Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Women anti-nuclear protestors, who had camped outside the gates of Greenham Common Air base in southern England for the past 26 months, found themselves once more doing battle with local police as they continued their protests aggainst the arrival of further air deliveries of Europe's first Cruise missiles, on Nov. 15, 1983. Many arrests were made as the women staged their blockade of the main gates. (AP Photo/Dave Caulkin)
Women camped outside the gates of Greenham Common air base, Berkshire, in 1983, protesting against the decision of the British government to allow cruise missiles to be stored there. Photograph: Dave Caulkin/AP
Women camped outside the gates of Greenham Common air base, Berkshire, in 1983, protesting against the decision of the British government to allow cruise missiles to be stored there. Photograph: Dave Caulkin/AP

How best to avert nuclear Armageddon

This article is more than 3 months old

Sir Julian Lewis writes that a multilateral disarmament deal is the only answer, while Tom Unterrainer says politicians must be held accountable on public safety and security

Reviewing Jane Corbin’s BBC2 documentary (Nuclear Armageddon: How Close Are We? review – TV that leaves you asking ‘Is that it?’, 18 January), Lucy Mangan praises its historical sweep, but detects insufficient rigour in some of its analysis.

She is right: while certainly highlighting the role of Russia, in particular, in stoking nuclear confrontation, the programme closes with the bizarre claim that “after a long battle [the Greenham women] succeeded” in forcing the government to rescind the decision to station Nato intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) here. This is at least the second time that the BBC has promoted such disinformation.

On the 25th anniversary of the initial encampment at Greenham Common, the Guardian invited me to comment on this claim. The resultant article (from 2006) is still on your website; it sets out the timeline in detail, showing how – at the end of 1987 – “the moderate leadership of the Soviet Union concludes an INF Treaty with Nato, based explicitly on [President Reagan’s 1981] ‘zero option’ offer. The 572 Nato warheads and nearly 2,000 Soviet warheads are subsequently scrapped.”

This multilateral deal, which eliminated hundreds of missiles on both sides, could never have happened if the one-sided nuclear disarmers had had their way.
Sir Julian Lewis MP
Chairman, Defence Committee, 2015-19

“Is that it?” asks Lucy Mangan in her review. “Would a global razing be the worst thing?” Fortunately, 59% of us oppose plans to station US nuclear bombs in the UK, while more than three-quarters are in favour of a global ban on nuclear weapons.

Whatever the shortcomings of Jane Corbin’s investigation, it opens an opportunity for serious public discussion on the deadly implications of nuclear weapon possession and use.

Notably, the British government – and nuclear weapons industry representatives – were absent from the documentary. But the public must have better than that; politicians must be held accountable for decisions affecting public safety and security – and where our money is spent.
Tom Unterrainer
Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Most viewed

Most viewed