about what will be replaced "Polaris". If it wasn't clear, what was the replacement cost based on? The usual lack of agreement, which was immediately partially demonstrated by the Deputy Minister of War who spoke. He said that "submarine-based ballistic missiles are the preferred replacement." 13 The minister formulated a "deterrence strategy" and showed that it was directed, like all previous British strategic plans, against the Soviet Union. Returning to this issue again in Parliament on July 15, 1980, Pym remarked:: "As I explained in detail in January, we intend to fundamentally change the way the Soviet leadership thinks." 14 A conservative majority in Parliament voted in favor of the government's nuclear weapons policy in January .15
In July 1980, a formal agreement was signed between Britain and the United States, formalized in the form of an exchange of letters between Prime Minister Thatcher and President Carter. Thatcher wrote on July 10, 1980, that in the early 90's it would be necessary to replace the Polaris missiles in service in England with more modern ones. The Government, after studying various options, came to the conclusion that the system

12 Freedman L. Op. cit, p. 63.

13 Ibid., p. 68.

14 PDHC. Vol. 988, col. 1245, 1249.

15 Ibid., col. 1245.

page 25

Trident-1 meets the requirements in the best possible way and will ensure the maintenance of effective deterrence until the beginning of the XXI century. "Therefore, I would like to ask you whether the US government will be ready to supply Trident - 1 missiles to England on the same basis as Polaris missiles are supplied under the agreement between the two countries of 1962. The British government would like to buy Trident-1 missiles from the United States with appropriate equipment and support, including parts for individual guidance and re-entry into the dense layers of the atmosphere, excluding only the warheads themselves, which will be manufactured in England." The Prime Minister of England made an important commitment in the same document: "Give the forces that will replace the "Polaris" to the North Atlantic Pact Organization, as the "Polaris" is now attached. Except where the Government of the United Kingdom may decide that the highest national interests are at stake, the forces that will be established in the future will be used for the international defence of the Western Union in all circumstances. " 16
Thatcher wrote that this agreement would not be in conflict with the current and future international obligations of the contracting parties. The British Prime Minister stressed, clearly to please the United States, that her government "supports the NATO long-term defense program to strengthen conventional weapons and armed forces." Britain has significantly increased its military spending, according to the decision of NATO. And to further emphasize the importance of the deal to the United States, Thatcher assured Carter that "the goal of the United Kingdom Government is to use the funds that will be saved as a result of cooperation with the United States in the production of the Trident-1 missile system to improve conventional armed forces." 17 This commitment was intended to emphasize once again that the deal is beneficial to the United States and that any savings achieved by Britain will be used within the framework of NATO for weapons.

The texts of the letters that formalized the agreement were agreed upon in advance, and the president's response followed on July 14. Carter wrote that the United States attaches great importance to Britain's nuclear forces and is ready to work closely together to modernize them. Therefore, the United States will supply Trident-1 missiles to England under conditions that are in accordance with American law. The President stressed that he attached great importance to the fact that the British nuclear forces with Trident missiles would be assigned to NATO, and that the financial benefits of Anglo-American cooperation in the nuclear field would be turned by Britain to improve its conventional armed forces .18
As a follow-up to the Anglo-American agreement on cooperation in creating a future British nuclear submarine fleet with Trident-1 missiles, an exchange of letters took place between the defense ministers of both countries, and complex and lengthy negotiations began on the technical and financial aspects of the deal.

The day after receiving Carter's letter of reply, on July 15, 1980, the Government informed Parliament of its decision after the fact - as has become the tradition with regard to nuclear weapons. In the House of Commons, a statement was made on behalf of the Government by the Minister of Defense, F. Pym. He said that he intends to make a statement about the eventual replacement of the existing nuclear power plants.

16 The British Strategic Nuclear Force. July 1980. Lnd. 1980. Cmnd. 7979, p. 2.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., p. 3.

page 26

strategic forces with Polaris missiles and Trident missile systems. Then the minister said that a thorough study was conducted on how to replace the Polaris missile system. "We have come to the conclusion," Pym said,"that the best option in terms of efficiency and cost would be the US - developed Trident submarine - launched ballistic missile system." 19 President Carter, the Secretary continued, gave assurances that the United States supports Britain's intention to maintain its strategic nuclear forces in the future and is ready to help Britain in this matter. The minister then referred to an exchange of letters on the issue between Thatcher and Carter, which were published on July 15.

The fact that the emails were published a day after they were exchanged had a double meaning. First, the conservative government was in a hurry to formalize the decision in order to put the country in front of a fait accompli. Secondly, the publication of the letters on the day of the debate meant that it would take some time for English voters to become aware of what had happened and become aware of it, and therefore they would not be able to influence the members of the House of Commons in a timely manner, and public opinion would not affect the content of the debate in the

The Minister explained that the agreement reached with the United States follows the same lines as the agreement concluded in 1962 in Nassau by G. McMillan and J. McMillan. Kennedy. "We will design and build our own submarines and warheads here in England," the minister said,"but we will buy the Trident missile system from the United States, which is equipped with a split multi - charge warhead with individual targeting of charges." After the purchase of the missile systems in the United States, they will be under full British ownership and under English " operational control, but we will have to give all our strategic nuclear forces to NATO in the same way as is the case with Polaris missile submarines today." New nuclear missile carriers will begin their service in the 1990s. It is meant to build four or five submarines for this purpose. Now it is finally decided to build four boats; the issue of building the fifth will be decided in two or three years 20 .

The government claimed that the total cost of the new submarine nuclear fleet would be F5 billion in 1980 prices. Pim explained that allocating these amounts from the military budget would not lead to a weakening of attention to conventional weapons; they would continue to develop and modernize.

To sweeten the pill for working-class England, the minister went on to say that the government's intention was to assign as large a share as possible in the production of the new nuclear fleet to British industry; "at least 70% of the total cost will be spent in England, and this will create a significant number of jobs." 21 The minister launched into arguments that the creation of new missile carriers would be a demonstration of Britain's commitment to NATO and its readiness to cooperate with the members of this union. "Our strategy, as well as that of our NATO allies, is exclusively and absolutely defensive."22 . This was the usual, traditional attempt of the British ruling circles to portray the aggressive NATO strategy (and including the English one) as an obo-

19 PDHC. Vol. 988, col. 1235,

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., col. 1236.

22 Ibid.

page 27

determined, peaceful. Obviously incorrect in the minister's speech was the reference to the fact that all this is being done because of the military threat from the USSR and that the conservative government is building up nuclear capabilities and all other types of weapons "solely for the purpose of preserving peace and preventing war." Equally false was the claim that all these measures are being taken "until a real, far-reaching arms control agreement is reached as a result of negotiations" .23
The position taken by the Labour opposition when discussing the government statement was sluggish, vague, which ultimately played into the hands of the Conservatives. The Labour MP, Rogers, made a claim to the government on a procedural issue; he would have liked the Prime Minister to make such a statement, not the Minister of Defence, but the Prime Minister .24 As if that would make a difference. And the opposition did not reveal it and did not attack it. The traditional bipartisan position of the right-wing Labor Party on nuclear issues may have had an impact.

The Liberals were even more definite in their statements than the Labor Party. Their representative S. Ross, for example, stated; "Is the minister aware that the deputies sitting on the liberal bench have consistently and consistently opposed the entire concept of an independent nuclear deterrent force? Therefore, his message today did not bring us joy... Many thinking people in England oppose the replacement of "Polaris" 25 .

As a result, the House of Commons supported the government's decision to build a new generation of submarine missile carriers with the Trident-1 missile system.

In furtherance of this line, negotiations continued with representatives of the United States, and on September 30, 1980, an exchange of notes took place between the two governments, which was a formal agreement providing that the 1962 agreement on the acquisition of Polaris missile systems by England in the United States would also determine the procedure for the supply of Trident-1 missile systems to England. 26 Soon, however, these arrangements were significantly changed by developments. In the future, it was no longer about Trident-1, but about Trident-2.

The" White Paper " on military issues, published in 1982, reflected two very significant trends in the nuclear policy of the British government. Dissatisfaction with this policy among ordinary Englishmen became more and more intense, and the government was very concerned about this. An attempt to bring down the heat of mass protests was made in the "White Paper". "The public's interest in defense issues," we read in this government document, " is greater today than at any other time in a number of years... we expect that this statement on military issues will contribute to a better understanding of these issues."27 . The intention was to create in the minds of the British a perception that would be beneficial to the government of its actions in the unfolding arms race.

The political core of the 1982 White Paper was anti-Sovietism and hostility to the Soviet Union.

Already in the preface of the Minister of Defense, it was stated that "the main threat to the security of the United Kingdom comes from nuclear weapons."-

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., col. 1239.

26 Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America... Lnd. 1980. Cmnd. 8070, pp. 3 - 4.

27 Statement on the Defence Estimates. 1982- 1. Lnd. 1G82. Cnmd. 8529 - 1, p. 2.

page 28

and conventional armaments of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies " 28 . From this point of view, the White Paper also interpreted the development of events in the world over the past 1981. Rightly noting that tensions between the West and the East continued to increase, the authors of the White Paper attempted to formulate the reasons for this, naturally shifting the responsibility from a sore head to a healthy one. The result is a list of events in the world that do not suit the British government and allegedly pose a danger to England. This includes the Soviet Union's military assistance to the people of Afghanistan, aimed at helping them to preserve their revolutionary gains, which were opposed by mercenary bands led by imperialists, including the British, this is also the help of socialist Poland, which is defending its revolutionary gains from the attacks of internal and external counterrevolution, this is also the strengthening of the Soviet Union's defense against in the face of increasing NATO aggressiveness 29 . It turned out that it was precisely for these reasons that the British ruling circles oriented their military policy against the USSR.

The Government was concerned about the alarm caused to the English people by its military policy. "We recognize the sincerity of those who criticize this decision (on the creation of a new generation of nuclear missile carriers) for moral reasons." 30 In order to appease critics, the argument of the "Soviet threat" was used, the promise to achieve "multilateral arms limitation" and carefully selected figures were used to convince everyone that this event, in general, is not very expensive, almost cheap.

The White Paper noted that the British government announced on July 15, 1980, its decision to replace the existing submarine fleet with Polaris missiles with new ones.ships and new missiles, i.e. "Trident-1". However, in October 1981, the United States announced that it intended to develop another missile, the Trident-2, so that it would be put into service with the US Navy in 1989. "This proved to be an additional factor that had to be taken into account, "the White Paper stated .31 However, she was silent about why the United States put England in this matter before a fait accompli. But the average Englishman still had something to say about this, and the authors of the White Paper admitted: "When we decided in July 1980 to choose Trident-1 as a replacement for our Polaris, we thought that the United States would not accept it for two or three years decisions on whether to develop Trident-2. It turned out, however, that the new US administration accelerated the decision on the Trident-2 program32 .

The White Paper went on to say that the new missile system would be an upgraded version of the previous missile: This will be a multi-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile with a multi-charge warhead with self-targeting of a separate charge. In terms of size, it will surpass its predecessor. The situation is such that the United States in the late 90-ies will replace all "Trident-1 ""Trident-2", building for this purpose new ships of the "Ohio" type. In this case, only one England would use Trident-1, which would cause a number of new and complex problems, since both the production of missiles and IP-

28 Ibid., p. 11.

29 Ibid., p. 1.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid,, p. 3.

32 Ibid., p. 4.

page 29

Their use on British submarines is connected in many ways with the United States.

This reasoning is certainly true, but at the same time, the current situation vividly illustrates the "independence" of the British military nuclear potential.

The White Paper contains an extensive list of purely technical problems, the solution of which should be sought in negotiations with the Americans. They are described in such detail and verbosity that the reader could not help suspecting that this was done deliberately in order to create the appearance of presenting extensive information, but to present it in such a way that a layman could not understand it. In fact, this was done to demonstrate false democracy in this area. Fake because the government had already made a final decision in advance and now it only needed to be "sold" to the parliament and the people in a favorable package. The White Paper reported that, "taking all these considerations into account," the government decided to "opt for the Trident-2 system for our next generation of strategic nuclear deterrence." 33
The 1982 White Paper was supposed to give the reader an unpleasant financial surprise. It contained a lot of figures and dubious arguments on the topic "what is more expensive and what is cheaper", and all this did not so much clarify as confuse the problem. However, the bitter truth had to be told: "At the time when the government's decision was announced in July 1980, the cost of the Trident program was estimated at between £ 4.5 billion and £ 5 billion." 34 Now, "the total cost of the Trident-2 forces will be 7.5 billion pounds." 35 In 1984, the cost of the Trident-2 program was already estimated by experts at 11.5 billion pounds.

In July 1983, the House of Commons debated the Government's 1983 White Paper on Military Matters. The debate did not differ in the fact that a document was being discussed that officially proclaimed the British government's policy of increasing military preparations, inflating the arms race, and whipping up military hysteria. All this has happened in similar cases before. The difference from the past was that both the drafters of the White Paper and the participants in its discussion in Parliament were in a state of chauvinistic frenzy from the" small victorious war " unleashed by England a year and a half ago in the South Atlantic against Argentina for the colonial possession of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). Against the background of the long-term decline of England, this" victory " turned the heads of English politicians.

The Government's 1983 White Paper stated unequivocally:"We have made it quite clear in a series of successive statements that the main threat to the security of the United Kingdom remains the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies." 36 This fiction, as the reader may have already noticed, invariably wanders from one White Paper to another. This was followed by a discussion of what the Falklands campaign had shown. Along with the White Paper's apparent exaggeration of the merits of the British armed forces, it purportedly "made it very clear that the success of deterrence depends crucially on determining who the potential enemy is."

Then, which completely does not correspond to reality, it was stated:

33 Ibid., p. 5.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid., p. 6.

36 Statement on the Defence Estimates. 1983 - 1. Cmnd. 8951 - 1, p. 2.

page 30

"We ensured the preservation of peace in Europe for more than three decades because the Soviet leadership had no doubts about the collective ability and determination of NATO allies to protect their freedom."37 . This formula of the 1983 White Paper is clearly untrue. To attribute NATO's contribution to the preservation of peace in Europe is to falsify history. For history has confirmed two facts that overturn this claim: the Soviet Union has not committed a single, even the slightest, action that could be considered a violation of the peace in Europe; moreover, it has consistently advocated its strengthening, while Britain and its allies have repeatedly created situations in this region that undermined the cause the world. In Aktiv Britain and NATO, and the creation of aggressive military blocs, and the introduction of a huge number of weapons into Western Europe, including nuclear ones, and the constant unwinding of the spiral of the arms race, and, finally, the whipping up of anti-Soviet hysteria as a means of ideological support for the arms race and confrontation with the Soviet Union and its allies. These are objective facts.

The 1983 White Paper is superior to previous similar government documents in terms of fueling fictions about the "Soviet threat." Commenting on the" White Paper", the new Minister of Defense of England M. Hazletine said:: "Our defense policy will continue to focus on the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies." 38
The growth of the anti-war, anti-nuclear movement of the English people worried the government, and it used the White Paper to weaken it as much as possible. The section on nuclear forces began with a paragraph that attempted to argue that the Government, "responding to growing public concerns about the role of nuclear weapons," had launched an unprecedented campaign to discuss the issue, including considering "a number of radical alternatives to our current strategy."39 . "Under this government, there was more discussion of the nuclear issue in parliament, " and a large amount of government information was published .40 This should be understood as follows: they say that they were exhausted in search of an alternative strategy, but they did not find it.

All this was done in order to convince the people of the need for Britain to participate in the nuclear arms race, as if this was the only possible political line in the existing conditions. In reality, this was a clear misinformation of the English people.

Specifically about the nuclear forces of England, the White Paper did not introduce any fundamentally new provisions. This was explained by the fact that the" Last Year's Defense appropriations statement " contained an exhaustive statement of our decision to purchase the Trident-2 strategic weapons system .41 It was also reported that a formal agreement was signed with the United States to acquire the Trident-2 system and that "after the initial decision was made, we have made progress in its implementation on a broad front," 42 that is, in the implementation of this program.

On July 19-20, 1983, a debate on military appropriations was held in Parliament. But neither the opposition in the face of the Labour faction, nor the debate in the House of Commons on the issue of nuclear weapons is anything else

37 Ibid., p. 3.

38 Krasnaya zvezda, 27. IX. 1983.

39 Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1983. Cmnd. 8951 - 1, p. 5.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid., p.

42 Ibid.

page 31

they couldn't change it. After all, fundamental decisions had already been made earlier, and they were not threatened with cancellation. Therefore, for speakers of all parties, the debates provided simply an opportunity for propaganda speeches; to the historian, they provide some information about the arguments that the main parties used in propaganda activities. In this respect, the debate is of some interest to us.

Representatives of the ruling Conservative party were at times quite frank and talked about things that help to understand the government's military policy. Deputy Emery made an anti-Soviet speech, which was simultaneously directed against the world national liberation movement. He was infuriated by the fact that the Soviet Union supported and supported the liberation movements. Emery called for a military response to these movements and the Soviet Union. "We all agree," Emery said,"that only the United States can play a leading role in this fight." But Britain can also make a valuable contribution to countering the threat that has arisen to its interests, as well as to the interests of European countries "in the Middle East, South-East Asia and Africa" 43. In fact, Britain is already making this contribution by "cooperating with the United States in the Diego Garcia archipelago, using our sovereign bases in Cyprus, our special relationship that we still have with Oman and some other countries." 44 The same goal, according to Emery, is pursued by Britain, sending a detachment of naval ships to the Indian Ocean, as well as providing certain military forces at the disposal of NATO, including units based on British soil, which can also be used if necessary. "Ascension Island already plays an important role for both the United States and us; equally, facilities in the Falkland Islands may prove important for the United States in the years to come." 45 Britain has a long history of fighting against liberation movements, "we need an organization for conducting special operations and political warfare, acting in accordance with foreign policy and military strategy." And all this in order to "push back" the liberation movements in various parts of the world. "Our American allies are already actively and quite openly operating in this area. The Central Intelligence Agency is a powerful organization; its chief is known to be a member of the government." Emery called for "proclaiming our determination to provide resistance against tyranny (as this colonizer calls socialism.) and do everything in our power to regain lost ground. " 46
The conservative, who has lost his sense of reality, directly expressed what the ruling circles of England are trying to achieve with their military program, including nuclear forces. Naturally, the conservatives who spoke supported the government's policy of modernizing the Polaris and creating a fleet of Trident-powered submarines in the future.

The Labor opposition introduced an amendment to the government's proposal, which contained criticism of its military policy. The amendment argued that the 1983 military spending plans set out in the White Paper could not provide Britain with adequate protection against aggression, and expressed regret that the Government had not taken any initiative to suspend the nuclear arms race

43 PDHC, 20 July 1983, col. 411.

44 Ibid., col. 412.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid., col. 413.

page 32

and it did not " support the proposals to freeze nuclear weapons." The amendment called on the Government to "stop relying on Tridents and not deploy cruise missiles on the territory of the United Kingdom." 47
McNamara, the Labor MP who was the main speaker, said that his party is against the creation of a fleet with Trident missiles. "The Labor Party claims," McNamara said, " that targeting Tridents will do three things: it will disorganize our conventional armed forces, weaken them, and disperse them. Therefore, our role in NATO will be weakened. " 48 As we can see, the key problem of the arms race and the increasing nuclear danger for England was out of sight of the Labour Party.

In this speech, it was interesting to point out that the Conservative Party's focus on "independent deterrence" is based on distrust of the Americans, the fear that "when the decisive moment comes, they will leave us to our fate."49
The position of the Labor Party was formulated by McNamara as follows: "The policy of the Labor Party is to eliminate the "Polaris" through international negotiations in the next five years. When we come to power, we will have to get rid of the "Polaris". And it goes without saying that a future Labour government will not mess with Tridentgshi .50
By the end of 1984, Britain remained the second most important nuclear power in the imperialist world after the United States. Its nuclear forces represent the most important part of its military power. They consist of a squadron of nuclear submarines carrying medium-range ballistic missiles. According to our estimates, this means that these missiles can reach targets located at a distance of 1 thousand to 5500 kilometers. The British nuclear submarine squadron of nuclear missile carriers forms the basis of the country's submarine fleet. The squadron consists of four nuclear-powered missile submarines: Resolution, Ripals, Rinaun, and Revenge. Each of them has a displacement of 8,400 tons. The submarine is armed with 16 two-stage solid-fuel ballistic missiles of the Polaris A-3T system. The firing range is 4,630 kilometers. The warhead of a split-type missile carries three warheads.

As you know, England buys missiles from the United States. The head of the missiles and their installation are made by the British themselves. There is a continuous process of improving nuclear weapons, and therefore their characteristics change. So, in 1983, one of the submarines was re-equipped with Polaris A-ZTK missiles, which have a new warhead equipped with three individual guidance warheads. Such a warhead also carries the means to overcome the enemy's missile defense 51 . At the end of 1984, Britain had 64 ballistic missiles carrying 192 warheads for the first nuclear strike. All of them are based on nuclear submarines.

Even before coming to power, M. Thatcher persistently demanded to follow the example of the United States in the field of the arms race. When the conservative government that she led came to power in 1979, the British leadership immediately began to play a leading role on the European continent in its further militarization-

47 Ibid., col. 392.

48 Ibid., col. 404.

49 Ibid., col. 406.

50 Ibid., col. 407.

51 Sovetskaya Rossiya, 30. XI. 1983.

page 33

operations. Programs to build up various types of weapons were quickly developed and approved. Priority was given to nuclear weapons in order to create a powerful nuclear potential. The government, secretly from the people and in fact from the Parliament, adopted a program for the construction of four new-generation nuclear missile submarines.

Future submarines are expected to be armed with 16 modern three-stage solid-fuel American Trident-2 missiles. Their range is 11 thousand kilometers. km; hit accuracy - 90 meters. The head of the split-type missile will carry seven warheads, each with a capacity of 0.6 megatons. The missile can also be equipped with 14 warheads of 0.15 megatons, if it turns out to be more appropriate. The new submarines will be able, while off the coast of England, to strike targets on the territory of the Soviet Union.

The course taken by the Conservative Government to implement this nuclear program is of fundamental importance. It means, firstly, that Britain has practically started a new round in the nuclear arms race and, secondly, to the best of its abilities, it has joined the efforts of the United States, Germany and a number of other NATO powers aimed at breaking the existing and existing military-strategic balance between the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO and to achieve the military superiority of the world of imperialism over the world of socialism.

The press reported that in 1982 the British leaders were seriously running around with the idea of using their nuclear weapons against Argentina. During the Falklands colonial War, the Conservative government, the New Statesman magazine reported, had a plan to launch a nuclear missile attack on the third-largest Argentine city of Cordoba. Journalists D. Campbell and J. McCarthy Rentul, relying on information from knowledgeable political circles, wrote:: "Britain intended to use Polaris missiles with nuclear warheads against Argentina. A submarine with Polaris missiles on board was sent to the South Atlantic with orders to be ready "if necessary."

Details of this Tory nuclear strategy were revealed in secret cables sent to the British Embassy in Washington. In particular, they said: "The most likely target for a threatening or demonstrative attack is Cordoba in northern Argentina." The New Statesman pointed out in an editorial: "It follows that the government was prepared to allow the most horrific escalation of the conflict even before the possibilities of a diplomatic and political settlement were exhausted."

According to a Reuters report, Prime Minister Thatcher's office and the Ministry of Defence declined to comment on the New Statesman report. At the same time, the official representative of the Labour Party in charge of foreign affairs, George Faulks, called for an independent investigation. New evidence about the likelihood of the Falklands conflict escalating into a thermonuclear catastrophe has revived long-standing fears that the sunken British destroyer Sheffield is carrying nuclear weapons. They also proved that the Tories could have initiated a "new Hiroshima." 52
The English official doctrine states that the nuclear forces of England are attached to NATO. The country's participation in this aggressive military policy-

52 Izvestiya, 24. VIII. 1984.

page 34

the strategic bloc mainly determines its military and political course. Britain's membership in NATO was and still is aimed at opposing the USSR and other members of the Warsaw Pact. In practice, this means constantly building up military power under the false pretext of the Soviet military threat, strengthening military-political and other ties between NATO countries, and forming a common line in negotiations on disarmament and arms limitation.

Since about the beginning of the 80s, Britain, together with its allies, has been using NATO to launch a new round in the arms race, to try to achieve military superiority over the Soviet Union and other countries of socialism. These efforts are accompanied by support for the US-proclaimed "crusade" against communism, whose organizers believe that it is possible and necessary to use military force to eliminate the socialist system. In England, there are increasingly loud voices in favor of expanding the NATO area of operation beyond the pact-defined region, i.e. beyond Europe. Behind this is the intention to use NATO in the fight against the national liberation movement.

The conservative government of Thatcher in 1979-1984 emphasized in word and deed its readiness to show particular firmness and determination in "active opposition" to the USSR. This was allegedly justified by the need to respond to the "Soviet threat".

The British leadership seeks to use to its advantage in NATO the role of a "junior partner" in bilateral so-called special relations with the United States. The Conservative government, while emphasizing its commitment to a "special relationship" with the United States and its desire to remain the closest and most reliable ally of the United States in Europe, has very specific and important things in mind. In world affairs, the British ruling circles share the same class positions as American imperialism. To believe that Britain's negative attitude towards the U.S.S.R., towards the socialist community and socialism in general, as well as towards the national liberation movement, is the result of "American pressure", the product of "dependence on the United States", "attachment to the chariot of American politics" means, firstly, to paint an inaccurate picture and, secondly, to draw a negative picture of the U.S.S.R. second, indirectly, even partially, to justify the British government, which, they say, has to do some things as if forced. The British government even benefits from such an interpretation of its actions, when it explains them to its own people and world public opinion.

In the Anglo-American partnership, the area of nuclear weapons is very important. This cooperation, like any other phenomenon, has a dialectical character. On the one hand, it gives England a significant benefit. It receives from America classified information on nuclear matters, special equipment, nuclear weapons systems, etc.On the other hand, such cooperation puts Britain in serious dependence on the United States. Britain's focus on the US-made Trident - 2 missile system is a convincing example of this dependence. The British command, now and in the future, will not be able to determine the exact location of their submarines at sea without the help of the Americans, and direct their missiles at the target, this requires data from American satellites, etc., etc.

Britain's cooperation with the United States in the nuclear field has a number of other important consequences. It has a negative impact on relations between England and France. America and Britain have placed France in a clearly unequal, disadvantaged position in nuclear affairs. The French, who are very sensitive in the sphere of national dignity and their role-

page 35

They have responded to the Anglo-American nuclear alliance by adopting and vigorously implementing their own nuclear program. There was a kind of Anglo - French competition. Britain's efforts to modernize its nuclear missile potential were also made taking into account the French factor.

Anglo-American nuclear cooperation has enabled the United States to play a dominant role in matters related to the deployment of its nuclear weapons on British soil. American military bases in England are numerous and serve a number of purposes. The United States ' interest in this is explained, along with other considerations, by the strategic position of England. Being close to the European mainland, England is separated from it by a water barrier, which increases the security of its territory. England is located in close proximity to the sea routes that supply Northern and Western Europe. Finally, England is a convenient transit point for American troops and military supplies sent to the European continent.

There are various data available on the specific number of US military bases on British territory. In 1980, in response to the urgent demands of a number of parliamentarians and the public, the Minister of Defense named 12 bases, including the Holy Loch base, where American nuclear submarines with Polaris missiles are based. Later, he named 53 and finally 56 bases 53 .

At the same time, the journalist D. Campbell was engaged in research on this issue, who cited convincing facts indicating that there are more than 100 American bases and various military facilities in England. 54 Campbell also published a list of American spy bases on English soil. These are the airfields where spy planes are based, and eavesdropping stations that try to intercept and decipher both broadcasts conducted by Soviet radio stations and radio conversations between England and other countries. A large number of American nuclear weapons intended for use against the Soviet Union and its allies are stored at bases in England. These are strategic weapons, medium-range weapons, and weapons for use in the European theater of operations. Nuclear weapons delivered by American F-111 and FB-111 aircraft based in England can be used against the USSR. "Facts of this kind," writes Professor R. Neeld of the University of Cambridge, " make it absolutely clear that Americans enjoy an unlimited right to do whatever they please in England, and, of course, enjoy it. They have entered England as woodworms enter old furniture." He points out the grave danger of having American military bases on British soil: "England has become an American aircraft carrier loaded with weapons and has the potential to explode in any war that the United States may enter." 55
Relations between Britain and the United States in general, and in the military field in particular, are very complex and surrounded by the strictest secrecy. Therefore, the information available to the public is extremely scarce. British public opinion has for many years been concerned with the question of who and how in the event of war will decide on the use of American bases. There is a well-founded fear that the Americans will decide this issue on their own. This means that

53 NeiId R. How to make up Your Mind about the Bomb. Lnd. 1981, p. 105.

54 New Statesman, 31.X.1980, pp. 6 - 9.

55 Neid R. Op. cit., pp. 108, 109.

page 36

Britain may be drawn into a nuclear war not by its own government,but by the American military. And this threatens to destroy the country. The Government's clarification on this issue reads as follows:: "In accordance with agreements concluded for joint defense purposes, the United States uses certain bases in the United Kingdom. We confirm our understanding that the use of these bases in an emergency situation will be decided jointly by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in light of the circumstances that may arise at that time."56 The text of this formula is alarming: we are not talking about a firm agreement, but only about an "understanding", and whether or not the "understanding" is implemented depends on the circumstances and how they are interpreted by the Americans. It should be added that even now Americans are very reluctant to make public statements on this issue. There has also been a very significant precedent in the past. In 1962, the United States provoked the Caribbean crisis, fraught with nuclear war, without any coordination of its actions with London, which caused an explosion of indignation in England.

There is ample reason to believe that the United States will use its British bases at its own discretion in the event of war, regardless of the opinion of the British government. This conclusion is supported by the opinion of the famous English statesman A. Wedgwood Benn, expressed in 1982. He wrote: "Although as a minister I was responsible for the Aldermaston Nuclear Research Centre and held various posts in four governments, and for some time was a member of the important Defence and Foreign Policy Committee and other smaller committees dealing with nuclear policy, I never found out (and still do not know) how The issue of the use of nuclear weapons stationed in the UK is being resolved.

It is generally assumed that certain principles have been developed for this case, which form the basis of a working agreement regulating the issue of the combat use of nuclear weapons and providing, in particular, for consultation between the US President and the British Prime Minister, if possible. No cabinet I have ever been a member of has ever known what the real situation is with the use of nuclear weapons, and I can only assume that the main terms of the agreement on this matter are known only to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

For a country and its parliament, the essence of national sovereignty and independence lies in their ability to decide independently whether to go to war or make peace. I think that our sovereign right has long been officially abolished by a secret agreement with the United States, and in practice-by the fact that the use of American nuclear weapons stationed in the UK cannot be limited."57
One thing is indisputable: American military bases on British territory pose a great danger to the British people and to the cause of peace in Europe. But the irrational policy of the conservative government ignores this circumstance, which is understandable to many Englishmen. M. Thatcher responds to public demands by saying that she is in favor of preserving American military bases in England. "We in Great Britain," the British Prime Minister said in October 1981, " cannot, in all honesty, hide under the American nuclear umbrella and at the same time declare to our American friends: you can defend our homes with your missiles,

56 See ibid., p. 104.

57 Za rubezhom, 1982, No. 16.

page 37

They are based here in America, but you should not base them near our homes. " 58 Of course, M. Thatcher did not explain that the danger to English homes can arise only if the imperialists provoke a war. Nor did she say that the presence of American weapons on British soil entails the threat of a retaliatory nuclear missile strike by a victim of NATO aggression. Typical English "non-agreement".

The most active role after the United States, the Thatcher government played and continues to play in imposing 572 new nuclear missiles on Western Europe-108 Pershing-2 missiles and 464 Tomahawk cruise missiles. This measure represents a new round in the arms race, seriously increases the risk of nuclear war, undermines the possibility of effective negotiations on the limitation of nuclear weapons, seriously worsens the situation in Europe and has other negative consequences. It is aimed at breaking the military-strategic parity that exists in Europe and ensures the preservation of peace here, changing it in favor of the United States and NATO, which increases the danger of unleashing war by this aggressive group of states. "The American cruise missile program, "the Guardian newspaper wrote," represents the largest unilateral quantitative and qualitative escalation of the arms race in human history."59
The decision to deploy Pershing-2 and cruise missiles was made in December 1979 in Brussels. Based on it, Pershing missiles should be deployed on the territory of Germany, and cruise missiles-on the territory of England, Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. In England, two bases should be set up for them - in Greenham Common and Molesworth. The British government was demonstratively the first to declare its readiness to accept American missiles, thereby trying to push other European countries to implement the Brussels decision by its example. At the end of 1983, the first 16 missiles were already deployed in England.

The imperialist politicians understood that the peoples would not remain silent in the face of this dangerous action that threatened their very existence, and in order to neutralize the anti-war protest movement, they used an insidious deceptive maneuver. The Brussels decision was "twofold": first, it provided for the deployment of 572 missiles and, secondly, negotiations with the USSR on the issue of limiting long-range tactical nuclear forces. The idea was to demand that the Soviet Union unilaterally disarm this type of armament in the course of the negotiations, and, having met with a natural refusal on its part, hold it responsible for the failure of the negotiations and thereby justify the deployment of new American missiles in Europe.

Over the years, the British government and the mass media have been actively pursuing the implementation of this insidious plan, which was an attempt to force the Soviet Union to accept a solution to the problem that would put it in an unequal position, not only ensure in fact, but also consolidate legally, in an international legal form, a military-strategic advantage The United States.

The United States, Britain and some other countries, under the cover of the Geneva talks on limiting nuclear weapons in Europe, prepared and began deploying American missiles on European soil. This led to the termination of negotiations in 1983. Answer-

58 Times, 17.X.1981.

59 Pravda, 27. III. 1984.

page 38

Not only the United States, but also Britain, is responsible for the deliberate breakdown of negotiations, for a new round in the arms race, which entails an increase in danger for all of humanity and the greatest danger for the countries and peoples of Western Europe. During the Geneva talks, the Soviet Union sought an agreement on the limitation of nuclear weapons in Europe. He made a number of constructive proposals and tried to take into account the wishes of the Western powers as much as possible. The Soviet proposals were aimed at ensuring a real balance of the potentials of intermediate-range nuclear weapons of the parties at a significantly reduced level. However, the United States did not seek a fair and equitable agreement; it sought the surrender of the Soviet Union, without taking into account the fact that negotiations with the USSR cannot be conducted on such a basis. During the Geneva talks, the US and other NATO countries tried to intimidate the USSR and other socialist countries. These were pre-doomed attempts.

The Soviet Union was forced to respond to the increased threat to its security and that of its allies by taking the necessary countermeasures. At the same time, the Soviet leadership stated that the USSR was ready to resume negotiations as soon as the United States and the United Kingdom and some other NATO countries acting in concert with them took measures to restore the situation that existed before the deployment of new American missiles in Western Europe. However, the British government did not heed this reasonable appeal and did not want to lead their country out of an extremely dangerous situation. This caused a well-founded alarm and indignation among the English people.

This concern is impressively reflected in a book by the Chairman of the British Association for the Promotion of the United Nations, J. R. R. Tolkien. Ferguson. He writes that "as long as we remain a nuclear base, it is indisputable that in the event of war we will receive our portion of nuclear strikes." Further, J. R. R. Tolkien Ferguson cites data from a book by E. P. Thompson and D. Smith to show "what this would mean." Cruise missiles will be deployed at bases in Greenham Common and Molesworth. Missiles aimed at these bases will destroy Newbury and may well destroy Reading and Huntington with the same strike. Radiation will cover a much larger area, which will depend on the wind direction. They claim that the launchers will be spread out in a circle with a radius of 50 miles. It is claimed that Francis Pym even talked about 100 miles. In this case, we should talk about missiles aimed at these launchers, which will wipe out all the main cities in Southern England and the South Midlands. "Therefore, those who feel horror at such a prospect are not cowards. They are ordinary people with common sense. " 60
The deployment of new American missiles on British territory was discussed in negotiations between a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR A. A. Gromyko and the British Minister of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs J. Howe, who visited the Soviet Union in early July 1984. When considering the situation on the European continent, A. A. Gromyka told the British minister that " the deployment of new American nuclear missiles in Western Europe - the British government is also responsible for this - has led to an increase in the military threat. It's not too late to rectify the situation. The adoption of measures leading to the withdrawal of already deployed missiles, while taking steps to reverse the response, will provide the basis for resuming negotiations on nuclear weapons. " 61
60 Ferguson J. Disarmament. Lnd. 1982, p. 25.

61 Pravda, 3. VII. 1984.

page 39

In response to J. R. R. Tolkien, Howe repeated the well-known unconstructive position of NATO countries on this issue, which meant that the British government was not going to correct this situation.

The failure of the Geneva talks on the limitation of nuclear weapons in Europe was also facilitated by the fact that the United States and Britain refused to count the nuclear weapons of Britain and France in the overall balance of intermediate-range nuclear weapons in the European zone.

The demand to take into account British and French nuclear capabilities when limiting nuclear weapons in Europe was quite justifiably put forward by the Soviet side from the very beginning of the Geneva talks in June 1982. It was an absolutely reasonable and fair demand. After all, the nuclear forces of England and France make up a quarter of the total nuclear potential of NATO in Europe.

The British nuclear forces are one of the elements of the NATO military machine, which has a very definite role to play in the strategic plans of this military bloc. A pamphlet published in 1983 by the British Ministry of Defence reads as follows: "The United Kingdom has assisted in the development of the NATO deterrence strategy and is now actively involved in the implementation of its nuclear aspects at three different levels. First, we fully support it, as we believe that it guarantees our security, and at the same time participate in the defense of all members of the alliance provided for by it. Second, we, like some other members of the bloc, directly contribute directly to US nuclear power, which is the main component of NATO's defense, by providing bases and some delivery systems that use American warheads. Third, we provide the Union with various types of nuclear forces, both strategic and tactical. " 62
Not to take into account the British and French potential when considering the issue of limiting nuclear weapons in Europe means turning it into an integral part, an important component of military superiority over the USSR. The Soviet Union did not demand that Britain and France take part in the reduction of nuclear weapons. The U.S.S.R. insisted only that the nuclear assets of these countries should be included in the balance of nuclear forces, because they are part of it, because this is necessary so that the size of the reduction of intermediate-range nuclear weapons of the U.S.S.R. and the United States can be determined without prejudice to the security of European countries.

The position of the Thatcher government on the deployment of new American missiles in Europe and the inclusion of the nuclear forces of Britain and France in the pan-European nuclear balance clearly shows that this government was complicit in the development of a new round of nuclear weapons, that it did not want the success of the Geneva talks on limiting nuclear weapons in Europe.

The traditional position of all post-war British governments on the issue of disarmament consisted of two elements: in words they were in favor of disarmament (this was necessary to deceive world public opinion and their own people), but in reality they forced their own arms race and in every possible way-politically and propagandistically-supported American efforts in this area and sought from other countries- NATO members are more actively involved in building up their military capabilities. British diplomacy diligently assisted American diplomacy in blocking negotiations on disarmament or arms limitation, which were conducted in various spheres.

62 Pravda, 25. V. 1983.

page 40

The Soviet Union, together with other States of the socialist community, stands for the earliest possible development of practical measures for arms limitation and disarmament. There is not a single issue in this area on which the USSR has not made business proposals, taken concrete initiatives, and formulated convincing working documents. At the same time, the Soviet Union took into account and takes into account the security interests of all states, observing the principle of equality and equal security. This is the only way to achieve success in negotiations. Among the proposals made by the Soviet Union are documents aimed at curbing the arms race in one of its most dangerous areas - the nuclear one.

The Soviet Union stubbornly and persistently sought to conclude an agreement with the United States on SALT-2. Britain's attitude to this agreement was ambivalent. As the Soviet author G. V. Kolosov has shown, the conservative government officially reacted positively to OSV-2, but immediately made two fundamental reservations. "This agreement was not intended, firstly, to prevent in any way the "increase in the effectiveness" of British nuclear forces, and secondly, even indirectly to prevent the planned build-up of American nuclear forces in Europe. " 63
The United States ' efforts, supported by Britain in 1983, disrupted negotiations on strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe. In the light of the practical actions of these Powers in the nuclear field, their position is logical. After all, in fact, both Washington and London have taken a course to achieve military superiority, to create the potential for a first nuclear strike. Therefore, they find it difficult to negotiate negotiations that would limit their current large-scale military programs.

M. Thatcher's conservative government does not want to recognize the need to take urgent and real measures to limit and reduce armaments. This Government has gone further in this area than its predecessors. Moreover, it has essentially publicly opposed the very idea of preserving and consolidating peace through disarmament. Speaking at the second special session of the UN General Assembly on disarmament in June 1982, Thatcher tried to prove that peace is not needed "at any cost" and that arms control does not always help peace and can even harm the cause of peace. She argued that the goal was not to ban and destroy nuclear weapons, but to "put nuclear weapons at the service of peace." Thatcher stated that it is not the arms race, but the conflict situations in various parts of the world that are now the main threat .64
Britain's representatives to the UN, during the years of the conservative government in power, vote against almost any resolution that supports real disarmament measures. Lord Fenner Brockway, a well-known public figure in England, made a speech in the House of Lords on February 16, 1983, in which he stated that the Conservative government "will need to change its policy if it wants to be believed that it supports multilateral disarmament... When the Government came to power, it initially stated that it supported the decisions of the first special session of the UN General Assembly on disarmament. In fact, in its policy, it has consistently acted against these decisions." Further

63 G. V. Kolosov Military-political course of England in Europe. M., 1984, p.

64 SEE Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn, 1984, No. 6, p. 60.

page 41

F. Brockway reported that the preparatory committee for the second special session had developed a comprehensive peace consolidation agenda by implementing the recommendations of the first special session. But at the second session in New York, " the joint resistance of America and the British government led to the failure of the adoption of this program. If the Government is to convince the people of its determination to achieve global disarmament, it must change its entire policy."

F. Brockway said that he looked at the UN documents for December 1983 and found "an almost unbelievable thing." For only one month, the British representative to the UN "abstained or voted against on 25 resolutions that supported the idea of disarmament." He cited the most important of these resolutions, including those that called for the prohibition of nuclear testing, the non-first use of nuclear weapons, the prohibition of the neutron bomb, the freezing of nuclear weapons, the conclusion of an international convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, the prohibition and destruction of chemical, bacteriological and biological weapons, and the prevention of an arms race in space, etc. 65 .

This was a real reflection of the policy of the British conservative government of M. Thatcher in the field of disarmament.

To this must be added the British Government's essentially negative attitude towards the efforts of the U.S.S.R. to strengthen confidence-building measures, which can and should serve as an increasingly effective tool both to contain negative trends in international relations and to create the necessary atmosphere for mutual understanding and cooperation. As the well-known Soviet international expert O. N. Bykov notes, " instead of strengthening trust between states, the most militant and reactionary circles of imperialist states... they strike blow after blow at the foundations of normal relations and cooperation between East and West, and poison the political climate in the world. " 66 Britain plays a negative role in this series of imperialist Powers.

The British Government is an accomplice of the United States in all major actions aimed at undermining the cause of peace. Speaking at the XXXIX session of the UN General Assembly on September 27, 1984, A. A. Gromyko stated that " the world was in a fever during the post-war years. And when cooperation between States with different social systems was established in international relations, as it was during the period of detente, everything was done to undermine the development of positive processes. And it was undermined with the light hand of the NATO military bloc. This particular trend in world politics is the source of the situation that marks the international climate of our days. The threat of war has increased, and the foundations of peace on earth have become more shaky.

Such a course, which is more clearly manifested than ever in the current policy of the United States and those who place themselves in the position of accomplices in relation to them (I emphasize - V. T.), is opposed by a wide front of peace-loving forces. " 67
The conservative government's adoption of programs to launch an arms race along all lines, especially nuclear ones, increased the threat of nuclear war and led to a decline in living standards

65 Lord F. Brockway's speech was published in a separate leaflet entitled "Does Government mean Multi-Lateral Disarmament". Lnd. 1983.

66 Bykov O. N. Mery doveriya [Measures of trust], Moscow, 1983, p. 5.

67 Izvestiya, 29. IX. 1984.

page 42

the broad masses of the people due to the growth of military spending. All this caused a powerful rise in the anti-war movement in England, which in its scope, depth and consciousness surpassed the mass anti-war movement of the second half of the 50s and the first half of the 60s that went down in history.

Between the two periods of recovery, there was a period of decline that began in the mid-60s. Violent demonstrations in the period of the first upsurge, when even such deeply educated and highly experienced people as F. Noel-Baker, who believed that the masses of the people could immediately force the government to disarm, was replaced by disappointment among the participants of the movement. This was a natural result of the apparent ineffectiveness of their efforts, in the sense that they failed to force the Government to change its position on armaments.

But then the beginning of the 80s came, and the picture changed radically, And in late 1979 and early 1980, the rapid and powerful rise of the peace movement in England began. There were several reasons for this. Despite the gigantic efforts of the sophisticated and sophisticated machine of the ruling circles to psychologically process the masses of the people in order to keep them in subjection, to gain the opportunity to manipulate them for the implementation of imperialist policies, the masses of the people, under the pressure of objective reality and indisputable facts that the government was powerless to conceal or misinterpret, suddenly-just suddenly, that is, for a short time - they understood the terrible truth that deeply disturbed them, outraged them, and raised them to fight.

This truth was that there was a real threat of nuclear war that would not pass England. The fact that the British ruling circles, in alliance with the United States and other NATO countries, were preparing just such a war was clear: first, they were trying to convince the peoples that an atomic war was permissible, that it could be won against the Soviet Union, that it could be localized (all this sounded like an admission that they were trying to they are objectively preparing for such a war), and, secondly, they were feverishly developing an arms race, which, despite all the propaganda tricks, spoke for itself. It was impossible to conceal from the people that in December 1979, without consulting them, the Conservative government decided to deploy American cruise missiles in England. Then it became known that the government decided to create a nuclear force of the future-to replace four submarines with Polaris missiles with new submarines with American Trident missiles. Immediately, military spending rose, the country's already difficult economic situation worsened, and spending on social needs of the people was cut. To this was added the obvious deterioration of the international situation due to the actions of the United States, in which the British government also took part, aimed at undermining the process of detente and tightening the power confrontation between the countries of imperialism and the countries of socialism.

The consequence was that the problems of war and peace, the maintenance and continuation of detente, became the focus of English public opinion. Since 1979, the movement for peace, against the threat of nuclear war and the Conservative policies leading to it has risen to a very high level and has become one of the most important features of English political and public life in the first half of the 80s. This movement was distinguished by the unprecedented enthusiasm of its participants, the diversity and endless variety of organizational forms, as well as the fact that people of different social groups, ages, with all the diversity of religious and political views work in it-

page 43

preferences and sympathies. An important distinguishing feature is the particularly active participation of women and young people in the movement.

The reluctance to fight in a nuclear war for the goals of the ruling circles of the United States, England and other NATO countries is increasingly gripping English youth. At the International Symposium on Conventional Weapons held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in March 1984, as part of the Pugwash Movement of Scientists, references were repeatedly made to the fact that in England 25% of young people actively do not want to serve in the armed forces, so as not to participate in a war planned in the bowels of NATO .68
Among the many organizations in England that oppose the growing danger of nuclear war, the largest and most active is the Movement for Nuclear Disarmament. It originated in the 50s under the motto " Ban the bomb!". The activities of this organization enjoy broad support among the English people. In 1980-1983, the number of its members paying membership fees to the central headquarters increased from 3 to 54 thousand. There are about a thousand local chapters and groups in various cities in England, with approximately a quarter of a million people participating .69 At the annual conference of the Movement for Nuclear Disarmament, held in December 1983, more than 81,000 members were represented. And then every week the organization was joined by a thousand new activists 70 . A demonstration organized by the Movement in London in October 1983 attracted 450,000 participants.

The General secretary of the Movement is Catholic priest Bruce Kent. The organization has two printing bodies "War and Peace"and " Sanity". The movement involves representatives of various social strata, a lot of young people, left-wing laborists and communists are active in it.

The movement for nuclear disarmament calls for Britain's withdrawal from NATO. It aims to achieve unilateral nuclear disarmament. In the early 80s, the movement actively opposed the deployment of American cruise missiles in England. In July 1983, B. Kent stated that at present the decisive link is the struggle to prevent the deployment of cruise missiles in England-This is a very dangerous and highly insidious type of nuclear weapon. By their very nature, cruise missiles cannot be classified as deterrents. If they were deployed, the nuclear arms race on the European continent would enter a new and even more dangerous stage. That is why the Movement positively assesses the Soviet initiatives aimed at ensuring that new samples of American nuclear weapons are not deployed on the European continent. The demand of the USSR to include the nuclear missile potential of Britain and France in the overall balance of NATO armaments seems absolutely fair, said B. Kent 71 .

Britain's unilateral disarmament is the insistent demand of the Movement for Nuclear Disarmament.

Chairman of the British Association for the Promotion of the United Nations, J. R. R. Tolkien Ferguson believes that those who demand the unilateral disarmament of England are guided by four considerations. First, people who are more or less connected with religions-Buddhism, Christianity, etc.-

68 The author was a participant in this symposium and was convinced that the statement of this significant fact was not disputed.

69 Pravda, 19. VII. 1983; see also Zhigalov I. I. The British public and plans for the deployment of American neutron weapons and cruise missiles on its territory. Voprosy istorii, 1981, No. 11.

70 Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn, 1984, N 4, p. 87.

71 Pravda, 19. VII. 1983.

page 44

The PTO and some others are particularly frugal about human life, which is reflected in their commitment to pacifism, which sometimes takes the form of refusing to participate in the war. Christians, for example, had long-established conditions under which war was acceptable. Now it became clear that the future war might be very different, and as a result, Catholics were at the forefront of religious people - advocates of peace. Thus, at a rally of the World Campaign for Disarmament held in London on April 22, 1980, Cardinal Hume stated that " in his understanding of canon law, nuclear weapons are morally indistinguishable from other types of weapons, provided that their use is limited to military purposes. But because it doubts that its use will be restricted in this way, it is fundamentally opposed to nuclear weapons." Secondly, people realize that "there is a dead end in the field of disarmament." They therefore hope that if at least one Power actually disarms, others may follow suit .72 Third, the motive is direct self-interest. This applies primarily to nuclear weapons. "If Britain were to give up nuclear weapons, it would be extremely unlikely that it would be a target for nuclear weapons." Fourth, it is an elementary proposition that " unilateral constructive action is obviously more justified than unilateral actions of a destructive nature." The truth is that the fiercest critics of unilateral disarmament are those who have made the unilateral decision to launch cruise missiles on British soil. Here, "we acted unilaterally" 73 .

The Campaign for Global Nuclear Disarmament is well established both in England and abroad. Prominent public figures in England Lord F. Noel-Baker and Lord F. Brockway started this movement in 1979. Its goal was to implement the recommendations of the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament, the main ones of which the movement considered such as the elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the gradual elimination of conventional weapons over a number of years, which should lead to general and complete disarmament; switching military spending to development purposes 74 .

The movement was officially proclaimed at a convention held in April 1980. Brigadier General Michael Harbottle was appointed General Secretary. The movement was supported by church leaders, representatives of the parliamentary opposition, the British Congress of Trade Unions, and a number of charitable organizations. The movement organized a petition in support of the UN recommendations, which attracted more than two million signatures in England. A similar petition was signed by 34 million people in Japan, Australia and Canada. These petitions were handed to the UN Secretary-General 75 .

The Campaign for European Nuclear Disarmament, which advocates the creation of a nuclear-free Europe, is active in the country. There should be no intermediate-range nuclear weapons or tactical nuclear weapons on the continent, the members of this organization say.

In addition to these organizations, the British Assembly for Peace, which is affiliated to the World Peace Council and relies on left-wing elements in trade unions, operates in the country. There are also such organizations-

72 Ferguson J. Op. cit., pp. 24 - 25.

73 Ibid., p. 26.

74 Lord Brockway. The Way to World Disarmament. Lnd. 1984, p. 2.

75 ftid.

page 45

such organizations as the National Peace Council, the British Association for the Promotion of the United Nations, and a number of others. Hundreds of different peace organizations are active in various parts of the country.

Elements of realism and common sense permeate even the minds of the highest British military. Thus, Lord Mountbatten (who is related to the reigning dynasty) On May 11, 1979, he gave a speech in Strasbourg, which, according to J. R. R. Tolkien, Ferguson, the media was "scandalously silenced". He said that "as a military man who has served for half a century in the military, I state with all frankness that the nuclear arms race from a military point of view is pointless. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. The existence of these weapons only increases the danger for us, because it creates certain illusions.

There are powerful voices in the world that still believe in the ancient Roman motto: if you want peace, prepare for war. This is absolute nuclear nonsense. I repeat , it is a disastrous misconception to believe that by increasing the general uncertainty, one increases one's own security. " 76
The position of an influential public organization-the British Association for the Promotion of the United Nations-regarding the arms race launched by the Conservative government, J. Ferguson formulated as follows: "You can not ensure true security, except through disarmament. The Soviet Union has nothing to fear from a disarmed United States. The United States has nothing to fear from a disarmed Soviet Union. Western Europe, if it disarms, has nothing to fear from the disarmed U.S.S.R. and the United States."77
Many Labour-dominated local governments have joined the fight against nuclear weapons. As a result, a new form of anti-war action has emerged. In November 1980, the city of Manchester declared itself a nuclear-free zone. By the spring of 1984, 170 British municipal councils had adopted similar decisions. Among them, the capital of England is London. The Greater London City Council has passed a resolution banning the placement and transportation of any type of nuclear weapons and radioactive materials through its territory. The cities ' example was followed by entire territories in various parts of England; they also declared themselves nuclear-free zones. The English territories that have declared themselves nuclear-free zones are home to more than 50 million inhabitants of England, i.e. the majority of the country's population 78 .

Many trade union organizations, especially local ones, are taking part in the fight against the Conservative government's military policy. The annual trade union conferences adopt resolutions calling for the fight against the nuclear arms race, for strengthening peace and detente policies. All this shows that the organized mass movement in England is actively involved in the struggle against the arms race and the threat of nuclear war. These trends also affect the position of the Labour Party. Adopted in 1976, the "Labour Program for Britain" spoke about the need for arms control and a significant reduction in military spending.

In the 1980s, due to the defeat of the Labour Party in the 1979 parliamentary elections and the growing aggressiveness in the foreign and military policy of the Conservative government, the position of the Labour Party on military issues became much more radical. In 1982.

76 Ferguson J. Op. cit., p. 6.

77 Ibid., p. 20.

78 Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1984, No. 5, p. 143.

page 46

The "Labour Program of 1982" was adopted, which declares the party's intention to seek a suspension of the arms race and the adoption of real disarmament measures. The programme reports that when a Labour government comes to power, it will "adopt a non-nuclear defence policy for England based on collective security, detente and the removal of all nuclear weapons and bases from English territory and from English territorial waters." 79
In July 1984, the executive committee of the Labour Party unanimously approved a new official document defining the party's position on military issues. The executive Committee called for easing tensions in the world and preventing a nuclear war, which would be "suicide" for England. To achieve these goals, the country's leadership needs to take a course towards general and complete nuclear disarmament, seek NATO's refusal to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and work towards the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone on the territory of Europe. These measures should be supported by unilateral measures. The government should abandon the Polaris nuclear missiles used by British submarines, re-equip them with American Trident nuclear missiles, and remove American nuclear weapons from the country's territory, including those located in the country's territorial waters. Britain should reconsider its nuclear strategy, which is "dangerous, expensive and pointless", and stop military activity in remote areas of the world. Military spending should remain at a level that would allow the country's leadership to address economic and social issues of paramount importance .80
This is an important realistic document. Its appearance means that this is precisely the direction of the aspirations of the broad working masses of the country, whose confidence the leadership of the Labor Party is trying to gain.

All the political parties in England, with the exception of the Conservatives, expressed their opposition to the Government's nuclear weapons policy in one form or another at their annual conferences in the autumn of 1984.

The annual conference of the Liberal Party sharply criticized the militaristic course of the Thatcher cabinet and adopted a resolution demanding to abandon plans to equip the British submarine fleet with Trident-2 nuclear missile systems, and immediately withdraw American cruise missiles from the country.

The 83rd Annual Conference of the Labour Party rejected any strategy based on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Conference called for the elimination of Britain's accumulated nuclear weapons reserves and the closure of American nuclear bases in the country, for the withdrawal of cruise missiles already deployed, and against equipping the British submarine fleet with the Trident - 2 nuclear missile system.

The Social Democratic Party 81 also demanded that the Trident-2 program be abandoned .

The same position was taken by trade unions. The 116th Congress of the British Trade Union Congress in the fall of 1984 approved by a majority vote a resolution demanding that American cruise missiles be withdrawn from the British Isles and that the program for re-equipping the country's submarine fleet with the Trident-2 missile system be abandoned.

79 The Labour Party 1982. Lnd. 1982, p. 284.

80 Pravda, 27. VII. 1984.

81 Economist, 29 September - 5 October 1984, p. 24.

page 47

Other voices were heard at the same time at the 101st annual conference of the Conservative Party. Government officials advertised the deployment of American cruise missiles with nuclear warheads in England, as well as preparations for re-equipping the British submarine fleet with the Trident-2 nuclear missile system. Defence Secretary Hazeltine said the government has developed a new 20-year arms race programme that will cost the British people £ 360bn. The results of the conference showed that the Thatcher government did not intend to abandon its dangerous course.

The British Communist Party consistently opposes the arms race. At its congress in late 1981, the following demands were formulated: the non-deployment of cruise missiles in England, the rejection of Polaris nuclear missiles and the acceptance of American Trident-2 missiles, the closure of all foreign military and nuclear bases in England, the unilateral nuclear disarmament of England, the reduction of military spending, the withdrawal of England from NATO, the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Europe and the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization, and Britain's active participation in disarmament negotiations 82 .

The anti-war movement is causing great concern in the British government. And this government waged a fierce struggle against the champions of peace, because in their efforts it rightly saw a real threat to its aggressive-militaristic course. Secretary of the Scottish District Committee of the Communist Party, J. R. R. Tolkien. Ashton said at the end of 1983 that "the Thatcher government is trying to undermine the credibility of the anti-war movement in three ways: first, conservatives are trying to impress on the public that the fighters against nuclear threats 'naively trust Soviet propaganda'; second, the pro-government press often simply calls them ' red 'and declares 'red'."Third, the government is trying to prove that "we must arm ourselves in order to preserve peace." 83 With such unscrupulous methods, the establishment is trying to bring down the heat of the anti-war struggle in the country. For this purpose, special bodies are created at the government level.

In order to defame anti-war organizations and discredit their goals by any means, the Government established a special secret "group for coordinating actions", which included senior representatives of the Ministries of Defense, Foreign and Internal Affairs, as well as the Prime Minister's secretariat. The Group organized the preparation of a series of articles that argued that the transition to nuclear disarmament can "only bring war closer", and those who seek it "play along with Moscow". The "Central Bureau of Information" actively participated in this disinformation campaign, which created a department for propaganda of the government's military policy, headed by a representative of the well-known advertising firm "Walter Thompson"invited from the United States .84
In order to strengthen the fight against the anti-war movement, M. Thatcher at one time appointed M. Hazeltine, an active supporter of the arms race, to the post of Minister of Defense. The new Minister immediately created a 100-person unit in his ministry called the Service for combating the Movement for Nuclear Disarmament, which was given £ 7.5 million and launched a campaign of dirty slander against the Movement for Nuclear Disarmament.-

82 Comment, Lnd., 1981, December 5-th, pp. 1 - 48.

83 Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn, 1984, No. 1, p. 131.

84 Pravda, 19. VII. 1983.

page 48

It was presented as an "instrument of the Kremlin", and the emblem of this organization was depicted with a hammer and sickle 85 . In the run-up to the 1983 parliamentary elections, people of ministerial rank also openly joined the campaign.

All these actions on a large scale were undertaken in order to deceive the English people. Unfortunately, the ruling circles managed to achieve some success in this regard. The Conservatives, having launched a noisy election campaign under chauvinistic slogans (the pretext is the war for the Falkland Islands), won the parliamentary elections in the spring of 1983. This was a negative factor for the anti-war movement in England.

The struggle waged by the conservative government against the anti-war movement shows that its policy of confrontation with the countries of socialism, with the forces of progress, is at the same time a confrontation with its own people.

* * *

The activities of the conservative government of M. Thatcher in the field of nuclear weapons for more than five years went in several directions. First, it improved the existing nuclear forces, which will remain in the country for at least another ten years. Second, it has adopted a program to create a new generation of nuclear forces - "deterrence forces for the twenty-first century" - and started implementing it. Third, the conservative government of Vo not only retained the existing American military bases on British soil, but was also the first in Western Europe and with the greatest zeal to accept new American missiles with nuclear charges on its territory. Fourth, it improved tactical nuclear weapons and their means of delivery to the target. Fifth, the conservative government, continuing the line of its predecessors and trying to disguise its true intentions, actually hindered any negotiations on arms limitation and reduction. Sixth, it actively assisted the United States in blocking and then disrupting the Geneva talks on the Limitation of both strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe. Seventh, when the destructive policy of the Conservative government in the field of nuclear weapons, despite the disinformation campaign organized on a hitherto unprecedented scale, began to be perceived more and more realistically by the masses and the masses launched a broad struggle against it, the Conservative government and the entire British establishment unleashed a powerful system of various sophisticated measures of suppression and persecution on the participants of

Eighth, all these negative actions were carried out by the British government in close cooperation with the US government, which, with its extremely aggressive policy, sought to undermine the effectiveness of the detente period, organized a new round in the arms race and greatly increased the threat of unleashing a general nuclear war, fraught with the death of human civilization and all life on earth in general. In all these actions of the American government, the British government was the main and most reliable ally of the United States in 1979 - 1984.

The result of these actions of the British conservative government is very disappointing for all honest and sensible people.

85 Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn, 1984, N 4, p. 87.

page 49

The threat of a global nuclear war continued to increase; it was also a threat to the people of Great Britain.

Ninth, the Conservative government has launched an anti-Soviet campaign to mask these actions, surpassing the actions of the Cold War. At the same time, the conservative government sacrificed the possibility of maintaining constructive, mutually beneficial political, economic, scientific and technical ties with the USSR that were necessary for Britain.

Throughout 1979 and 1984, the Soviet side consistently demonstrated its readiness to maintain normal business relations with Britain. A convincing demonstration of the Soviet Union's will to improve relations with Britain was the visit to this country of the delegation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR headed by Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1984. The delegation had useful conversations with Prime Minister Thatcher, parliamentarians and other British statesmen, representatives of the public and business circles. At the same time, the desire of the Soviet Union for a serious political dialogue with Britain, for broader mutual understanding and cooperation based on mutual benefit, which meets the goals of strengthening peace and security in Europe and around the world, was confirmed. It was also hoped that the efforts of the Soviet Union to address such fundamental issues as the prevention of an arms race in outer space, the radical reduction and then destruction of nuclear arsenals, and the elimination of the threat of nuclear war would find a realistic understanding and proper response from Britain.

The future will show how much English politics will live up to these hopes. The Soviet Union will not be responsible.

page 50

Permanent link to this publication: