Anything which halts the testing of meclear weapons,
even for a short period, must be considered a positive step. Every explosion adds to the danger to mankind's genetic capital and helps bring about little understood changes in the whole physical make—up of earth, The partial test ban, too, will have the effect of inhibiting the spread of the weapons and, furthermore, any country which resumes test— ing will face the consequences of mass revulsion from peoples of all lands. But is this the whole question? Can we now sigh with relief and be confident that the process of dissrmament is under way? Can we celebrate a great victory for the forces against war?
On the contrary, we would be profoundly mistaken if we did not: (1) see the very negative aspects of the test ban agreement; and (2) combat illusions that the whole struggle against nuclear weapons can now be left to the politicians who have suddenly become 'reasonable',
The negative features of the test ban agreement include (1) the failure to ban underground tests, which,whilst they do not directly poison the atmosphere, are part and parcel of the preparations for nuclear war; (2) that the terms of the agreement represent a partial retreat by the Soviet Union in the fight to completely ban nuclear weapons; and (3) that likewise it represents a partial retreat by the soviet Union in the fight against muclear bases, The overall picture is that of the “! legalisation! of the possession of nuclear weapons by the two great miclear powers, combined with an attempt to prevent any other powor acquiring these weapons.
The test ban agreement has beon signed at a time when both the major nuclear powers have just about reached the limits of what they could learn by carrying out further tosts, and when both sides heave probably got enough H, Bombs stocked away to wipe each other out. The military problems have thus become those of del ivery and,in particular,bases, and the perfection of tactical weapons (which can be tested underground), Thus having built up the means of absolute destruction and having no need for further tests it is no great military 'sacrifice' to stop further testes,
Furthermore, the experience of overy disarmament agroement signed by the big powers in this century shows that if the military situation changes and there are advantanges in further tests, the agreement will almost certainly be broken. As socialists. we know that. the danger of war comes not from 'misunderstandings' or ‘suspicions! tut because American. imperialian is attempting to hold back the world-wide movement for national liberation and social change (and if possible reverse it), This is the driving force behind nuclear arms race - we also know, unfortunately, that the Soviet leaders aro far more inclined to rely upon the brandishing of nuclear weapons than upon the anti imperialist strugszle.
But the real dangsr in the present situation is that of complacency and relaxation by those in the forefront of the anti=nuclear woapons movement The present policy of the pro-Khrushchovite Communists could do mich to ena culate the fight against nuclear weapons. To sing songs of praise to Kennedy for his 'sincere desire for peace', to represent the test ban treaty as an unqualified victory can only disarm and confuse the anti-nuclear weap— ons movement. However, the British movement in particular has a tradition of direct action in their campaign and have always shown a healthy cynicism of Parliament ond "leaders,'
The anti-miclear weapons movement should see the test ban treaty as fiving a breathing space which can be used to intensify the struggle for — the complete banning and destruction of all nuclear weapons. Spe cifically in Britain this means taking the unilateralist fight (which is, in some ways redundant owing to Britain having no adequate means to deliver its 'independent deterrent) forward to a renowed struggle against all nuclear bases, To commit the coming Labour Government to the dismantling of the bases should be the strategic aim of the left wing of the Labour Party.